Another entry from the anti-feminists teaming up with right-wingers to sneer at women who say yes actually Elliot Rodger was motivated by misogyny, you can tell that by looking at his manifesto and his farewell video.
The link is to The National Review, not exactly a known bastion of skepticism. Let’s see what Heather MacDonald has to say.
Over 77 percent of all U.S. murder victims in 2012 were male; targets of non-lethal shootings are even more disproportionately male. Four of the six homicide victims of Elliot Rodger, the lunatic narcissist who went on a killing spree in Santa Barbara in revenge for female rejection, were male. And yet the feminist industry immediately turned this heartbreaking bloodbath into a symbol of America’s war on women.
“The feminist industry?” As opposed to the conservative industry that employs The National Review? And then, a symbol? No. A reality. The point was that organized hatred of women shaped Rodger’s thinking (such as it was) and that that deserves attention rather than sneers.
…the fundamental premise of the feminist analysis of Rodger’s massacre — that the U.S. is “misogynist” — is patently absurd. To the contrary, ours is a culture obsessed with promoting and celebrating female success. There is not a science faculty or lab in the country that is not under relentless pressure from university administrators and the federal government to hire female professors and researchers, regardless of the lack of competitive candidates and the cost to meritocratic standards.
Why is there such pressure (where there is)? Because the numbers are so bad and because they’ve been getting worse instead of better, and there is a lot of research indicating that women stay away partly because of harassment and sexism and even misogyny. I don’t see our culture as “obsessed with promoting and celebrating female success”: I see it as obsessed with leering at female hotness and raging at female unhotness, along with watching tv shows that present women as neurotic idiots who are always tearing each other apart.
Girls hear a constant message that “strong women can do it all,” including raise children on their own. Any female even remotely in the public realm who is not deeply conscious that she has been the “beneficiary” of the pressure to stock conference panels, media slots, and op-ed pages with females is fooling herself.
Hang on. Which is it? A constant message that strong women can do it all, or a constant message that we’re in the public realm only because of the pressure to stock conference panels, media slots, and op-ed pages with females?
Corporate boards and management seek women with hungry desperation.
And then don’t promote them. Something is keeping the numbers down, at any rate. Maybe it’s just that women are so stupid.
Women “face harassment every day,” a double global-studies and feminist-studies major told the New York Times…This portrait of a public realm filled with leering, grasping men may have described 1950s Italy and perhaps some Latin American countries today, but it bears no resemblance to contemporary America. Construction workers have largely been tamed. Groping on subways is thankfully rare — and it is committed by perverts. No one condones such behavior.
No one condones such behavior. Is that a fact?! Ask Pamela Gay if no one condones such behavior.
And then, the cherry on the cake, we get the Dear Muslima.
Here’s a suggestion to offended females: Laugh off such crude manifestations of the unconstrained male sex drive, then put them in perspective. Go to Afghanistan, India, or Nigeria if you want to combat sexual inequality. But don’t pretend that as a gender-studies student in the academic hothouse, you are a brave victim fighting against your own oppression and that of the American sisterhood.
Heather MacDonald and Richard Dawkins must be so grateful to Afghanistan, India, and Nigeria for giving them such a fabulous pretext for telling feminists in their own world to shut up and be grateful.