The recent spate of feminists shrieking “misogyny!” following the Elliot Rodger rampage needs to be placed in the right context; i.e., is said misogyny of one deranged man a cause or a symptom? More specifically, is it a primary cause or a secondary cause? This is a question medicos ask all the time, for example, with respect to HIV (as primary cause) versus opportunistic infections such as pneumonia (secondary cause). The question of primary versus secondary is also relevant to cancer when trying to establish the source of the secondary lethal tumours that metastasize at locations removed from the source.
So is misogyny the source of Rodger’s rampage? Or was his misogyny an expression of a wider, systemic hatred as it manifests in modern society in 2014? Consider the misandry that provides the foundations upon which feminism is built. Misandry is the driving force behind feminism, the purpose of which is to shame men and their achievements – a sentiment extended into schools where boys are taught that they should be ashamed of their manhood and their heroes. We now have a feminist industry, and a revised education system that regards competition (boys) as something nasty that is to be discouraged, versus collaborative, facilitative conformity (girls) as the greater good that is to be encouraged. Instead of celebrating the achievements of great men, feminists prefer to notice only the worst among men and shame boys and men for that. That’s misandry at work.
And if schools are going to devote large portions of their syllabuses to shaming boys for what they represent, then does it not follow that some boys might grow resentful? Does it not follow that perhaps, just maybe, some might lash out at some crucial stage of their development? As children sometimes do when an abusive and controlling parent oversteps the limits in trying to contain their thankless, wayward son or daughter. Do feminists so lack commonsense? So much for women’s “empathy” as feminists like to portray it.
Consider, for example, the misandry of feminists, like David Futrelle. He prefers to shame men because King Leopold of Belgium [1] was a man, rather than celebrate men because George Washington, Isaac Newton, Johan Sebastian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, William Shakespeare, Galileo Galilei, Nikolai Copernicus, William James, David Hume, and so on and on and on, were all men. What’s with that? We’re sure that David means well, but perhaps someone might like to sit down with him one rainy afternoon to try to explain to him how a man like Mahatma Gandhi was different to a man like Adolf Hitler. Surely we can afford him at least this much, given all that he has done to promote AVFM in the media and raise public awareness to our cause. And if he still doesn’t get it, maybe he’ll switch his emphasis to an endeavour that for him at least, is more productive… like cat grooming, or feline health supplements, or preventing furballs in your favourite moggy.
Why are feminists so keen to bring men down? Feminists’ failure to distinguish between great men versus thugs is projection that speaks volumes of their stunted emotional development, and their view of the world in simplistic, two-dimensional terms. Think of how toxic this feminist attitude is to our cultures, how much harm it has caused. With feminism, we are supposed to be ashamed of the men (The Patriarchy) who are responsible for the cultural achievements that make modern, advanced society possible, and we are supposed to make amends to women for all those millennia of patriarchal oppression… all without any reference, of course, to women’s hypergamy, and no reference to the dynamics of provider/provided-for that have always been integral to the workings of most every culture throughout human history.
And so the boys in our schools are being shamed for their competitive natures, and are being taught to make amends for all those millennia of patriarchal privilege and entitlement… like the privilege of dying in wars or the entitlement of dying on construction sites, to cater to the providing for women. And our feminists have the gall to call Rodger’s rampage misogyny. Of course this is not to excuse said rampage – there is never any excuse for violence, ever. But we do need to understand the cultural forces that lie at the source, and the misandry that might inspire the misogyny.
Feminist misandry is not confined to our children’s schools. Misandry often begins in the home where women are (statistically) the primary abusers of children. For example 32.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone, while 16.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the father acting alone (Child Maltreatment 2002) [2] – and mothers are inclined to abuse their sons more than their daughters.
From a wider, cultural perspective, how primary nurturers treat their children has repercussions above and beyond a few disgruntled kids that don’t fit in – it has relevance to cultural values, what a culture stands for, and indeed, what it means to be human. According to Dr Jill Stamm (video #9) [3] of Arizona State University, 90% of a human brain’s wiring is accomplished within the first three or four years of life. Which seems to suggest that the primary nurturer’s role on a child’s brain wiring, over the course of up to 16 years, is certainly not going to be trivial.
Children learn a lot while under the guidance of their primary nurturer – most importantly, they learn what matters, they learn about who is expected to be the provider and who is expected to be the provided-for. When children play with their toy trucks or their doll-houses, all this takes place under the care of their primary nurturer. Children learn about civility, tantrums, love and how to get their way, usually under the care of their primary nurturer. Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. And so it is that Stephen Baskerville’s observations [4] linking single-mom households to criminality would seem to be self-evident.
We know how the old adage goes… behind every great man is a supportive woman. But behind every criminal you are more likely to find a toxic, child-abusing mom.
It might at first seem odd that feminists do appear to recognize cultural conditioning – indeed, at a simplistic level they obsess about it. Yet fail to understand mom’s role in said conditioning. For all their unsubstantiated prattle about The Patriarchy, where might The Matriarchy fit in? Simplistically, with the innocence of vindictive children, they think that a culture is either patriarchal or matriarchal, seemingly oblivious to the fact that every culture on earth that has ever existed has always been comprised of men and women. Feminists don’t seem to understand that every culture has both patriarchal and matriarchal elements. And in their subjective obsession with The Patriarchy, it is they that most render women invisible. In this sense, feminists are the most balanced sexists on earth… they are both misandrists and misogynists.
As surreal as all of this is, what is scary is not that feminists exist, but that society takes these freaks seriously enough to establish misandric government programs that trash the most basic human rights of men and boys. Within contemporary feminist culture, Rodger’s rampage received extra fuel- becoming a self-fulfilling outcome of a relentless misandric program. Everything that feminists have ever incited is coming true. Feminists’ relentless yapping about misogyny and rape culture is naught but pure projection. Their misandry is the source. It is misandry that is the first cause. It is misandry that is the real killer. And it is upon misandry that the foundations of feminism have been laid.
Sources:
[1] Futrelle, David. It’s “Get On Your Knees and Thank a White Man Day” in the Men’s Rights subreddit. We Hunted the Mammoth: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/
[2] US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Beureau. Child Maltreatment Reports (over multiple years): http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
[3] Best Online Courses. Early Brain Development (Videos). December 6, 2013: http://www.bestonlinecourses.
[4] Wikipedia – Stephen Baskerville: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
