Detroit woman shot and killed for not giving phone number.

[Saint Jade IV]

I make no argument with regard to gun rights. But while this is extreme, I in no way think that the mentality behind it is manifest in a few deranged individuals. It's inherent in every guy who called me a fucking slut for rejecting him at a bar. It's inherent in every guy that yelled disgusting things out at me walking down the street. It's inherent in every guy who feels it his right to grab my arse in a pub or club, even while I'm holding my boyfriend's hand. It's inherent in every guy who accused a girl of "friend zoning" him, or "leading him on".

It's the idea that women are something that men are entitled to. That the world is a smorgasbord of pussy and any woman who is in public is clearly desperate for the attention of any male who deigns to bestow it on her, and should take it in any form it comes in.

So every self-entitled misogynist who thinks he can cat-call or act inappropriately is a potential killer, is that what you're suggesting? You make a perfectly valid point about a particular subset of men, but you are conflating two things here; killers, and men who treat women like objects. This man happened to be both. He shot her because he's a killer. He grabbed and harassed her because he's a self-entitled sexual harasser. He didn't shoot her because he's a sexual harasser. Given that her hit her, clearly the man was violent, and not all men who are pigs are violent.

That's not to make light of the issue of men treating women this way, but we should be careful not to tar too broadly with the brush.

Again, how do I know whether you're just a self-entitled misogynist who thinks he can catcall me, or one who will take my life if I don't respond in the manner you would like me to? That's the material point.

That's not the argument presented in the OP.

So NSG, what say you? Is this yet another example of the way our culture believes men are entitled to women,

Merely answering the question. Neither the majority of men, nor culture, believe that men are in anyway entitled to women. There are isolated incidents, such as this one, but in general, society need not be worried about these "entitled men."

I'm sure that this woman felt the same way. That she didn't need to worry about yet another entitled man.

Furthermore, I dispute the idea that a majority of men don't believe that they are entitled to women on some level. The level of street harassment I experience, and other women experience, the level of vitriol directed at women who choose to speak out about these issues, and the treatment of women who are raped or otherwise assaulted by the media and society suggests that on some level, men do feel entitled to women's time, attention, and bodies.

[Laerod]

That's not the argument presented in the OP.

So NSG, what say you? Is this yet another example of the way our culture believes men are entitled to women,

Merely answering the question. Neither the majority of men, nor culture, believe that men are in anyway entitled to women.

While "majority" is possibly debatable, there are significant parts of American culture that do indeed believe that men are entitled to women. There are extreme examples such as Christian Complementarianism, purity balls, and the like. And then there's subtler ones such as the comments on Eliott Rodger's crimes that went along the lines of "If only one woman had indulged him, this wouldn't have happened". The mentality is pervasive.

There are isolated incidents, such as this one, but in general, society need not be worried about these "entitled men."

Isolated incidents of rabid foxes are a plenty fine reason to worry whenever I see one in the wild.

[Avaerilon]

That spree had more to do with poor mental health than misogyny; the fact he killed more men (and did so much more intimately by stabbing them) is also notable. His "manifesto," I'm sure most psychiatric doctors would agree, appears simply to be him venting recent frustrations, though it could also be he developed a hatred towards women. However, people with poor mental health hardly justify the argument that all men everywhere are out to harm women- that argument is misandric and incorrect.

The actions he took were directly motivated by his frustrations of being rejected. Him stabbing men in addition to shooting women in no way contradicts that, nor does it disprove the notion that rejected men occasionally murder people.

The fact is, he likely was in a poor state of mental health to begin with; being rejected was simply the trigger. Few people go on sprees without anger building-up beforehand, after all. I should point out the fact both men and women were targeted suggests he was lashing out at people in general rather than women; if it were the latter, he would have gone directly after women, and likely killed men who were simply getting in his way, so to speak. The act of stabbing is more 'personal' than shooting or running someone over, and suggests he was as equally frustrated at his male victims as he was with his female victims.

[Saint Jade IV]

Not tarnish. Tar. Tar people with the same brush. I like tarring people, but I use a different brush every time.

Whoops! That's what I get for not having my coffee this morning

Is it now?

That spree had more to do with poor mental health than misogyny; the fact he killed more men (and did so much more intimately by stabbing them) is also notable. His "manifesto," I'm sure most psychiatric doctors would agree, appears simply to be him venting recent frustrations, though it could also be he developed a hatred towards women. However, people with poor mental health hardly justify the argument that all men everywhere are out to harm women- that argument is misandric and incorrect.

Yep, because all the women who rejected Elliot Rodger could easily have seen into the future and realised that he would commit this abhorrent crime. It was completely obvious that he was a special kind of misogynist, the murderous kind. I think he had a tattoo proclaiming it? This guy must have too.

The issue is that women CANNOT KNOW whether you are a deranged misogynist who will kill them for rejecting you, or whether you are just the garden variety catcaller or groper that most of us encounter every day.

[Idzequitch]

Not to turn this into one of those threads, but doesn't this mean that women should possess firearms? Even if this guy only had a knife, it could have ended up in a gory story.

So if a woman doesn't possess firearms, does that mean she is negligent? And what level of firearm should she possess? How many hours at the shooting range does she need to put in? A firearm is quite useless without the ability to shoot accurately. Not all people, let alone all women, have the hand-eye coordination to do that.

Furthermore, the onus should not be on women to protect themselves. The onus should be on society to ensure that we can be in public spaces, without fear of harassment, or death, or assault, or sexual assault. And the onus should further be on society to confront the attitudes which lead to crimes like this head on, and implement ways to change it.

I agree in theory, but society is capable of neither controlling every single one of its members, nor changing every person's attitude. Even if we could, would it be moral? It's much more practical to teach women to defend themselves, without in anyway trying to victim blame them if they do get caught in a bad situation.

[Saint Jade IV]

The actions he took were directly motivated by his frustrations of being rejected. Him stabbing men in addition to shooting women in no way contradicts that, nor does it disprove the notion that rejected men occasionally murder people.

The fact is, he likely was in a poor state of mental health to begin with; being rejected was simply the trigger. Few people go on sprees without anger building-up beforehand, after all. I should point out the fact both men and women were targeted suggests he was lashing out at people in general rather than women; if it were the latter, he would have gone directly after women, and likely killed men who were simply getting in his way, so to speak. The act of stabbing is more 'personal' than shooting or running someone over, and suggests he was as equally frustrated at his male victims as he was with his female victims.

Men weren't targeted. He first went to a sorority house with the intent of killing the women he felt he was entitled to. Furthermore, his shooting of men was as a result of his belief that they had access to the women he believed he was entitled to. And still further, how am I, as a woman to have foreseen or to know that Elliott Rodger was mentally ill? How was this woman to know that this man would kill her? How am I to know that YOU are not the next Elliott Rodger?

[Scepez]

This thread is pretty pointless because,
a) It's in Detriot, which not to insult anyone, but its a pretty dangerous place already.
b)Stuff like this rarely happens. About as rare as women who kill guys if they don't decide to get it on that night. Judging a very large group because one psycho didn't take his meds that day is ludicrous. If I were to start judging women because one did a horrible crime to a man, and say "This is women are dangerous!", I would get bashed to oblivion. But if it's the other way around it's okay? Please.

[Saint Jade IV]

So if a woman doesn't possess firearms, does that mean she is negligent? And what level of firearm should she possess? How many hours at the shooting range does she need to put in? A firearm is quite useless without the ability to shoot accurately. Not all people, let alone all women, have the hand-eye coordination to do that.

Furthermore, the onus should not be on women to protect themselves. The onus should be on society to ensure that we can be in public spaces, without fear of harassment, or death, or assault, or sexual assault. And the onus should further be on society to confront the attitudes which lead to crimes like this head on, and implement ways to change it.

I agree in theory, but society is capable of neither controlling every single one of its members, nor changing its attitude. Even if we could, would it be moral? It's much more practical to teach women to defend themselves, without in anyway trying to victim blame them if they do get caught in a bad situation.

How magnanimous of you.

And how lazy.

No, we cannot change all the people in society. We cannot prevent all crime. But we can change the attitudes which lead to these kinds of crimes. In my country, Australia, we recently had a successful media campaign to change the language around one particular kind of assault, the king hit. We successfully renamed it the coward punch, to express our approbation of such an attack. I would like to see similar campaigns address the societal constructs which lead to this entitlement mentality. The idea that women should take catcalls and suggestive comments on the street as compliments. The idea that it should be an expectation that we are in danger of sexual assault simply for leaving our house. I would like to see society condemn concepts such as the friend zone, and leading him on, as anything other than disgusting expressions of misogyny and entitlement.

[Laerod]

The actions he took were directly motivated by his frustrations of being rejected. Him stabbing men in addition to shooting women in no way contradicts that, nor does it disprove the notion that rejected men occasionally murder people.

The fact is, he likely was in a poor state of mental health to begin with; being rejected was simply the trigger. Few people go on sprees without anger building-up beforehand, after all. I should point out the fact both men and women were targeted suggests he was lashing out at people in general rather than women; if it were the latter, he would have gone directly after women, and likely killed men who were simply getting in his way, so to speak. The act of stabbing is more 'personal' than shooting or running someone over, and suggests he was as equally frustrated at his male victims as he was with his female victims.

The part you're not getting is that no one can tell if someone is mentally ill just by looking at them. Few people going on sprees or shooting someone after an evening of being rejected is immaterial. The chance is greater than zero and the consequences are extreme.

The OP is making the argument that she has no way of telling how someone is going to handle rejection and we've had two publicized cases this year where women have been shot because a man got rejected. The details and contributing factors of the Rodger case aren't relevant; there's a pattern of violence towards women that reject men. It is utterly fucked up that women have to consider that when deciding on how or whether to tell someone they're not interested, but given these and other events it's entirely justified.

[Laerod]

This thread is pretty pointless because,
a) It's in Detriot, which not to insult anyone, but its a pretty dangerous place already.
b)Stuff like this rarely happens. About as rare as women who kill guys if they don't decide to get it on that night. Judging a very large group because one psycho didn't take his meds that day is ludicrous. If I were to start judging women because one did a horrible crime to a man, and say "This is women are dangerous!", I would get bashed to oblivion. But if it's the other way around it's okay? Please.

Find two cases of that actually happening this year.

[Saint Jade IV]

This thread is pretty pointless because,
a) It's in Detriot, which not to insult anyone, but its a pretty dangerous place already.
b)Stuff like this rarely happens. About as rare as women who kill guys if they don't decide to get it on that night. Judging a very large group because one psycho didn't take his meds that day is ludicrous. If I were to start judging women because one did a horrible crime to a man, and say "This is women are dangerous!", I would get bashed to oblivion. But if it's the other way around it's okay? Please.

Yep. Of course, the fact that women are subject to much higher levels of street harassment is completely unrelated. As is the knowledge that in going to a club or pub, you must anticipate being groped by men as par for the course. The fact that women are constantly told that we should police our behaviour and our clothing to avoid leading men on does not at all reinforce the mentality that led to this crime.

Of course, women should just not worry about the possibility of death because they rejected a guy. We should just be chill, because there's nothing at all in our experience to suggest that this is simply the extreme expression of our everyday experience.

[Scepez]

This thread is pretty pointless because,
a) It's in Detriot, which not to insult anyone, but its a pretty dangerous place already.
b)Stuff like this rarely happens. About as rare as women who kill guys if they don't decide to get it on that night. Judging a very large group because one psycho didn't take his meds that day is ludicrous. If I were to start judging women because one did a horrible crime to a man, and say "This is women are dangerous!", I would get bashed to oblivion. But if it's the other way around it's okay? Please.

Find two cases of that actually happening this year.

Which is why I said it was rare?
Sure that may have not happened this year and that this did happen this year, but what if it's other way around the next year?

[Eranian Commonwealth]

The fact is, he likely was in a poor state of mental health to begin with; being rejected was simply the trigger. Few people go on sprees without anger building-up beforehand, after all. I should point out the fact both men and women were targeted suggests he was lashing out at people in general rather than women; if it were the latter, he would have gone directly after women, and likely killed men who were simply getting in his way, so to speak. The act of stabbing is more 'personal' than shooting or running someone over, and suggests he was as equally frustrated at his male victims as he was with his female victims.

The part you're not getting is that no one can tell if someone is mentally ill just by looking at them. Few people going on sprees or shooting someone after an evening of being rejected is immaterial. The chance is greater than zero and the consequences are extreme.

The OP is making the argument that she has no way of telling how someone is going to handle rejection and we've had two publicized cases this year where women have been shot because a man got rejected. The details and contributing factors of the Rodger case aren't relevant; there's a pattern of violence towards women that reject men. It is utterly fucked up that women have to consider that when deciding on how or whether to tell someone they're not interested, but given these and other events it's entirely justified.

So, you're solution?

[Nazi Flower Power]

So every self-entitled misogynist who thinks he can cat-call or act inappropriately is a potential killer, is that what you're suggesting? You make a perfectly valid point about a particular subset of men, but you are conflating two things here; killers, and men who treat women like objects. This man happened to be both. He shot her because he's a killer. He grabbed and harassed her because he's a self-entitled sexual harasser. He didn't shoot her because he's a sexual harasser. Given that her hit her, clearly the man was violent, and not all men who are pigs are violent.

That's not to make light of the issue of men treating women this way, but we should be careful not to tar too broadly with the brush.

Again, how do I know whether you're just a self-entitled misogynist who thinks he can catcall me, or one who will take my life if I don't respond in the manner you would like me to? That's the material point.

Merely answering the question. Neither the majority of men, nor culture, believe that men are in anyway entitled to women. There are isolated incidents, such as this one, but in general, society need not be worried about these "entitled men."

I'm sure that this woman felt the same way. That she didn't need to worry about yet another entitled man.

Furthermore, I dispute the idea that a majority of men don't believe that they are entitled to women on some level. The level of street harassment I experience, and other women experience, the level of vitriol directed at women who choose to speak out about these issues, and the treatment of women who are raped or otherwise assaulted by the media and society suggests that on some level, men do feel entitled to women's time, attention, and bodies.

I don't think it's actually a majority, just a large enough and vocal enough minority to be very annoying.

[Lordieth]

So, we are supposed to intrinsically know that YOU are not the guy who's going to shoot us, right? Through our psychic mind reading abilities? You're suggesting that we aren't supposed to consider, after incidents like this and the Isla Vista shootings, that a man who approaches us unsolicited, may in fact, be a deranged psycho who shoots us for our transgressions?

I did not at any point say that all men would do this. However, incidents like this clearly demonstrate that there are men out there who may choose to enforce the death penalty. And we have NO way of determining if YOU are that guy.

Why not also consider that a women who approaches you, unsolicited, may in fact, be a deranged psycho who shoots you for your transgressions? What if this was a mugger, and not a sexual assault?

[Idzequitch]

I agree in theory, but society is capable of neither controlling every single one of its members, nor changing its attitude. Even if we could, would it be moral? It's much more practical to teach women to defend themselves, without in anyway trying to victim blame them if they do get caught in a bad situation.

How magnanimous of you.

And how lazy.

No, we cannot change all the people in society. We cannot prevent all crime. But we can change the attitudes which lead to these kinds of crimes. In my country, Australia, we recently had a successful media campaign to change the language around one particular kind of assault, the king hit. We successfully renamed it the coward punch, to express our approbation of such an attack. I would like to see similar campaigns address the societal constructs which lead to this entitlement mentality. The idea that women should take catcalls and suggestive comments on the street as compliments. The idea that it should be an expectation that we are in danger of sexual assault simply for leaving our house. I would like to see society condemn concepts such as the friend zone, and leading him on, as anything other than disgusting expressions of misogyny and entitlement.

So renaming crimes makes them less appealing? I don't think so. Each person is responsible for exactly one person's attitude: their own. I can't change yours, you can't change mine, no matter how hard either of us might try. If I'm determined to take a certain action, no amount of renaming the action, setting punishment for the action, or raising awareness against the action can stop me from doing it. I agree, women shouldn't have to put up with much that they do put up with, but can you make anyone change aside from yourself? You cannot.

I can applaud the fact that you would like to change society for the better. However, I must also point out that your ideas simply cannot change everyone.

[Lordieth]

So every self-entitled misogynist who thinks he can cat-call or act inappropriately is a potential killer, is that what you're suggesting? You make a perfectly valid point about a particular subset of men, but you are conflating two things here; killers, and men who treat women like objects. This man happened to be both. He shot her because he's a killer. He grabbed and harassed her because he's a self-entitled sexual harasser. He didn't shoot her because he's a sexual harasser. Given that her hit her, clearly the man was violent, and not all men who are pigs are violent.

That's not to make light of the issue of men treating women this way, but we should be careful not to tar too broadly with the brush.

Again, how do I know whether you're just a self-entitled misogynist who thinks he can catcall me, or one who will take my life if I don't respond in the manner you would like me to? That's the material point.

You don't, but if you follow that logic, you'd never leave the house, as every man is now a potential killer/molester.

For the record, and not that it needs to be said, I've never once laid a finger on a woman, and certainly not inappropriately touched one. But then, as you say, how would you know that? I'm just a potential criminal, after all.

The solution isn't to live in fear. It's to tackle the problem. It is a problem with society yes, but not all men.

[Laerod]

Find two cases of that actually happening this year.

Which is why I said it was rare?
Sure that may have not happened this year and that this did happen this year, but what if it's other way around the next year?

We have at least two cases (more if you consider Rodger's was a multiple homicide) of male on female violence because of rejection. If the opposite is "as rare" then you should be able to find two cases from this year.

The part you're not getting is that no one can tell if someone is mentally ill just by looking at them. Few people going on sprees or shooting someone after an evening of being rejected is immaterial. The chance is greater than zero and the consequences are extreme.

The OP is making the argument that she has no way of telling how someone is going to handle rejection and we've had two publicized cases this year where women have been shot because a man got rejected. The details and contributing factors of the Rodger case aren't relevant; there's a pattern of violence towards women that reject men. It is utterly fucked up that women have to consider that when deciding on how or whether to tell someone they're not interested, but given these and other events it's entirely justified.

So, you're solution?

There needs to be a shift in mentality. For one, major proponents of male entitlement to women need to be eliminated. Not in terms of killing them mind, but the ideology needs to be stamped out. Christian complementarianism and purity balls are an example of overt claims of male entitlement. Subtler attitudes need to be tackled too, such as the discrepancy between women sleeping around being sluts and men sleeping around being players.

In this particular case, massive restrictions on firearms. But that's mostly a topic for an entirely different thread that I will not be participating in.

Overall, it's a shitton of work that everyone needs to engage in.

[Eranian Commonwealth]

So, we are supposed to intrinsically know that YOU are not the guy who's going to shoot us, right? Through our psychic mind reading abilities? You're suggesting that we aren't supposed to consider, after incidents like this and the Isla Vista shootings, that a man who approaches us unsolicited, may in fact, be a deranged psycho who shoots us for our transgressions?

I did not at any point say that all men would do this. However, incidents like this clearly demonstrate that there are men out there who may choose to enforce the death penalty. And we have NO way of determining if YOU are that guy.

Why not also consider that a women who approaches you, unsolicited, may in fact, be a deranged psycho who shoots you for your transgressions? What if this was a mugger, and not a sexual assault?

The OPs argument is that this has never happened to a man before but has happened twice to a women in the last year.

[Eranian Commonwealth]

Which is why I said it was rare?
Sure that may have not happened this year and that this did happen this year, but what if it's other way around the next year?

We have at least two cases (more if you consider Rodger's was a multiple homicide) of male on female violence because of rejection. If the opposite is "as rare" then you should be able to find two cases from this year.

So, you're solution?

There needs to be a shift in mentality. For one, major proponents of male entitlement to women need to be eliminated. Not in terms of killing them mind, but the ideology needs to be stamped out. Christian complementarianism and purity balls are an example of overt claims of male entitlement. Subtler attitudes need to be tackled too, such as the discrepancy between women sleeping around being sluts and men sleeping around being players.

In this particular case, massive restrictions on firearms. But that's mostly a topic for an entirely different thread that I will not be participating in.

Overall, it's a shitton of work that everyone needs to engage in.

How would we change this attitude?

[Scepez]

This thread is pretty pointless because,
a) It's in Detriot, which not to insult anyone, but its a pretty dangerous place already.
b)Stuff like this rarely happens. About as rare as women who kill guys if they don't decide to get it on that night. Judging a very large group because one psycho didn't take his meds that day is ludicrous. If I were to start judging women because one did a horrible crime to a man, and say "This is women are dangerous!", I would get bashed to oblivion. But if it's the other way around it's okay? Please.

Yep. Of course, the fact that women are subject to much higher levels of street harassment is completely unrelated. As is the knowledge that in going to a club or pub, you must anticipate being groped by men as par for the course. The fact that women are constantly told that we should police our behaviour and our clothing to avoid leading men on does not at all reinforce the mentality that led to this crime.

Of course, women should just not worry about the possibility of death because they rejected a guy. We should just be chill, because there's nothing at all in our experience to suggest that this is simply the extreme expression of our everyday experience.

Sure you can worry. A man can worry too if some random chick would jump out a bush a slit his throat because of last night. All I see is just a giant whining campaign. Yes, this was a horrible incident. Yes, the guy was a crazy dick. We know all of this, it's not like the police would have ignored this because of the backstory. No-body is saying this is justified, but thinking most men are like this and that have women have the right to punch, kick and then put his salami in a deep frier if he DARES to say a suggestive comment, at a Pub, where you willingly went to, knowing exactly that you will get those comments.

[Laerod]

Why not also consider that a women who approaches you, unsolicited, may in fact, be a deranged psycho who shoots you for your transgressions? What if this was a mugger, and not a sexual assault?

The OPs argument is that this has never happened to a man before but has happened twice to a women in the last year.

She didn't say it never happens to men, she pointed out similar things continuously happen to women and we've had two cases this year that we know of where rejection has resulted in murder.

We have at least two cases (more if you consider Rodger's was a multiple homicide) of male on female violence because of rejection. If the opposite is "as rare" then you should be able to find two cases from this year.

There needs to be a shift in mentality. For one, major proponents of male entitlement to women need to be eliminated. Not in terms of killing them mind, but the ideology needs to be stamped out. Christian complementarianism and purity balls are an example of overt claims of male entitlement. Subtler attitudes need to be tackled too, such as the discrepancy between women sleeping around being sluts and men sleeping around being players.

In this particular case, massive restrictions on firearms. But that's mostly a topic for an entirely different thread that I will not be participating in.

Overall, it's a shitton of work that everyone needs to engage in.

How would we change this attitude?

Good question.

[Lordieth]

Why not also consider that a women who approaches you, unsolicited, may in fact, be a deranged psycho who shoots you for your transgressions? What if this was a mugger, and not a sexual assault?

The OPs argument is that this has never happened to a man before but has happened twice to a women in the last year.

Did you know male domestic abuse by women goes vastly under-reported? A man has never been stalked by a woman? Or killed by a female stalker? Come on.

[Eranian Commonwealth]

Yep. Of course, the fact that women are subject to much higher levels of street harassment is completely unrelated. As is the knowledge that in going to a club or pub, you must anticipate being groped by men as par for the course. The fact that women are constantly told that we should police our behaviour and our clothing to avoid leading men on does not at all reinforce the mentality that led to this crime.

Of course, women should just not worry about the possibility of death because they rejected a guy. We should just be chill, because there's nothing at all in our experience to suggest that this is simply the extreme expression of our everyday experience.

Sure you can worry. A man can worry too if some random chick would jump out a bush a slit his throat because of last night. All I see is just a giant whining campaign. Yes, this was a horrible incident. Yes, the guy was a crazy dick. We know all of this, it's not like the police would have ignored this because the backstory. No-body is saying this is justified, but thinking most men are like this and that have women have the right to punch, kick and then put his salami in a deep frier if he DARES to say a suggestive comment, at a Pub, where you willingly went to, knowing exactly that you will get those comments.

I think this is an unfortunate series of events now, where very legitimate concerns of harassment and rape and murder of women is taken to include a guy politely asking a girl for a cup of coffee in a lift...it's a shocking state of affairs when a good force such as feminism is taken and perverted into misandry.

[Avaerilon]

If we want to be constructive, surely improving, expanding and developing mental health services to spot, diagnose and treat these kinds of people (i.e. men and women who are in danger of reacting violently to these kinds of situations) would be better than simply panicking that any man out there might be psychotic? Schools and universities, and workplaces too, ought to have a team of people on hand who are actively ensuring the mental health of their charges is good, and if not, then these people need to quickly be able to help them. This would benefit so many people, and potentially save many lives. Instead, simply going on the whole "arrgghh, man, potential killer/rapist/creep" trip is not constructive. By that logic, one could rant on about something like "every damned woman could be out to abuse me," or "aaahh, muslim, he must be a terrorist" or "a black person, surely a criminal." All those sentiments are ridiculous, and though yes some people are those things, that does not give anyone the right to judge groups of people based on the actions of the few.