The media are presented with a breaking story and they have to address the elephant in the room that it might be an Islamic attack, it was only last week that ISIS said they were going to attack the Champions League games so they are really the most vocal group and the top of everyones mindset, not sure when there was an attack of a similar nature by a Jew so to randomly suggest it was a Jewish attack and actually name someone is far more sinister

That's even more terrifying in some ways.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, "not applying labels" and dismissing things as random, motiveless acts from people with mental health problems is exactly what allows misogynistic rhetoric to continue thriving online and continue propagating amongst mentally unstable men. An almost impassioned determination not to call it what it is: extremist ideology and terrorism.

No one is saying this guy was mentally healthy nor that he was acting with a clear mind and fully aware of his motivations. But mentally unwell people do NOT regularly just go on violent rampages "totally at random for no reason" - that in itself is an idea that leads to the stigmatisation of mental health conditions. The idea that "schizophrenic people are just randomly violent" - it simply isn't true.

Mentally ill people are likely to be far more susceptible to suggestion and to latching onto extreme ideas, for example, the violent misogyny that comes along with the ideology of the "entitled incel", an ideology that is EVERYWHERE these days in really insidious ways, thanks to the likes of Andrew Tate/Jordan Petersson bringing it mainstream. It's not always going to be neatly labelled and something people have to seek out on 4chan. It's an increasingly mainstream mindset. And in my opinion this chap's irrational hatred of women is clear as day.

He only harmed ONE male and it was because that man was trying to stop him. He walked past men in pursuit of women. How much clearer does this need to be? Again not saying he was mentally stable (obviously he was not) or thinking with a clear head, but that's not entirely relevant.

I mean just last week:

"Two stabbed in Bordeaux for drinking wine during Eid

Attacker shot dead by police after frenzied attack in tourist area"

…I really don’t feel for me that one is a more sinister or a less sinister when all disinformation had a sinister and harmful value…no more or less, just differences in specifics…so far as this particular attack, I didn’t personally ever attach ‘ISIS or Islamic’ unless the authorities had informed of that connection because the attacker was wearing sportswear/a rugby jersey and we were informed he was a Queenslander or something and he seemed white Caucasian …so the media that we were receiving reports for weren’t in any way leading to ‘Islamic’ in terms of connection at all…actually it was specifically stated that it wasn’t felt to be terrorism ideology linked…

the grainy footage originally released I couldn't personally make out if he was white or not, I mean he could have easily been Far Right so not sure where the Jewish connection came in, its not like he wasn't wearing a skull cap....why I think it is more sinister is this person was quite happy to name an innocent jewish person who could have easily been attacked before his name was cleared, I am not saying the same couldn't have happened to a muslim person but a direct naming of an innocent is really beyond the pale

Exactly. Women seem to be one group that no one gives a single **** about. All you need to do is take a look on youtube or reddit or twitter to see how mush hatred for women there is out there atm but we're not allowed to talk about that

….we were also specifically told that this person was known to the police authorities, which was also a factor in them stating that they didn’t believe it to be linked to any political ideology…so all in all, ‘Islamic’ is not a link or connection that was led to be the way, it was actually more actively discouraged from being the way in that it specifically wasn’t believed to be so….and yet that association was the first and very active ‘association’ of false and harmful information that I read…no matter what was being said to indicate its unlikelihood…as I said, for me personally …it’s all very dangerous and sinister…one size never fits all or rarely does so there are differences in specifics…but all of equal harm and danger to those and any who are the victims of that false information…..

Tbf I can definitely see your point.

I mean five of the six victims were women (like you've already said) so it definitely wouldn't be far reaching to think that the motivation behind the massacre was of an Incel mindset.

And on a side note, you have to be mentally ill if you're seriously taking Andrew Tate's "advice" on board, and I don't mean that to sound funny either.

Tbf, it is cool to hate on women.:hehe:

But I do see what you mean, because I do look at the extreme right on YouTube sometimes, and they really don't like women, I hear some of the things that they say and it can flaw me tbh.

Although bizarrely on Twitter, I find that it's the far left that have a real grudge with women, it's truly weird.

Yet another terrorist not being labelled a terrorist because of his skin colour

…women haters come in all shapes and sizes and all politics and all religions and all social media platforms etc…?…wherever we may go, we’ll find them…?…

and yet we seem happy to celebrate a certain culture in the UK that don't think women should walk with men and should cover up their entire bodies in a standard dark uniform when out?

and our own Government gives people the option to avoid shaking a women's hand when they become a UK citizen??

yes both "sides" it seems

I think that's the point though and where people get distracted - it's not that he wasn't mentally unstable, mentally stable people don't go on killing sprees for any reason, (yes LT - including religious dogma).

But when people are mentally unstable and "not in their right mind" that is the EXACT time that religious (Jihadi) or cultural (murderous incel) ideologies can creep in and take hold. When people's psychology is unstable it'll try to latch onto something stable. Ideologies being pushed by large numbers of people seem stable, and that's how they "get" people. It doesn't really matter what the ideology is. Anyone heavily involved in an ideology is going to fall into one of two categories - either they were at one point a vulnerable individual susceptible to being indoctrinated and manipulated, OR they are a "pusher" of the ideology using it to their own ends and for their own benefit (vast majority of terrorist leaders have a political goal, they are NOT doing it in the name of religion... and with folks like Andrew Tate the motivation is even more banal. Money.)

There is a very real elephant in the room that the proportion of gay men who are misogynistic is no smaller at all than the proportion of straight men, and IMO it's becoming increasingly obvious. There's an underlying misogyny that was "hidden under friendship" for a long time... gay men appeared to be very supportive of women... but it turns out it's just different angles of the same thing. Straight men have objectified women for sex, gay men have objectified them for their "allyship".

If a women loses her "ally" status then the real attitudes of gay men towards women become abundantly clear and it's no different to your average gammon. Different flavours of the same crisps.

This is a tricky subject because of the inevitable claims of homophobia but it's not a slur on gay men at all... just saying that when it comes down to it, whether men are attracted to men or women, it doesn't change the effects of male socialisation. If anything it's the opposite of homophobia. It's saying just because a man is gay, don't forget he is still a man and the default male unconscious bias against women is still very much present.

Yes let’s make this a racial thing when literally all of the victims were all cisgender women.

Oh wait nvm, they don’t matter

Re the bold - absolutely.

I always wondered about that and it makes me wonder if the reason is cause they aren’t into women, so they kind of just don’t really care about them as much as they do other men?

I think really the depressing fact is just that it's deeply ingrained from very early on (before sexuality even becomes relevant) - the main difference if I had to point one out, is that when straight men veer into being misogynistic it comes from a place of anger (that at its worse becomes violence) because they, at the end of the day, do want women to engage with them "on some level" so they get frustrated.

For gay men they have the added benefit of not actually giving a hoot on a personal level if women engage with them whatsoever so the misogyny goes more in a direction of belittling/minimising/mocking/disregarding. The part I find really insidious is that a woman can easily go from being deified/celebrated to completely condemned for daring to have an opinion that goes against "expectations of an ally". It's just another form of objectification.

They do not do the same thing with high profile men to anything like the same degree. The ones who were already disliked get plenty of fire, sure, but the ones who were liked get pass after pass before getting close to being demonised.

I think it patently clear the majority only support women when they are being allies and supportive of gay men , when women started to say hang on what about us and what about the impact on our rights that is when women were dropped like hot potatoes! and called TERF, bigot etc even though the same women had previously been considered allies....

oh or what SB said

The last few years have been truly bleak for this. Literally five decades of what appeared to be mutual supportiveness ripped to shreds in a couple of years - and not just "a good thing eroded"... but unveiled as a mirage in the first place. Mask whipped off and oh look, it was just another patriarchy all along!

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...Vyg9/giphy.gif

The world is on such a massive downswing :joker:.

If you follow the abuse that JK gets its quite appalling

its horrific

Lmao gays hate women now? Yet if someone were to say women hate men, they’d be called sexist immediately, this forum continuously exposes the very obvious casual bigotry against gay people, men in particular

Gay men are men and have proportionately the same amount of unconscious bias and casual misogyny against women as straight men is all that was said. I don't think it's particularly controversial or bigoted to point out that the primary characteristic of both "a gay man" and "a straight man" is "a man" and not sexuality - though as a penis-haver myself, I understand the desire to distance oneself from being viewed as male as a primary trait. Believe me.

There's been a historic tendency in the gay community (and perhaps, by both straight men [often framed as a negative] and women as well) to view gay men as being more socially aligned with straight women than they are with straight men.

All I'm saying is that this is (now far more evidently) sadly not the case - gay men have FAR more in common with straight men than they do with any woman. This should in hindsight be pretty obvious but the illusion was maintained for a LONG time.