This entry will be the second-to-last of my Elliot Rodgers/misogyny series. After the next one, I’m gonna stay away from gender-related topics for a while, I’m already getting sick of ‘em. But here, I’ll be a little more positive…to start with, at least. I want to talk about something I read in a buddy’s blog a while ago.
One of the places I’m hanging at these days is Heteronormative Patriarchy for Men, Ally Fogg’s blog. He’s very much my kind of guy—somebody who doesn’t have much patience for misogyny, but someone who also rejects hatred of men. In one of his recent entries, a guy named Sans-sanity mentioned this:
“Ozy’s law; that every misogynistic action or belief produces a misandristic outcome/belief as well (and vice versa). That his overwhelming misogyny is accompanied by great hatred (and harm) of men should surprise no one.”
As y’all probably know from Monday’s entry, I’d suspected misogyny and misandry of being intertwined rather than opposing. As I said, if Elliot’s misogyny led him to kill twice as many men as women, why would any sane man interested in self-preservation want to align himself with that? Alas, Sans-sanity informed me that I’d been beaten to the punch, and that Ozy had already come to that conclusion a long time ago. He was kind enough to point me to the original blog post from Noah Brand, who quoted the law as coming from Ozy Frantz, three years before I started pondering the idea. I can’t even bring myself to be disappointed, it’s not such a bad thing if other people are quicker than I to come up with good ideas, after all. XD
Now, if they come across this entry, I know what the manodrones will say: “T-T-THE GOOD MEN PROJECT IS A FEMINIST SHILL! EVERYTHING IT SAYS IS AUTOMATICALLY WRONG AND YOU’RE A WHITE KNIGHT MANGINA FOR EVEN LINKING IT! BETABETABETABETABETABETABETA”
I don’t actually pay attention to the GMP, the article Sans gave me is literally the only one I’ve read all the way through. Maybe they’re as bad as the MRAs say, maybe not. In this case, though, even if they are, I’m inclined to think we’ve got a “stopped clock is right twice a day” thing going on. It seems to me there is a relationship between misogyny and misandry, as evidenced by the actions of misogynists themselves. Again, Elliot killed more men than women, and even “purer” misogynists than he often demonstrate hatred of at least certain men, if not all men. George Sodini had no male friends and hated several men like the pastor of his church and another famous misogynist, Marc Lepine, absolutely loathed his father. I honestly have yet to meet a genuine, dyed in the wool misogynist (and they’re not hard to find on the Internet) who didn’t seem to have problems with men of some sort as well. I can concede that they may exist, but they’re apparently very, very rare.
What’s the reason behind this weirdness? Lemme add a few of my explanations to Ozy’s.
First, IMO, is that if someone hates women and regards them as disgusting, worthless animals, he’s going to have to contend, sooner or later, with the fact that most men are straight—i.e they like women. He can try to suppress or deny his own urges, or he can just fap to anime (no judgement, I like hentai too), but when he sees the vast majority of men trying to have sex with creatures he regards as disgusting and worthless…well, it’s not much of a stretch for him to start thinking of men as disgusting, “degenerate pussy-beggars” as well.
Second, and more important (again, IMO), is resentment. Guys like Elliot are miserable in what they perceive to be a “gynocracy” (which typically turns out to be pretty much anywhere that’s not Taliban-controlled Afghanistan). They thus expect every other guy to be as miserable as they are. It’s literally inconceivable to them that any man could find fun, self-actualization, and profit in a “feminist” society. It would be too damaging to their egos to admit some guys are luckier—or more adaptable, farsighted, or just plain intelligent—than they are, and thus better able to flourish in an environment they can’t. It couldn’t possibly be any personal flaws, or even just misfortune, holding them back, no, it’s because the evil edifice of “feminized society” is against them.
Therefore, they have to figure out some way to dismiss us. Any man who supports feminism—or is even just indifferent to it/doesn’t hate women—must be a “mangina quisling” who’s somehow working against his own self-interest, regardless of how happy, wealthy, or well-sexed he might be. And on the occasions they can admit guys like me exist, when they see that feminism/women can’t really hurt me (Unmarried, single bachelors who hang out in mostly-male crowds and fap to MILF porn don’t get divorced, falsely accused of rape, etc. etc. etc.), they have to find something else wrong with me. Otherwise, they might have to admit they’re not actually the maligned geniuses they think they are. So they call guys like me “thugs” or “gender traitors” or “inferior men,” in Elliot’s words. Now, there are very many of us happy guys these days. Contrary to misogynist ballyhooing, things are actually improving for American men in terms of life expectancy and happiness. This means misogynists have to label all of us all as EVIL GENDER TRAITORS…which means they have to hate the very sizable portion of the male population which isn’t as dysfunctional as they are. PROTIP: That’s misandry.
Finally, however, I think there’s a more abstract connection. It has to do with certain necessities one encounters intellectually when being a misogynist—more specifically, the necessity of reconciling otherwise contradictory beliefs and easing the resulting cognitive dissonance.
Misogynists typically believe two things. 1: That women oppress and enslave men, and 2: That they’re useless, utterly helpless parasites incapable of even living independently without men (I might do a post on this “reverse anglerfish theory” later). It’s not easy to believe both of these at the same time. If women actually are that incompetent, how could they possibly “oppress” the gender that’s bigger, stronger, and smarter than they? Misogynists deal with this by declaring women to be either “colluding” or “manipulating” some subset of the male population, which “oppresses” the rest on behalf of women, and of course needs to be dealt with by “real men,” i.e misogynists.
Sometimes this subset encompasses nearly all men, as some misogynists believe we were evolved to kowtow to women (“natural manginas”) and that it’s the responsibility of the “more highly evolved” woman-hater to dispose of us, so he can then dispose of the now-helpless women. Others are slightly more circumspect. They claim it’s only a “small minority” of men who helped women take over the world, typically rich businessmen or politicians who gave women the vote in order to shore up their own power. We just have to hang the “elites,” they say, and the masses of “common” men will be able to unite and crush the evil women and live happily ever after.
Sounds a bit too much like the Bolshevik and French Revolutions for my tastes. I mean, I’m as critical of the corruption and amorality of our political and business elites as anybody, but “revolutions” that overthrow them have a tendency to go very bad, very fast. Didn’t take too long for the French to guillotine Lavoisier and the Russians to open up the gulags. Maybe misogynists would argue their Revolution won’t go as badly. Somehow, I suspect it would.
And in any case, that suspicion is more than enough to fortify the link between misogyny and misandry, at least in my eyes. I’m not much for hating men, but it seems to me it’s hard to avoid when you hate women. So I guess I’ll just give up on hating women.