Current Events > The bombing in Manchester was a gender based misogynist attack

(+) Yeah! (+)

Count the number of times Islam appears. Inb4 no such thing as "Regressive."
---

It did occur to me that the target may have been selected to kill mostly women and girls. Their whole thing lately is to try to out breed the west, and targeting those populations is the most effective way to lower the future population of the targeted society.

I've seen numerous articles and reporters suggesting that, in addition to being an attack on a large group of people, it may have been targeted specifically because of all the young people and western culture on display.

Cry more.
---

If this was Slate's only story about the attack, I would have an issue with it. But it's not. I don't think there's anything exactly wrong with what the author wrote; the attack disproportionately targeted women and girls, much like the Orlando attack targeted the LGBT community.
---

Antifar posted...

If this was Slate's only story about the attack, I would have an issue with it. But it's not. I don't think there's anything exactly wrong with what the author wrote; the attack disproportionately targeted women and girls, much like the Orlando attack targeted the LGBT community.

Wow what a load of shit. Yeah, let's just blame general misogyny using twitter comments from assholes as an idea of who perpetrated this attack, and completely remove Islam. I would love you to point out the articles where they properly blame radical Islam without deflecting to another strawman.
---

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

I would love you to point out the articles where they properly blame radical Islam without deflecting to another strawman.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2017/05/how_to_stop_groups_like_isis_from_inspiring_terrorist_attacks_like_manchester.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/22/eyewitness_accounts_of_the_manchester_explosions.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/manchester_terror_attack_updates.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/the_shocking_acts_of_violence_that_have_shaped_manchester_s_history.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/could_the_manchester_attack_tilt_britain_s_election.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/23/in_the_chaos_following_the_bombing_in_manchester_some_people_tweeted_fake.html
---

Sadly, it can always be both.
---

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

I would love you to point out the articles where they properly blame radical Islam without deflecting to another strawman.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2017/05/how_to_stop_groups_like_isis_from_inspiring_terrorist_attacks_like_manchester.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/manchester_terror_attack_updates.html

Yeah, sure, this was an Islamic terror attack. But there are other angles through which to examine the story.
---

ASithLord7 posted...

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

I would love you to point out the articles where they properly blame radical Islam without deflecting to another strawman.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2017/05/how_to_stop_groups_like_isis_from_inspiring_terrorist_attacks_like_manchester.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/22/eyewitness_accounts_of_the_manchester_explosions.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/manchester_terror_attack_updates.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/the_shocking_acts_of_violence_that_have_shaped_manchester_s_history.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/could_the_manchester_attack_tilt_britain_s_election.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/23/in_the_chaos_following_the_bombing_in_manchester_some_people_tweeted_fake.html

Fake nooz!
---

ASithLord7 posted...

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

I would love you to point out the articles where they properly blame radical Islam without deflecting to another strawman.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2017/05/how_to_stop_groups_like_isis_from_inspiring_terrorist_attacks_like_manchester.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/22/eyewitness_accounts_of_the_manchester_explosions.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/manchester_terror_attack_updates.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/the_shocking_acts_of_violence_that_have_shaped_manchester_s_history.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/could_the_manchester_attack_tilt_britain_s_election.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/23/in_the_chaos_following_the_bombing_in_manchester_some_people_tweeted_fake.html

I just read the first article. This is completely fair. It was my mistake, but in my defense thought this was a screenshot of a Salon article I read here-

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/23/manchester-was-an-attack-on-girls/

I thought it was this Salon article, which looking at the two side by side I think shows how it is a fair mistake, cause they literally look like they were fed the same exact talking points. It looks like one nearly plagiarized the other. Neither, by some random chance don't mention Islam.
---

I feel so much pain for so many of the posters on this forum... I wonder, was the culture of this message board always this way, or did it used to be different? There is nothing wrong with the article presented in the original post. As one other poster already said, it *was* an attack on women, just as the attack in Orlando was an attack on gays; there is nothing "regressive" about it.

I wonder what has foulness has seeped into the hearts of the posters here. The problem with the Internet is, when you're on a forum with a lot of voices all repeating the exact same dogma, it becomes self-reinforcing. And it's very easy to become lured in by it. To be molded by the social pressure of other posters into accepting radical beliefs and notions, like the radical notions expressed in the original post. I wonder, is that what happened on this forum? It fills my heart with so much sadness to think it.

Antifar posted...

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

I would love you to point out the articles where they properly blame radical Islam without deflecting to another strawman.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2017/05/how_to_stop_groups_like_isis_from_inspiring_terrorist_attacks_like_manchester.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/23/manchester_terror_attack_updates.html

Yeah, sure, this was an Islamic terror attack. But there are other angles through which to examine the story.

Like what? If you are going to say misogyny why would you bring up twitter comments from random assholes, and not Misogyny and how it exists in Islam? Not that there is any evidence that they specifically targeted girls. It is completely trying to insert western sexism as the cause of this attack and not radical Islam.
---

Antifar posted...

If this was Slate's only story about the attack, I would have an issue with it. But it's not. I don't think there's anything exactly wrong with what the author wrote; the attack disproportionately targeted women and girls, much like the Orlando attack targeted the LGBT community.

But was the motive of the attack to disrupt an Ariana Grande concert, or to spread global terror?

I mean I get the demographics of an Ariana Grande concert skew younger and more female (trust me I've been to these types of shows). But the logic to pin it on misogyny honestly feels disrespectful not only to every victim but everyone who attended or knew someone that attended, oblivious to what is actually happening in the world, and just feels like a reach across the fucking ocean.
---

Glass_Phantom posted...

I feel so much pain for so many of the posters on this forum... I wonder, was the culture of this message board always this way, or did it used to be different? There is nothing wrong with the article presented in the original post. As one other poster already said, it *was* an attack on women, just as the attack in Orlando was an attack on gays; there is nothing "regressive" about it.

I wonder what has foulness has seeped into the hearts of the posters here. The problem with the Internet is, when you're on a forum with a lot of voices all repeating the exact same dogma, it becomes self-reinforcing. And it's very easy to become lured in by it. To be molded by the social pressure of other posters into accepting radical beliefs and notions, like the radical notions expressed in the original post. I wonder, is that what happened on this forum? It fills my heart with so much sadness to think it.

Saying the attack in Orlando was an attack on gays, not mentioning the perpetrator, not mentioning Islam and the homophobic ideology in it and using mean comments about gay people from westerners Is certainly "regressive."

It is pushing the idea that this was first world homophobia. Not to mention the perpetrator clearly targeted gays, and it is not clear that women were specifically targeted in this(so far). So it would be a fair point if you presented where the misogyny was coming from, once there was evidence of it.
---

Saying he targeted girls specifically seems like speculation to me. Could have been any concert.
---

Darmik posted...

Saying he targeted girls specifically seems like speculation to me. Could have been any concert.

It is baseless speculation that tries to allude that it was western sexists. The ones that would leave mean twitter comments.
---

I thought Islam was a feminist religion?
---

It was an attack on the Aryan race

Ariana Grande translates to Grand Aryan


They prob thought she was some sort of leader

really tragic stuff :(((
---

It wasn't an attack on women. It was an attack on western culture (IE non-Islamic culture) as a whole. To deem it just an "attack on women" demeans it.

I'd note here that the author doesn't ascribe a motivation to the attacker, but simply acknowledges the outcome and the impact. Maybe the attacker had nothing against women. But women will be disproportionately harmed by his actions.
---

QuantumScript posted...

It wasn't an attack on women. It was an attack on western culture (IE non-Islamic culture) as a whole. To deem it just an "attack on women" demeans it.

It was both. They attacked western culture by attacking women.
---

CowboyDan posted...

QuantumScript posted...

It wasn't an attack on women. It was an attack on western culture (IE non-Islamic culture) as a whole. To deem it just an "attack on women" demeans it.

It was both. They attacked western culture by attacking women.

That is a useless distinction. The attacker was probably not targeting women per se. Which makes the writer's perspective useless horse shit, because it's just an attempt to shoe horn misogyny and the patriarchy into everything per the usual. *shrug*

QuantumScript posted...

CowboyDan posted...

QuantumScript posted...

It wasn't an attack on women. It was an attack on western culture (IE non-Islamic culture) as a whole. To deem it just an "attack on women" demeans it.

It was both. They attacked western culture by attacking women.

That is a useless distinction. The attacker was probably not targeting women per se. Which makes the writer's perspective useless horse shit, because it's just an attempt to shoe horn misogyny and the patriarchy into everything per the usual. *shrug*

Did you think the Orlando shooting wasn't "targeting gay people per se" as well?
---

QuantumScript posted...

CowboyDan posted...

QuantumScript posted...

It wasn't an attack on women. It was an attack on western culture (IE non-Islamic culture) as a whole. To deem it just an "attack on women" demeans it.

It was both. They attacked western culture by attacking women.

That is a useless distinction. The attacker was probably not targeting women per se. Which makes the writer's perspective useless horse shit, because it's just an attempt to shoe horn misogyny and the patriarchy into everything per the usual. *shrug*

Yeah I mean we cant ask the fuck who did it so we'll probably never know.
---

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

Saying the attack in Orlando was an attack on gays, not mentioning the perpetrator, not mentioning Islam and the homophobic ideology in it and using mean comments about gay people from westerners Is certainly "regressive."

And yet many other articles on the same website have mentioned the perpetrator. This article didn't deny any of that! It only offered another lens through which to view the attack -- as a terrorist act against women and girls.

Ah, but let me connect the dots -- being overly-concerned with the perspectives of women and girls is a SJW-ish thing to do, and SJW = "regressive," right? =(

The irony is, here you are, guilty of what so many in the same arena as you accuse regressives of doing... Shutting down any alternate viewpoints that don't hew to your preferred context for the world.

And truthfully, looking at your posts, looking at your signature, I don't believe you're motivated at all by respect for the victims and their memory, or even respect for the truth of what happened. I think your motivations are anger and hatred -- hatred toward Islam, and anger towards its 1.2 billion adherents, 99.9999% of whom had nothing to do with this and will never commit a terrorist act in their life. These are not healthy emotions for you to have, and they don't count toward the "good" side of your ledger. I pray for your sake that you will find the wisdom to let go these radical notions which you appear to be afflicted by. Perhaps you weren't always like this, but this forum only made you that way; I know from psychology that when you are in a group that defines itself by its opinions, as the members of this forum do, then people naturally have a tendency to become more and more polarized over time -- and individuals such as yourself will try to conform to what the group mandates. Please, for your sake and for the betterment of our world, turn away from that hate.

AugustAdoulin posted...

QuantumScript posted...

CowboyDan posted...

QuantumScript posted...

It wasn't an attack on women. It was an attack on western culture (IE non-Islamic culture) as a whole. To deem it just an "attack on women" demeans it.

It was both. They attacked western culture by attacking women.

That is a useless distinction. The attacker was probably not targeting women per se. Which makes the writer's perspective useless horse shit, because it's just an attempt to shoe horn misogyny and the patriarchy into everything per the usual. *shrug*

Did you think the Orlando shooting wasn't "targeting gay people per se" as well?

I'm not sure the two scenarios are totally comparable. Idk. Its a horrible thing either way.
---

AugustAdoulin posted...

QuantumScript posted...

CowboyDan posted...

QuantumScript posted...

It wasn't an attack on women. It was an attack on western culture (IE non-Islamic culture) as a whole. To deem it just an "attack on women" demeans it.

It was both. They attacked western culture by attacking women.

That is a useless distinction. The attacker was probably not targeting women per se. Which makes the writer's perspective useless horse shit, because it's just an attempt to shoe horn misogyny and the patriarchy into everything per the usual. *shrug*

Did you think the Orlando shooting wasn't "targeting gay people per se" as well?

The Orlando shooter said he was targeting gays. It was a gay place. This wasn't a female event, and Islamic terrorist don't really target women for killings to punish them like gays. So it is a completely moot point based on trend and lack of any evidence. Not to mention white washing that it was Islam and using sexist tweets as an example of what was behind this attack, suggesting it was some local internet misogynist and it was western misogyny that did this.
---

what about all the pussywhipped boyfriends and gay guys who got stringed along?

women seriously have to be the victim in everything right?

Well, at least it gives women something legit to be angry over.
---

Glass_Phantom posted...

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

Saying the attack in Orlando was an attack on gays, not mentioning the perpetrator, not mentioning Islam and the homophobic ideology in it and using mean comments about gay people from westerners Is certainly "regressive."

And yet many other articles on the same website have mentioned the perpetrator. This article didn't deny any of that! It only offered another lens through which to view the attack -- as a terrorist act against women and girls.

Ah, but let me connect the dots -- being overly-concerned with the perspectives of women and girls is a SJW-ish thing to do, and SJW = "regressive," right? =(

The irony is, here you are, guilty of what so many in the same arena as you accuse regressives of doing... Shutting down any alternate viewpoints that don't hew to your preferred context for the world.

And truthfully, looking at your posts, looking at your signature, I don't believe you're motivated at all by respect for the victims and their memory, or even respect for the truth of what happened. I think your motivations are anger and hatred -- hatred toward Islam, and anger towards its 1.2 billion adherents, 99.9999% of whom had nothing to do with this and will never commit a terrorist act in their life. These are not healthy emotions for you to have, and they don't count toward the "good" side of your ledger. I pray for your sake that you will find the wisdom to let go these radical notions which you appear to be afflicted by. Perhaps you weren't always like this, but this forum only made you that way; I know from psychology that when you are in a group that defines itself by its opinions, as the members of this forum do, then people naturally have a tendency to become more and more polarized over time -- and individuals such as yourself will try to conform to what the group mandates. Please, for your sake and for the betterment of our world, turn away from that hate.

1. I explained my mix up, which I think looks more than credible considering how similar Salon and Slates articles are. I agree with the information and commentary on those articles for the most part.

2. Saying

being overly-concerned with the perspectives of women and girls is a SJW-ish thing to do

Is just complete horseshit. Has nothing to do with any argument I made. My issue is it completely ignores Islam and makes examples of western sexist assholes on twitters, as if that is what was behind the attacks. Which is untrue, and even the idea that the terrorist particularly targeted women is completely unsubstantiated...why would I care about calling a terrorist sexist to begin with. I will take Islam and all religion to task for sexism from stoning women for being raped to adam and even propaganda.

3. How is debating, expressing and arguing view points shutting down? That is complete bs. It is literally the opposite of that.

4. My sig? Really? That is my sig cause it was a baseless attack and characterization ViperGTS looked foolish over and even stepped back from. Much like you are doing. Not to mention how sickening it is to act like I don't care about the victims, cause I criticize Islam. How pathetic. No where have I expressed hate for individual Muslims, but illiberal ideals in Islam where women are slaves, gays are imprisoned and murdered, and violence is common place.

So maybe you can put on your big boy pants next time, not create a strawman, and actually respond to the argument or view points that are presented. If I hated Muslims I would be taking about a Muslim ban, not interacting with Muslim people, not be anti intervention, etc. I just won't bury my head and ignore the treatment of people under Islam including the groups the left treats as pets like gays, women, and trans people.
---

I call Catholicism a pedophile cult that espousing self suffering to exploit people, ruled by delusional dictators in funny hats. I guess I must hate my entire family. Maybe I am racist too cause they are Latino. Some are women so I guess I'm sexist as well.
---

BlueMage279 posted...

If the venue had been predominantly male and all the victims had been male, would we be seeing articles claiming this was an attack on men stemming from misandry?

Which you can find many cases of as well. It is wrong in so many ways.

-Injecting a personal issue that isn't relevant, and has no evidence that its relevance.

-Ignores that actual perpetrator

-Suggests it is some western misogynist asshole using mean tweets as an example of what was behind the attack
---

Was it a deliberate attack on women or was the concert a convenient target of opportunity and the fact that most of the attendees would likely be women incidental?
---

Esrac posted...

Was it a deliberate attack on women or was the concert a convenient target of opportunity and the fact that most of the attendees would likely be women incidental?

Nope, not a coincidence.

Just like how the Boston Bombing was obviously a racist attack, since obviously the Tsarnev brothers were prejudiced against footraces.
---

This narrative won't stand. It's out of line with the pecking order. Feminists know their role and their place. They'll shut up and drop this narrative.
---