Tag Archives: suicide is the number one killer of men

Oh I feel sorry for Dzokhar Tsarnaev, all right. I’m sorry he’s not dead.

3 May

Hanna Roisin, writing over at slate.com has an interesting piece up in which she waxes poetic about the “maternal sympathy” Dzokhar Tsarnaev is eliciting amongst her friends and acquaintances. Hanna doesn’t agree with the sentiments, she is just noting them.


Her condemnation falls a little short, in my estimation, but what really sent my heart rate soaring was her link to a pastebin site in which young women are writing fan fiction AKA erotica about this little piece of worthless human shit.

[Dzhokhar] sounded much more terrified than you could have possibly been. “Are you okay?” You begged him to tell you he was fine, nobody really knew. “I’m hit, in the leg, but I- wait what? You’re asking if I’m okay?” He was surprised, but calmer now. “I know you didn’t do it, and even if you did, I know you aren’t harmful.” He sighed with your words, he felt safe for the first time since he saw his face on the television.






We all know I do not approve of physical violence against children, but holy mother of god would I like the line these girls up and slap the shit out of them.  There’s a fancy word for this kind behavior: Hybristophilia.  It’s technically classified as a mental illness that falls under the category of paraphilias, but to me, that is one giant cop out.


This isn’t mental illness.  It’s straight up evil.  It’s a choice made by people who are so heartless and cruel they scarcely qualify as human.  Schizophrenia, which NO ONE volunteers for, is a mental illness. Creaming your panties over someone who BLEW THE LEGS OFF CHILDREN is pure, unadulterated evil.

And once again, because the perpetrators of this evil are women, and mostly young women, we refuse as a culture to confront it.

Let’s start with the obvious:  why do young women like Dzokhar?  Well, he’s cute!  Look at him!  What a pretty boy.


Of course he’s not so pretty here, smirking and dropping his homemade bomb at the feet of the children he mains and kills.


Funny, but I can’t find a whole lot of fan fiction eroticizing encounters with this man:


But then he’s kind of an ugly fucker, isn’t he?

The mainstream media like to keep up a constant conversation about how women are objectified and treated as mere vessels for the male gaze and how much this harms young women, but in a culture that has room for young women to write sexual fantasies about a mass murderer for no reason other than the fact that he’s physically appealing, exactly who is objectifying whom?




Let’s talk for a second about how the media has responded to Dzokhar and his equally appealing brother Tamerlan.


What irritates me beyond belief is that the action of these two deranged murderers is linked very specifically to masculinity.  Why are terrorists so often men?, wonders Irin Carmon at Salon.


I guess she’s just conveniently ignoring the 35 people killed by a female suicide bomber in Moscow then? And these ladies are just outliers, right?


female three

female 2

female four

Suicide bombers are not very common to begin with, but it didn’t take a whole lot of effort for me to locate multiple examples of women as terrorists, and those are just the ones pulling the trigger.



It looks like Dzokhar’s mother was pretty gung-ho about jihad and introduced her little darlings to the concept at the dinner table quite regularly.  When you include all the women working behind the scenes to promote and support terrorism and terrorist causes, there is precisely ZERO evidence that men are more involved in craziness than women.


Another example of formal/informal power structures.  When you account for informal power structures, women tend to have the upper hand.  Is it so hard to believe the same is true when it comes to terrorism?


So what is behind this effort to link terrorists and the Tsarnaevs in particular to the masculine and not the depraved?

“Large public acts of terrorism are very public displays of masculinity, making a statement in the biggest way possible,” says Abby Ferber, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who has studied white supremacist groups and masculinity. In her work, she said, she often encountered a “vulnerability to their sense of masculinity whether it’s their relationship with their father, their culture. And there are a limited number of ways in the culture to show your masculinity.” In the absence of the traditional forms of masculinity — including financial or social power — “you’re more likely to see extreme means. They’re showing that they’re real men, man enough to do something like this.”

Let’s take a close look at what our little sociologist is claiming.  She offers three definitions of masculinity:

  1. Social power
  2. Financial power
  3. Large public acts of terrorism

Then she claims that there are limited numbers of ways to show masculinity in our culture, and goes ahead and blames men’s relationships with their fathers for the resulting “extreme means”.

There’s kind of a sick admission written into that quote, isn’t there?  Men’s social and financial power has been deliberately and strategically limited and the relationship with their fathers fractured and their only response is to blow up innocent people because masculinity.

The heart wrenching truth is that men facing this new world of limited social and financial power do indeed take extreme measures …. against themselves.  Suicide is now outpacing traffic accidents as the leading cause of death for men in America.


Two men set off bombs and hundreds of men picked up the pieces and all of this is invisible to Abby and her ilk? Why is that?



You know, I wouldn’t have such a problem with the media claiming masculinity is the root of all violence and evil in our society if they were at least as willing to point to femininity as being equally destructive.  Those girls writing fan fiction for Dzokhar could be understood as simply responding to a perceived alpha male in a characteristically and predictably feminine way:  by offering to suck his dick.

But oh no.  Those girls are simply misguided.  Poor dears need some assistance and time to work through their hybristophilia. Dkokhar and Tamerlan, on the other hand, stand for everything masculinity wants to do to our culture and society.


Blow it up. Destroy it.  Smash it.  Pulverize it.  Terrorize us and turn us into whimpering children cowering in the corners.  Obviously, we need to contain this threat.  Destroy the masculine before it destroys us.

These women, and it mostly IS women who write so viciously about men and masculinity, appear not to have noticed the entire trajectory of human history.  It’s like they are trapped in a present, unable to see the past and completely unwilling to contemplate the future.


When has murdering innocent children ever been a hall-mark of manliness?  When has inducing fear and terror and loathing ever been a sign of masculine strength?  What men are these women talking about? What version of humanity are they subscribing to?

Has the world gone mad on occasion, descended into war and chaos and fire and blood?

bomb nuclear

Yes.  It has.  And what force set the world to right again?  Who is it that picked up arms or took on the leadership of nations or wrote and codified laws and rules and then enforced them to ensure peace and security?  Who did all those things?  Who built the fences that keep chaos at bay? Who patrols the edges of our world and secures the perimeter against encroaching wilderness?  Who is it that serves, protects, dies to guarantee our safety?


Do I really need to answer that for you?

Evil exists.  It always has and it always will.  Sometimes it comes in the form of two pretty white boys with exotic names and poison in their blood.


And sometimes it will come in the form of young women writing erotic paeans to monsters who would kill them.


When we take only one side of that, and use it to demonize half of humanity, we are adding to the evil. We are helping to create a world where the monsters are not outside the gates, but right here amongst us. Masculinity isn’t the reason for terrorism.  And stomping out men won’t protect us from the monsters.

Just the opposite.  Having sympathy for Dzokhar Tsarnaev is having sympathy for the devil.  It’s a way of admitting that he could be “any man”.  That all men have the capacity to load a pressure cooker with ball bearings and tear the legs off children and leave them to bleed to death in the streets.  If all men are capable of that, then all men are dangerous.

The media WANTS you to feel sorry for Dzokhar. They want you to accept that he could be you.

Don’t believe it.  The only thing you should feel sorry about is that Dzokhar didn’t end up the same as Tamerlan.  I’ll confess this picture gives me satisfaction.  It’s an autopsy photo of Tamerlan.  Obviously graphic.


“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

― Albert Einstein

Let’s not be those people.  Let Dzokhar have his justice. I won’t be shedding a single tear.

Lots of love,


Attention men struggling with mental illness: man up you whiny suckholes!

22 Dec


Oh, Hugo, you’ve really outdone your bootlicking little self this time.  Have the girls let you in the clubhouse yet?  No?  Seriously, Hugo, you need to find some boys to play with.  In a resoundingly depressing, and disgustingly opportunistic piece at Jezebel, Hugo links the sad shootings of children to one of the ugliest portraits of young men you’ll read in the media this year.


So according to Hugo, there is a problem in America with young white men getting the shaft and falling drastically behind in achievement and status when compared to their female counterparts.  Score one for NO SHIT SHERLOCK.  The problem is NOT that an entire generation of young men are being chucked under the ideological bus, but rather that they are REACTING to this treatment by picking up guns and shooting children.  Because, hey, that’s what men do, right?

So much *facepalm*. Let’s talk about the accusation that it is WHITE men in particular who are prone to pick up guns and shoot people in mass killings.  The question is not “is the shooter white”, but what PROPORTION of mass killings are carried out by white men relative to their presence in the general population?  Seems like the folks at Virginia Tech might know something about WHITE men going nuts and shooting up innocent bystanders, as long as by WHITE, you mean KOREAN.  There are some other folks in DC that lived through a round of snipers who also might contest the fact that mass murderers are lonely white guys.

Why the race-baiting?  Well, men of color have LEGITIMATE reasons to complain that their chances in life might be blighted by the circumstances of their birth (80% to single mothers), their economic status (poor), an educational system geared to ensure they fail, a culture that reviles them and a justice system that is more willing to detain them for years for crimes other folks get away with.  And those ARE legitimate complaints.  To be clear, I am not making EXCUSES for criminality amongst any group, but I am suggesting life circumstances offer some sort of EXPLANATION.  It is still up to every adult to take responsibility for their own actions, full stop.

Hugo’s article is designed to cast white men as whiny suckholes who can’t man up to circumstances, and who have NO LEGITIMATE complaints to make.  He goes even further, suggesting that young white men are not just angry about a school system designed to fail them, the complete demonization of masculinity and manhood and the annihilation of employment prospects for men in particular, but they are specifically angry at WOMEN who benefit from the New World Order.  And you know what, probably a lot of them ARE.  For bloody good reason.

Here’s where Hugo outdoes himself:  he cites an article that claims as long as we continue to fuck over young men, we will continue to have mass killings of children and other innocent bystanders – indeed, those sorts of killings should INCREASE because patriarchy.  Also masculinity.


Think about that.  According to Hugo, picking up an automatic weapon loaded with flesh shattering bullets and killing six year olds is part of what makes you a MAN.  As long as you are going to define yourself as MANLY, you will have to accept that you are willing and able to shoot children.

Hugo is deliberately perpetuating the most destructive portrait of masculinity that he can, in order to justify why he rejects it so resoundingly and to ingratiate himself with a movement that despises men while claiming to love them.  Hugo doesn’t consider himself particularly manly, therefore he is exempt from his horrifying concept of what constitutes masculinity.  He acknowledges that men are getting a shitty deal in the current climate and then insists that the only response open to them is to pick up a gun and shoot children.

Because according to Hugo, that is what masculinity IS.  The Sandy Hook shooter was not a mentally disturbed person with a severe personality disorder, raised by a wingnut Armageddonist mother who provided him with wickedly effective weapons and ammunition, raised in broken family with a father he hadn’t seen in years – no, none of that mattered.  He wasn’t in desperate need of psychological help, he was just a MAN and killing children in a brutal bloodbath is simply what men DO.

The willful ugliness of Hugo’s concept of what men are and what they do is not just outrageous, it’s profoundly, disturbingly sad.  Inside his insistence that men are angry, unstable violent brutes hides a wretched reality:  men who ARE struggling with mental health issues, who DO have unresolved, deeply troubling feelings and thoughts are told that there is no help for them.  There is nothing they can do to assuage the loneliness and pain and despair of their lives.  Indeed, if they reach out for help, they are just whiny assholes who can’t handle the END OF MEN and the rise of women.

The Christmas season is almost upon us, and across every western, feminized country, there will be countless thousands of men who will sit out the day alone, deprived of their children and families, grappling with isolation and desolation.  The vast, sweeping majority of them will face their demons alone, swallow their anger and hate and the injustice of their lives, try to hang on and hope for the future and carry the faces of their children in their hearts.

They will find the courage and strength and stamina to carry on.  To persevere, to face the future unafraid, to remain the Captain of their own souls.  And for men who find that the burden is too much to bear, that your strength has failed you, that you cannot go on, ignore hateful assholes like Hugo.  There IS help, and there is nothing unmanly about asking for it.  A man who staggers is still a man.  And somewhere, there is a shoulder for you to lean on until your strength is back.

In Australia:


In Canada:


In the UK:


In the United States:


Courage, strength, stamina, perseverance and always, always love for your children.  For children everywhere.  That is a man.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: