jump to navigation

When Misogynist Violence Makes Headlines, Part 2 October 9, 2006

Posted by angryscientist in Feminism, Uncategorized.
trackback

Part 2, Raw Feelings

I can analyze stuff that makes me feel angry beyond my own capacity to imagine, but expressing that kind of anger is so treacherous. Some occasions call for it, and this is one. These incidents are the tip of an iceberg, making the news because schoolgirls were targeted instead of individual women. Men assault women all the time, in virtually every circumstance sick minds can imagine. This is a stain on the honor of all men, though the desensitization enforced by our culture makes many men oblivious, except when something spectacular happens. So oblivious that men pay to see women getting roughed up sexually, calling it free speech. Incitements to violence are hate speech. Why is it legal to incite violence against women, but not minority groups? John Lennon wrote a song, after Yoko Ono got him to see some things. Woman is the (N word) of the World, he sings, better scream about it.

What the hell is up with the media calling these attacks school shootings, when girls were clearly targeted? Count on the media to obfuscate what matters. These guys wanted to send a message to women. Angry at God, my ass. I could think of unlimited reasons to be angry at God, if I could believe in a perfect being. No, I blame the mess the world is in on the powers that be, and last I looked, they have virtually all been power-hungry violent women-hating men for thousands of years.

Yes, men have terrorized women for thousands of years. Mostly it happens in private, or in war, so it’s kind of an open secret. Women are a conquered people with no obvious means to fight back. Men generally see this state of affairs as natural, so don’t understand why feminists are so angry about it. After all, some laws were passed, that should be the end of the issue, as many men see it. No, those laws were politically motivated, half-assed attempts to buy women off without really changing anything. Women have made the best of those laws and broken down barriers all over. In that respect, society has progressed, but not without fierce resistance. Many men hate the idea of having to compete fairly with women. Those guys need to grow up.

Yeah, I mean grow up! Boys learn how to deal with losing to other boys. Why should the respect of competitive rivalry boys learn in sports not apply to women at work? Men call that respect sportsmanship, taking it like a man, learning from mistakes. The obsession with winning undercuts those qualities, and supports the myth that superiors deserve to wield power over subordinates, which in its most basic form is men feeling they deserve to wield power over women.

This is the foundation of hierarchical culture, this wholly undeserved power men wield over women, because they can, and they like the feeling. This is how degenerate our culture is, that men can like the feeling of owning and controlling a lover, and react violently when she looks out for herself. It doesn’t matter that not all men are violent. It only takes a few suicide attackers to terrorize USA, so why should it take omnipresent violence to terrorize women? The threat is omnipresent, but women have been dealing with this for at least thousands of years, only recently gaining some legal standing. Nowadays virtually all feminism has accomplished is threatened by reactionary stacking of courts. This is feminism wrecking the culture, so men must fight back? This culture is too corrupted to survive. Maybe it needs wrecking, but not in the ways of Bush.

Some men yell feminism has weakened the moral fiber of the culture, or male character. Any character requiring preeminent status in a relationship is weakened beyond repair. This is such a fundamental contradiction in terms, it stands logic on its head. A decent relationship requires mutual respect and caring to make a partnership work. It can be much more, but without those I think any relationship is doomed, at least poisoned. So, bitter men, was yours doomed? Maybe you need to learn some lessons from your errors! Blaming women will get you nowhere. Venting is not a problem if it doesn’t become obsessive. Then it’s no big jump to rape or murder. You can be reasonably angry at a woman who hurt your feelings, but blaming women for that is just plain dumb. You had no part in her deciding to hurt you? Give me a break. She was probably reacting to you hurting her, but that dynamic is irrelevant to you? Why? If you cared, you should care about that, and if you didn’t, did you deserve her time of day? If you escaped from a devil, does that make all women like her? Hey, one con artist scammed me, another woman maybe used me, but I couldn’t generalize from that to women I’ve known personally, forget about all women! Women are so different from the ideas men hold about women, it’s not even funny.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Corneilius - October 11, 2006

Hi Angry Scientist,
Who can understand the mindset that reasons killing young girls or women is justifyable because of anger with god/ failed relationships/ hatred of women.
I do see what you are talking about in many men I know. Women are a commodity to be used abused and dumped. I do fear that some streams of feminism see ‘liberation’ as women acting the same way. Being a horrible person is being a horrible person, aspiring to being equally horrible is not liberation, but dumbing down.
I was horribly burnt at the breakup of a relationship, worse to find that the person I was ‘dumped’ for was just the type who I have described above. Why do they never have a problem finding somone else to use? anyhow that aside, I never transposed my hurt or anger at women in general.
I dont know why some men do this, or why they blame women for their failings.
I have been reading Heart over at womenspace recently and a lot of what she has to say is right. I see it in men I know all the time. I can understand why she feels this, but I do not think that mysongany is the only reason. Men who do this are not representative of all men. They have been conditioned as we all have, but somthing has gone wrong with their head.
I am not excusing them, don’t get me wrong, but I think its a little wrong to catagorise every men with some particularly sick individuals who explde in anger and target that at defenceless women and girls.
As heart points out however, its only men who do this. I did want to go to her blog and try to defend men who are not driven to abuse and humiliate women, but I know as soon as I did another sick neandrethal will rear his ugly head and prove Hearts point for her.

I hope you don’t mind if I give you a link to a story about a really nice sadist, you know that misunderstood minority who we all just don’t understand.

http://tinyurl.com/flxfc

2. angryscientist - October 12, 2006

Hi Corneilius,

I am curious what you meant by a couple of your points. For instance:

I do fear that some streams of feminism see ‘liberation’ as women acting the same way.

You know, I’ve heard this from guys, but I don’t know who they are talking about. One woman I know sometimes gets so pissed off at men that she feels using a man sexually is appropriate revenge, but she wouldn’t call it liberation. I’ve read a lot of feminist writing, but never encountered that attitude you refer to. The only comparable “stream of feminism” I can think of would be those women who see prostitution and pornography as liberating, but though they may think of themselves as feminist, I doubt many women share that opinion! Guys are another matter; Hugh Hefner is a good example of a man claiming pornography is feminist and liberating for women. If he were referring to genuine erotic art, I’d agree, but he isn’t. I think Larry Flynt also claims his rag is liberating for women, but he doesn’t bother to pretend sympathy for feminism.

Regarding categorizing men, I learned long ago not to take women’s anger at men in general personally. That is to say, I think you may misunderstand Heart’s point. Men are all capable of abusing women, especially when we get out of control. That conditioning is a disease in my eyes, as I explained in the other post. This disease is insidious, so a man need not be consciously driven to abuse women in order to abuse women. A man needs to be on guard against this disease to prevent himself from abusing women. If that guard slips, all the good will or book knowledge of feminism in the world can go out the window just like that. Male abuse of women can be extremely subtle or blatant, or anything in between. There are many ways of describing reasons for all these forms of abuse, but don’t they all boil down to the same thing?

I read that story about the sadist. Good old jealousy. That must be men’s favorite excuse for murdering women they claim to love. It even gets a special name, crime of passion. That’s one hell of a misnomer.

3. Corneilius - October 13, 2006

Hi Angryscientist,
Thanks for replying. I don’t know if you have had this over in America, but here in Britain in recent years there has grown a culture amongst women known as ‘laddette’. This is a female version of the so-called ‘lad’ culture that sprung up in the 90’s. Lads are un-reconstructured men, into the usual stuff, boy’s toys, fast cats drinking and womanising. It’s basically a celebration of boys being boys, but their attitude to women seems to be a reaction against feminism.

Ladettes are a female version of this attitude. Basically they try to be just as extreme as men. This does not have an intellectual rigour behind it; rather it is almost a street culture that has grown.

Now I realise that there are several differing strands to feminism, and lots of opinion amongst feminist about what it actually means, and what the ultimate goal should be. I think this is more than common amongst campaigning organisations. I have not seen in any of these strands of feminism anything of the ‘laddette’, except maybe in those that see pornography as ‘liberating’ women. I really don’t believe that the way for women to truly be free is to imitate the worse excesses of a certain type of man.

There is a lot of intellectual discussion about the way feminism is going, but maybe down there in the trenches, some women are taking it in a completely different, and unexpected tangent.

Hope you don’t mind if I give a link to a university that has conducted a study into this phenomenon.

http://tinyurl.com/yzafso

A man who abuses women is suffering from a disease. I agree whole-heartedly with that. If you read my blog you can see that I spend a lot of time trying to expose the worse excesses of this.
I do however see a bit of what I would call ‘absolutism’ in some feminism. Men abuse women therefore all men are potential abusers. I think it’s a big jump of faith to go from one position to the other. Yes there are men that abuse women, and there are quite a lot of them, but I really find it horrible that because I was born a man, that I find myself categorised with people (sic) who I have nothing but contempt for.
I am not squeaky clean, I have said something when emotions have run away which I bitterly regret, but I have also been treated in a cruel. callous, and cynical way by a woman. I don’t then transpose that to all women being cruel callous and cynical, or even that person being that way all the time. I know that this is far from the case. Life is all about shades of grey, not the black and white thinking of ‘absolutism’.

The trial of the sadist has gone into the realms of the surreal. Have you ever heard of a slaves contract? The defendant’s defence against the murder charge is that he couldn’t have murdered his ‘slave’ because the contract they both signed expressly forbid it!

“In section four of the contract, it says the master does not have a right to kill the slave,” he said. “If I break bones, cut her, leave scarring or wounds without her consent – that’s not allowed.”

The fact that society as a whole has outlawed such behaviour for many millennium is not even acknowledged above the legitimacy of a slaves contract downloaded from the Internet. How can they not see the absurdity of this situation?

4. angryscientist - October 13, 2006

Corneilius, you said:

I really don’t believe that the way for women to truly be free is to imitate the worse excesses of a certain type of man.

I think very few women would disagree with that. One feminist principle I encounter many times in my reading is, the master’s tools will not bring down the master’s house. I’m not familiar with the ladette phenomenon specifically, though it seems logical that some young women may decide that’s the way to go. It reminds me of the boi phenomenon among lesbians. Apparently for increasing numbers of lesbians, being butch is not enough, so they take it further, identifying with males and male behavior, or even identifying as males to the point of going the sex-change route.

You also said:

Men abuse women therefore all men are potential abusers. I think it’s a big jump of faith to go from one position to the other.

How so? The operational word here is potential. I think it’s too easy for men to react to angry feminist generalizations about men as absolutist. Men are all trained to see women as less than men. Is that a categorization, or an observation of fact? Some men take pains to unlearn this training, while others believe it wholeheartedly. We men are all somewhere along that spectrum, and I think it will always plague us unless and until the culture at large stops pushing that indoctrination. Meanwhile, it pushes men to be abusive to women by default, requiring no conscious intention. Conscious intention is required, however, to counter its influence. I think feminists are very well aware of the wide range of manifestations of that influence, and also that some men, few and far between as we may be, do make a sincere effort to root out and destroy the insidious influence of our cultural conditioning. I think most feminists appreciate that effort, but since many if not most men who claim to support feminism are phonies (like Hugh Hefner and Ampersand, allegedly pro-feminist male blogger who recently was forced to admit he had sold his domain to a pornhound), feminists have good reason to be wary of all men. How can they know whether a man is sincere? The art of deception is so old and well developed. People are also highly skilled at deceiving themselves, as you illustrate by your last question. How can they not see the absurdity, indeed. All too easily. How can the blatant woman haters at Men are Better than Women, a WordPress blog I just hunted down through Google, not see the absurdity of their tortured logic? I think I’ll go over there and ask them. They seem to think they know it all about women. What I see is a bunch of big talking blowhards with no clue.

5. angryscientist - October 17, 2006

I went over there to pose a challenge. For my trouble I got called a charming fruit and nut case and a religious man; a fanatic. Your religion happens to be Feminism. Then I did a little research on the proprietor, and found last year he had nominated his blog for Best Comedy Websites (see the first post for 12/22/2005 here). I also found an entry at punkassblog discussing what kind of satire his blog is. He and several posters from his blog posted on that thread. They didn’t all agree on the nature of the satire, but one is left with the distinct impression some of the posters, including the blogger himself, are saying outrageous things for the effect, not because they believe what they’re saying. In my initial cursory impression, I found the rhetoric so outlandish, I had to qualify my initial statement, assuming your nonsensical tortured logic is not meant as a spoof. I must conclude, at least for the moment, that assumption was wrong. Why else would they let me have the last word on the thread? Possibly because they think I’ve already made a fool of myself, or I’ve been sufficiently refuted, or I’m a troll best to ignore, but somehow I think there really is more to that site than meets the eye. My posts are all on the Women are Killing Mankind thread. I’d rather not post a direct link.

6. Corneilius - October 17, 2006

Hi Angreyscientist

Its an old trick in Highly controling groups known as shunning. The moonies use it a lot.
Accept our arguments and we will be your friends. Criticise us and we will shun you.

This means that the groups arguments are the only one that has any value, and the groups dogma festers and stews in this closed melieu without the harsh light of critcism to show what nonsence it is.

Justin Sterling, and his Steling Institute do exactly the same, and I guess they think they are funny.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/icsd/ICSD14.html

http://www.rickross.com/groups/sterling.html

7. angryscientist - October 18, 2006

Hi Corneilius,

I don’t know if you read the punkassblog post, but it sure made me stop and wonder just what is going on. There’s also this statement by the proprietor a few months ago :

Instead of reclaiming the C-word, why not work on reclaiming self-repect.

Aside from misspelling respect, if his blog is meant to be serious, this statement would seem completely out of character for him. After all, it actually makes some sense for women to work on reclaiming their self-respect, but if one takes his blog literally, one would think he thinks women don’t deserve any kind of respect, except possibly the condescending protective attitude typical of chivalry. I really have no idea what is going on in that man’s head, but it just might be possible he is considerably deeper than meets the eye. Why the references to subtlety, about a blog that appears anything but subtle? There could be all kinds of possible reasons why he would create such a blog, even possibly analogous to the stunt you and I both posted about, outing the sadists. Or maybe he enjoys playing games with people’s heads. Also, I wasn’t shunned at first. Several posters quoted from my blog, apparently to make fun of me, but seemed more interested in nitpicking on minor points or calling me names than actually engaging my main points.

I glanced at your links. Why do you think Sterling thinks his tricks are funny? I’m looking for a real battle, which means with guys who really indubitably believe men are better than women. I’m just not sure the blog with that name qualifies as fair game for such a battle.

8. Corneilius - October 20, 2006

Hi Angryscientist

Had a look at the blog. Why does he write that stuff? Probably had a bad break-up with a relationship (no surprise there considering his opinions) and is seeking his revenge on womankind in general, otherwise he has been conditioned by a women hating father.

I don’t think he means it to be funny, I think its what he really believes, just like Justin Sterling. I am sure Justin and his cronies act in exactly the same way, and crack the same jokes. I didn’t say I thought Sterling’s tricks are funny rather he probably thinks they are but he uses well documented and recognisable cultic practices to recruit adherents. They do not sell themselves as a women hating group, rather an empowering group, like any other new age, psudopsycotherpy, nonsense. They even have women’s weekends, just so women understand a mans need to be a ‘man’.

Shunning is not used immediately, rather they try to get you to accept their dogma, shunning is only used when they realise that you are not ripe for recruitment. You are cast out, shown the wilderness, only to be accepted when you discover the error of your ways (swallow the crap they put out).

I know it’s important to fight these people, and their warped dogma, but I wouldn’t expect to change too many minds. These people are in groups that are well used to casting out and ridiculing any information that might cause them to think about the rational behind their beliefs. Cults are more than able to get intelligent people to believe implicitly in inherent rubbish, a belief that outside the group they would recognise as nonsense immediately. Just look at Scientology and Xenu, and try not to laugh.

9. angryscientist - October 23, 2006

Corneilius, I couldn’t say why he is writing those things, but I have a hunch the discussion at punkass reveals there is more to it than meets the eye. I found the trackback on his site, followed by a request by a poster to remove the trackback, which was obviously not heeded. I have enough reason to disqualify that site from fair game for me to make trouble. I may change that stance later, but for now I think I won’t interfere further with that experiment. This is not to say I approve of it, but that I think it may not be what it appears to be, and if so, it may have value as an experiment revealing what goes on in the minds of these guys when they feel free to vent their opinions of women. In my last post there I said I wished they would think on how their ravings might encourage the monsters they denounce. I could spice up that experiment, but I doubt I will bother.

10. jami - November 14, 2006

Hello-

My name is Jami Tom and I want to tell you my story. I want to share this with everyone I know.

On August 21st 2006, my husband was put in jail for domestic violence and I moved out of our house. I was very torn by this, but really hoped that someday we could make it work. He was released later that week and a guy from church quickly befriended him. He began to see him or talk to him everyday. Mark, the friend, asked Troy, my husband, to attend a Men’s meeting with him. My husband called late in the evening, around 11:30 to tell me that the meeting was ok, but kind of “weird”. He said he couldn’t go into great detail. This meeting was a part of the Sterling Men’s Division.

This past weekend my husband attended the Sterling Men’s Weekend in LA. To “graduate” into and be a part of the leadership team of the Sterling Men’s Division, you have to attend this weekend. My husband left on Friday night, I was not allowed to take him, and only Mark could. I was not told where they were taking him or what hotel he was staying in.

On Sat. night I woke up really worried and began to research this event. What I found horrified me. The leader, Justin Sterling, has been in prison and has had his name changed several times due to legal issues. He has molested children and his family has disowned him. I also found out that the men, about 500, have to strip naked and do Indian chants. This is called their “rite of passage”. Then they have to explain in descriptive detail their sexual history. The “recruiters”, Mark, prey on men who are vulnerable and have an emotional or physically abusive past.

I was very upset so I began praying and drove to LA to get my husband back. When I got there they threatened to put me in jail for trespassing, this was public property. I proceeded to go further and was told that they had guns, and that the meetings were designed because of women like me. I called my pastors and family and started a prayer chain then drove home to Oceanside. I called Mark and asked why he did what he did. Why would a “Christian” man send another brother to something like this? He stated I just needed to be more trusting and that it was like a Promise Keepers Event, I knew he was lying. All Mark told my husband before leaving was that this weekend would heal our marriage and change Troy forever. Troy went, thinking that he was doing the right thing.

On Mon. as my husband was leaving LA, I called him and asked why he didn’t call and if he took his clothes off for men. He stated he signed a privacy statement and would not tell me anything. His voice sounded like he was in a trance and I could hear men in the background telling him things to tell me. I began crying asking him why he would do such a thing. He began to make excuses saying he was dancing like David did in the Bible, or that Jesus had 12 men around him at all times, so what Troy did was ok and completely biblical. These are supposed Christian men recruiting other men into this organization!
At this event the men are taught that women are 100% responsible for relationships, that women only want money and power, and all men want is love. The men are convinced that keeping things from your wife will help her and that women should NEVER share their emotions with their husbands. Men are told that all women are bitches and should be treated as such.

After the event, then men are “inducted” into manhood by stripping naked for the leader. After this the men are expected to pay Justin Sterling monthly dues, and their meetings run into the wee hours of the night. They are very private and if you question any member of this group, he will either lie or say he can’t talk about it. They are all bound by the privacy agreement they signed.

How can I help end this? How can I help save other marriages? How can I bring this to the light? I am only 26 and have been married for less than a year! Please see http://www.rickross.com/groups/sterling.html for more info. Please tell this to every woman/man you know.

They have a division for women also. The women are taught that they are bitches, should be submissive, never question their husband, stroke his ego everyday, love him, serve him, where pink, pumps and pearls. They are taught that they are to never intimidate a man. They are to never question a man’s authority.

Sincerely-

Jami Tom
760-917-5166
jami.tom7@yahoo.com

11. angryscientist - November 15, 2006

Jami, thank you for telling your story. I may have to confront this Sterling fellow myself. He seems more like fair game for me, but as a cult leader, he probably ignores or hides from foes.

This blog at this point doesn’t have much of an audience. If you want to get your story out, you might check out some feminist blogs or boards. The blog Corneilius mentioned has a current post about popular fundamentalists whose beliefs sound to me a lot like Justin Sterling. That world is alien to me, as a scientist and mystical philosopher. I really don’t know much about these guys. They sound so farfetched to me it’s hard for me to believe anyone takes them seriously, yet obviously they have a following only too eager to relapse into the Dark Ages, at least as far as women’s rights are concerned. Does Sterling have a blog, or public forum? Cults usually like to keep their secrets. My impression is, he puts quite a spin on the cult of masculinity.

12. Johanna - January 12, 2007

“It only takes a few suicide attackers to terrorize USA, so why should it take omnipresent violence to terrorize women? ”

“Some men yell feminism has weakened the moral fiber of the culture, or male character. Any character requiring preeminent status in a relationship is weakened beyond repair.”

You need to post more when you have the time, angryscientist. Very wise words there.

I’ve started wondering lately if the urge to rape isn’t somehow genetic, since it exists in all cultures. The concept of patriarchy is that the regulation of women as second class cititzens is a benefit to all men, regardless if males actively contribute to female oppression or not. So to is the excuses for rape/misogyny which contribute to a continued climate of fear for women.

Men have more testosterone. They are more aggressive as a result. If some small number of men rape, and a much larger number excuse rape as they so often do, then women exist in a climate of fear. Women seek the protection of the “nice guy”, and they are willing to put up his sh*t in order to qualify for his protection. Ergo, all men benefit, even the ones who aren’t actively raping.

Not positive this is actually genetic, or just some kind of attutudinal virus which is passed from generation to generation. I wrote quite a long post about this, but it probably needs a rewrite or two.

13. angryscientist - January 13, 2007

Johanna, if the urge to rape were genetic, I’d think some other species would exhibit similar behavior, but human males are unique in that regard. I think very little of human culture is due to genetics, and certainly not aspects that run counter to the survival instinct, such as rape. Also, I believe there was a time in human history when men took over; previously cultures were egalitarian, so rape would have been unthinkable.


Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: