31 May 2014

#YesAllWomen is Complete Nonsense

By In the last few days, ever since Elliot Rodger’s killing spree in California, lame-stream media has been absolutely buzzing with hysterical propaganda against guns, men, and white people. Should you happen to be a white male gun owner, you might well be Satan himself according to some of these people. I’m torn between laughing at it, and hiding under my bed. On the one hand, the information is just so blatantly false that one is tempted to simply ridicule the people spewing it, on the other, it is a very real threat to my safety.
So far I’ve focused on the gun control aspect of it, because that’s generally the go to after any shooting. It was a pretty good bet, because predictably this was pinned to the NRA by many. It matters not to them, that half the killings were carried out with a knife, several injuries were caused by a vehicle, and the shooting took place in California where guns are all but outlawed. When have facts ever been a part of the gun grabber’s argument?
The more disturbing trend is one I’ve also been combating on my blog for some time. Radical feminists and “anti-racists” who demonize men and white people. Many libertarians thought I was crazy for battling back and forth with the likes of Antonio Buehler and Cathy Reisenwitz, but I sincerely hope the recent frenzy shows you why I’ve taken these problems so seriously.

I was shocked and terrified to hear Elizabeth Plank say “This is a white male thing” on MSNBC, despite the fact that Elliot Rodger was half Asian.

#YesAllWomen Is Complete Nonsense
The discussion of Elliot Rodger’s killing spree is now revolving around “misogyny” and led to the hashtag #YesAllWomen trending on twitter. Now, there’s no question that Rodger had serious issues with women. He was a 22 year old virgin, and if you watch his YouTube channel you can understand why. He is said to have been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome at a young age, he was very socially awkward, and he was not masculine in his appearance or mannerisms.
I think it’s worth pointing out, that Elliot Rodger said rather specifically in his manifesto, “If only one pretty girl had shown some form of attraction to me, the Day of Retribution would never happen.” He also bragged about having $300 sunglasses. I can think of one way Elliot Rodger might have gotten more than one pretty girl to show some form of attraction to him, for the price of a pair of those sunglasses, and that’s legalized prostitution. Feminists who drive so much of the policy agenda in the world however are split on that issue, and as with so many things pertaining to the State, the people who favor more laws tend to win.
Just like the gun control fanatics focus on guns with absolute blindness to the absurdity of their case, so do the radical feminists focus on “misogyny”. Never mind the fact that Rodger actually killed twice as many men as he did women. The #YesAllWomen hashtag claims that all women live in fear of violence from men, feeding into this insane narrative of an over looming, “patriarchy” victimizing and oppressing all women. To them, Elliot Rodger is just one example of this horrific life that women must suffer through at the hands of their male abusers.
Now, it’s absolutely true that men do most of the violence in this world. Be it by nature or nurture, this is how we’ve turned out, and for better or worse this is the situation that we’re in. If you ask me, the effort to change this by encouraging men to behave more like women is how you get guys like Elliot Rodger. He was an effeminate guy who considered himself the “perfect gentleman”. Women predictably didn’t find this attractive at all, the strategy failed miserably, and it drove him out of his mind. This kind of social engineering is unnatural and destructive and easy to predict. In any case, the fact that men do most of the violence in society has upsides and downsides for women.
On the upside, it means that the necessary violence in the world can take place without their participation. Men, traditionally have served as the defenders of women. Regular readers of my blog know that I am not shy about discussing defensive force, but I deplore violence and seek not to engage in it. Still, for better or worse, I have a certain instinctual tendency to rescue the “damsel in distress”and use of force in that scenario is on the list of options. I don’t suspect that I am alone in this. If a woman is being harassed or attacked in a bar for example, it is far from unheard of for other men to intervene, even resulting in physical violence between the two men while the woman walks away to safety. The merits of this are arguable, but I imagine this is quite common. Generally this instinct is different between males, who see each other as being responsible for their own defense.
On the downside, this means women are largely defenseless, especially in places with strict gun control laws. If violence is a foreign and scary thing to you, then when someone wants to do violence against you, defense does not come naturally. People, men and women, sometimes use violence to take what they want from other people. Sometimes it is money, or cars, or other scarce resources. Women are in the unique position that they have exclusive access to something nearly all men want, often above all other things, the price of which can vary dramatically. That some would take it by force should hardly come as a surprise to anybody, and as unfortunate as that may be, it is not unique to women.
However, this narrative that women are somehow disproportionately effected by violence from men is pure nonsense. The fact of the matter is, men are far more likely to do violence to other men, than to women.
According to the US Census Bureau, men are more than three times as likely to be murdered than women.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, men are consistently more likely to be victims of any violent crime, at a rate of 29.1 for men to 23.3 for women, and for serious violent crime the rate is 10.2 for men, to 9.9 for women.

If you don’t exclude prison from the equation, men are raped more often than women in the United States.
The numbers change when we talk about domestic violence situations, but only slightly.
Women commit more than 40% of domestic violence crimes reported in the UK.
For every 100 men who kill their wives, 75 women kill their husbands.

We can bet that the numbers are actually higher than this, because society doesn’t much care when women do violence to men. Just look at this video of how a crowd reacts when a man puts his hands on a woman, compared to how they react when the woman does far more violence to the man. People intervene when the man touches the woman, but laugh when the woman strikes the man.

When it comes to government oppression, the numbers are absolutely terrifying for men.
According to the Prison Policy Initiative, men are more than ten times as likely to go to prison than women in the United States. People will point out that men commit more crimes than women, but not at a ratio of 10:1. According to the FBI, men are roughly three times more likely to be arrested for a crime, but ten times more likely to go to prison for it. According to a 2011 Study by the University of San Fransisco, women guilty of capital murder are far less likely than men to be sentenced to death, and defendants who kill women are far more likely to be sentenced to death than defendants who kill men.
In war, men do most of the fighting, so it makes sense that they take most of the combat casualties. But did you know that men also make up a disproportionate number of civilian fatalities in war? Gender stereotypes that equate a human’s sex with its specific role in combat can result in viewing all men as potential combatants, while rarely ever questioning women’s placement in the category of civilians.
With all this in mind, what exactly is it that you feminists are freaking out about? The fact of the matter is, you’re safer than you have ever been. You’re far safer than men will ever be, and for the most part we’re actually pretty okay with this. Why are you trying to redefine rape? Why are you demonizing we who protect you? Why are you so offended that we are organizing to protect ourselves from your legislative and social engineering agendas? Why all this focus on the Men’s Rights Movement?
I’m a contributor to A Voice for Men, one of the most recognized outlets for Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s). You accuse us of “misogyny”, but you do not link to any specific incidents. You do not quote anything from our publication. You make non-specific references to forum posts by unknown persons in unknown places. Like all of this gender hysteria that you feminists are drumming up, there’s absolutely no basis in reality for these allegations. There’s certainly nobody from this publication advocating violence against women, even as women increasingly call for government violence against us. If we were calling for violence, we certainly wouldn’t have Stefan Molyneux as a featured speaker at our upcoming conference in Detroit.
Elliot Rodger was a killer. Unjustifiable initiatory violence was the issue, and that sort of behavior is universally opposed by men’s rights advocates, by libertarians, and by all sane people. Guns had nothing to do with it. Half of the fatalities were inflicted by knife, and several of the injuries were inflicted by his vehicle. Roger took his own life once he met resistance from police, so if the people of California had not been disarmed by their government, we can safely assume this rampage would have been cut short by a single act of self defense. Making this about gender is even more ridiculous. Four of the six people killed were men. Nobody would tolerate it if white people went around demonizing black people whenever an act of black on white crime occurred, and pinning this on an entire gender is even more despicable than that. Men are your benefactors, your protectors, and your providers, we are quite literally dying to please you. So the next time you trend a hashtag about us, maybe you say “thank you” instead.
Originally Published at ChristopherCantwell.com
Feature image by Garrett Heath

About Christopher Cantwell

Christopher Cantwell is an activist, writer, and satirist originally from New York. From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, he covers news and current events, addresses philosophical questions, and even cracks a joke or two.



  1. Some of the anti-male rhetoric these days is so reminiscent of the "black man as brutish sexual predator" idea that was so popular in the early to mid-1900s in the US south. The people who propagate these ideas don't understand that their level of risk is not dictated by their level of fear. As was the case in many lynchings, people were acting not not in response to an actual crime, but because of a white woman's unreasonable fear that she was at risk of a crime, simply because of her proximity to a black man and the inflated claims of anti-negro propaganda.

    1. I agree completely. 'To kill a mockingbird' and 'Willie Lynch' let alone a thousand articles here on SGW come to mind. It's not to harsh to state that 'males are the new 'niggers'.

      You may have gathered by the content here that I'm convinced that a combination of the destruction of the family and banksterism, one aiding the other is what's afoot.

      Within this context I see the need for a modern movement of ideology (not unlike religious groups, but without the religion) like 'a family movement' for the sake of cohesion and a the need within such a movement for the exclusion of usury from the equation.

      As your comment indicates, we are forgetting the lessons of the past. Family first and usury will impoverish the many for the benefit of a minuscule minority.

      The agents of propaganda must start with the destruction of the family first to then weave their black magic. A strong family unit with a memory of it's cultural history is the tyrant's greatest enemy.