Elliot Rodger IS NOT a MRA.  No where in his words or actions is he supporting the rights of men.  Elliot Rodger was a confused and clearly mentally ill young man with social and personal issues galore.  His actions do not reflect on The Men’s Human Rights Movement.  But many are still using this as an opportunity to attack Men’s Rights Activists.

No one in the MHRM supports Elliot’s actions.  His actions are not because he was exposed to Men’s Rights activism.  Elliot’s actions are the kind of thing that MRAs have predicted and are trying to prevent.  There is little to no connection between Elliot and Men’s rights.  He subsribed to “PUAHate”.  This is not a MRA website.  It is an anti-PUA website.  Pick Up Artists are not Men’s Rights Advocates, they are Pick Up Artists.  A website that is anti-PUA has as much to do with Men’s Rights as a cooking Blog.  Well I guess many of the words used are similar since both MRAs and anti-PUA are talking about gender relations.

The issues with this are complex to the point of convoluted.  I really don’t know a good way to unpack this.  It will be messy regardless so I will start by addressing some of the Bloggers blaming MHRM for this.

http://tangledsynthesismusingsofageekfeminist.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/mens-rights-activist-murders-7-women/

So What Evidence does she present that Elliot Rodger is an MRA?

Yep, Nothing.  Just a blank unfounded assertion.

So what are her problems with Elliot’s Message?

I am curious about how MRA’s will react to this story.  One would hope that they would decry his actions, but I think be many will secretly, or not so secretly, feel that when men are denied sexual access to women that this is the natural conclusion.

Well I do denounce his actions.  I do also say that this is a very predictable conclusion to men being denied sexual access to women within the current paradigm of social constructs and restrictive gender roles.  Men don’t and shouldn’t have the right to own women.  Women don’t exist for men’s sexual gratification.  However with the current construction of gender roles men are still defined in large part by our relation to women.  Men are shamed for expressing emotions.  Men are excluded from victim services and outreach programs.

Elliot didn’t feel like he was a “Real Man” because the gender role of masculinity and his status as male where hinged upon his relations to women, relations he didn’t have.  He was silenced by shame so he couldn’t talk about this.  He was excluded from outreach so he had no one to talk to.  Violent outbursts are a very predictable outcome from this situation.  Blaming women for denying him masculinity is a very predictable outcome from this situation.  While most men in this situation only murder themselves, the desire to have his story known drove Elliot to more extreme measures.

VAWAThis is why we need Men’s Rights Activism.  We need to change the nature of the male gender role so that it’s not dependent upon having interconnected interdependent relationships with women filling a gender role that is not interconnected or interdependent on men.  We need to make sure that outreach and prevention programs to HELP MEN are available TO MEN that need them.

The suicide rate for men Elliots age is 5-7 times higher than for women his age.  We do need programs FOR MEN because men do matter.  Even if you are bigoted and hateful enough to think that the men themselves don’t matter, more and more we will see these disenfranchised and disconnected males taking others with them when they implode.

I think it’s important to look at some of the shaming language and silencing tactics the blogger used to deny that men matter.

 He is given to melodramatic and grandiose  adjectives about his situation, which is basically he’s a guy that can’t get a date.

Your correct in that you can boil his grandiose melodrama to “He can’t get a date”, but in doing so you deny his feelings.  You deny that they are important or that they even exist.  While his emotional reaction to the situation isn’t notably logical, emotional reactions are not logical.  Asserting that the un-logic of emotion in men means it’s not there is silencing and shaming men for having emotions.

It’s not fair.  It’s not fair.  The cry of every spoiled child.

Well it’s not fair, and children do use this.  To call him a child for feeling that something is unfair is shaming his emotions.  Women, Feminists, Civil Rights Advocates, and humanitarians say “It’s not fair” all the time and you don’t call them spoiled children for expressing the feeling.

He seems to be making the “nice guy/friend zone” argument that goes something like this.  I was a nice guy, I treated you well and listened to you.  That entitles me to sex.

Again with denying his emotions with shaming language.  Attraction and romance are not logical rule driven events.  They are emotional roller coasters.  Understanding him as some sort of robot that simply follows the software program of “nice guy” is to deny his very humanity much more than you think he is denying the humanity of women.  Feeling hurt burned discouraged resentful and a thousand other things after failing to escalate relationships time and time again doesn’t make him a robot putting in kindness coins and waiting for the sex to fall out.

 It is much easier to commit violence toward someone that is dehumanized first.

This is very true.  So I ask, why do you dehumanize him?  Why do you shame and silence him for having emotions?  Are you not just dehumanizing him so that you can justify hating him?  With someone who’s humanity is as denied as you deny his, is it surprising that he resorted to violence?  But enough of you, I’ve got other blogs to look at.

http://bodycrimes.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/misogyny-is-a-deadly-game/

This one is a gem.  So what evidence does this blogger have that Elliot is in any way connected to Men’s Rights Advocacy?  He cites The Daily Kos where they claim he was subscribed to ‘Men’s Rights’ channels on you tube.

There is a problem with this.  The Three channels named are not MRA channels talking about men’s rights.  They are PUA channels talking about how to pick up women.  Really what would you expect a young man that can’t get laid to watch on YouTube?  Cat Videos?

For anyone interested these are some of the Men’s Rights Channels on You Tube that are actually Men’s Rights Channels.

Alison Tieman talks about a lot of stuff.  Some of it is on how Feminists are failling to grasp or recognize issues.  My favorite are the ones where she explains how constructs and paridigms that help us understand the world are flawed.

Karen Straughan talks about a great many aspects of gender equality.

Sandman Talks about the benefits of Men Going Their Own Way and disassociating from women.  While not advocating for men’s rights, he does talk about how to deal with our lack of rights.

The Canadian Association For Equality posts videos of the talks they sponsor at Canadian Universities.

It is important to note that none of the Men’s Rights channels are about picking up women.  Pick Up Artists Channels are about picking up women.

Now that we have established that Elliot wasn’t watching MRA channels, but PUA channels lets look at what the blogger thinks of MRA’s.

1. Women have little or no moral agency.

Nope.  Feminism says women have little or no moral agency.  Men’s Rights Advocates say women DO HAVE moral agency but are lacking legal accountability.  Women do have the ability to take meaningful moral or amoral actions, but they are not held accountable for these actions.

2. Women are driven by hypergamy.

Well Both women and men are driven in large part by hypergamy.  Men and women are equals don’t ya know.  The difference is that men are still bound into legal social cultural and structural gender roles that curtail our hypergamy.  Women are not.

3. If women aren’t forced into marriage, they will become sluts.

Umm, no.  Marriage is a financial death trap for men.  Forcing women into marriage would mean subjecting more men to this coin flip to be emotionally murdered over and over in “Family” courts.  Marriage is B-A-D bad.  Now on the 80/20 rule.  Yes 80% of women are only interested in 20% of men.  See Hypergamy above.  This doesn’t mean the other 80% of men ‘get seconds’.  It means that 20% of men can slut it up.  20% of men can have good relationships and 60% of men just get left out.

4. Therefore, women’s rights need to be revoked,

This is where she gets it all wrong.  Men’s Rights Activism isn’t about Women’s Rights.  It’s about MEN’s Rights.  The Name is Men’s Rights, I thought that would be obvious.  Men’s Rights activists are advocating that men get the same rights women do so that we can be as consequence free hypergamas as women.  I refuse to be stop #14 on the Cock Carousel because I refuse to be held hostage to a woman naming me father for her child that may have been fathered by any of the 20 something men she rotates through.

There was one more blog I was going to poke at.  Upon reading it a second time I realized that I could refute this entire post with one sentence.  PUA are NOT MRA.  Four words and I’ve debunked the entire post.

Advertisements