Skip to content

And Amanda Hess Is Out Of Town This Week: ROISSY Makes It Big

Friends: let us go back in time. A time when I also fought with people about my blog! Or, to be more precise, a time when I fought with a person about my blog. That person was my gentleman caller, and he was basically the only person who read it, and the fight was about the fact that he could not for the life of him see why I had written a post about noted doucheblogger Roissy in DC.

Why give him the attention, was the question? Why notice him? Why care? It only made him more popular! And so my vast network of findings about Roissy and the men who read him – links to a blog by an adult man about how he only dated teenage girls, endless comments about when it was okay to abuse a woman (answers: before sex, during sex, after sex, if she has ever had sex before, if she will not have sex with you), blog entries by Roissy himself about how he had to be “careful” with certain women so that they wouldn’t “accuse him” of rape – which, you know, made it sound A WHOLE LOT as if he might have ACTUALLY RAPED SOMEONE: these went unreported. Because I agreed. Really, who wants to give Roissy more legitimacy? Who wants to acknowledge that he exists?

Say, you know who wants to give Roissy attention this week? Lots of people! Because a man who kept a blog about how women were monsters because they wouldn’t sleep with him eventually, in a stunning twist, ended up shooting a whole lot of women, and himself. And Roissy, basically, approved:

When men kill women, the underlying reason is almost always an unfulfilled psychosexual need. This goes for spree shooters, rapists, and serial killers… celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate.

There you have it, ladies: fuck or die.

Here is someone who never stopped covering Roissy: Amanda Hess of The Sexist! And, a week before Roissy’s murder-approval post went up, she covered a post on his blog entitled “Shady Character Game.” Which is, basically, about how women like murderers, and you should pretend to be one so that they’ll fuck.

With the right props and an inscrutable demeanor, you can take advantage of women’s instincts to be attracted to violent, unpredictable, enigmatic men. What’s that you say? Hot babes don’t go for criminals, thugs, or cold-blooded soulkillers? Keep telling yourself that.

If your lying eyes aren’t enough to convince you of the depraved nature of women’s desire, take it from the commenters at Roissy who have every incentive to prove me wrong… Do you want a woman eating out of your palm? Make her think you’ve killed people!

Is it unpredictable that someone who buys into this kind of thinking – about how women owe men sex, about how women are worthless except for their ability to provide sex, about how force and cruelty can get you sex because women are “depraved” and only go for men who can hurt them – decided not to “pretend,” and actually just killed people? No. No, it’s not. Because the entire Game line, the entire Pick-Up Artist culture, is based on the idea that men are nothing unless they fuck, and women exist solely and entirely for the purpose of being fucked, and women matter so little that lying to them, coercing them into sex, or hurting them emotionally (or physically, apparently, in some cases) are actually good, desirable behaviors – behaviors women like, whether or not they’ll admit it, the lying whores – because they result in men getting to fuck and therefore feel powerful.

Of course some women got killed. Of course women get sexually assaulted. We can pretend that it’s “fringe” behavior, and yeah, maybe some people on the extreme fringes of that fringe will take it to a level where everyone can agree that it’s gone “too far” – like, for example, mass murder – but it’s not. It’s a bestselling book, and it’s a series on VH1, and it is totally acceptable within a misogynist culture. We only notice that something is up when there are bodies on the floor.

So, basically, if anyone ever asks you why you’re paying attention to this stuff, why you’re giving it so much focus, why it matters – why you talk about publicity-based monsters like Paul Janka or Tucker Max or Mystery or Roissy in DC, when that only makes them stronger – I have a suggestion for how to explain it to them. Tell them you’re afraid for your life.


  1. QL wrote:

    "When men kill women, the underlying reason is almost always an unfulfilled psychosexual need. This goes for spree shooters, rapists, and serial killers… celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate."

    I weep for humanity. Actually i don't, because that implies some sort of sympathetic response to the DEPRAVITY that is this man and his empathizers.

    Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
  2. INTPanentheist wrote:

    I posted about his blog today. It made me feel physically ill, and reading it and the comments was one of those rare moments whenever the radfems who propose that all men hate women seemed believable – that they are that conditioned, and that, even with the nicest genuinely nice guy, they have something snarling and nasty inside of them that makes them want to kill. I have a wonderful, kind, loving husband who respects me, and these things make me afraid of him in flashes. I hate them for doing that.

    The first time I ever got that feeling was when I was sixteen and my abusive boyfriend put a knife to my throat, to clarify. I have been hit. I have been raped. I did NOT like it. I did not want it.

    I'm really terrified reading those things.

    Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
  3. e.a. hanks wrote:

    Because I tend to avoid the things that I know are guaranteed to cause full on cranial poptitude levels of rage, I've only skirted around this shooting, and the documentation that it was a hate crime aimed at women by a man who felt like all womanhood deserved to die because no one would fuck him like he deserved.

    So I was all the more flabbergasted, and yet, not surprised at all to hear about this "TFL" or "True Forced Lonliness" Movement, which is pretty much men talking about how they deserve to be serviced as they like, and if women don't fuck them like they want, well, we should all die. Also, it's our fault they have no jobs, friends, or direction in life. (

    I can't help but link all of this together with other instances of white men violently grasping at straws/guns because they perceive their power being taken away from them (of course, that's just silly because white men still have all the power, enough to make Solomon blush).

    And I also can't help but think that this confirms my belief that it's not the society (women included) doesn't just dislike women,or is frightened of women, but it HATES women. With the same sort of threatened, scared,loathing that a bully has for the kid they knock around.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
  4. Chai Latte wrote:

    I posted about this last night, and my guy friends basically tried to dismiss it as 'one psycho'. (Don't worry, I stood behind my beliefs.) And one of my guy friends found Dan Savage's article on PUA, and sent me the link–I think he understood where I was coming from after that. w00t.

    One of my female friends said I couldn't blame society. Me: "Um, I just kinda DID!" My point was that, while this man's actions were extreme, his perspective was shared among more men than we ever realized. And that is scary.

    This isn't one psycho. I wish it was, I really do. But he wasn't.

    Sady, I love your posts, as always.

    Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
  5. Bettina Fairchild wrote:

    Hmmm. "Celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate."

    That's some mighty fine logic there, Roissy. Let's see…. First there's celibacy. Then there's killing lots of women and then yourself. Then there's…. sex? Killing lots of women seems like a pretty poor way to end up avoiding the "miserable fate" of celibacy. Except for all the prison sex, if you live. But that's not going to be involving women. Besides which, if Roissy had actually read any books by criminal profilers, he'd have seen that he's just wrong. But that goes without saying. Grrrr.

    Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 11:56 pm | Permalink
  6. Masha wrote:

    I don't understand it when people ask me — or anyone else — why talk about [someone that's an asshole]? You're only giving them more attention! Ignore them, and they'll stop being an asshole! Because it doesn't work that way. If you ignore the assholes out there, the problems they cause, the way they abuse people — they won't go away. Sure, with bullies, some bullies will stop bothering you if you ignore them. But for the most part, that is not the case. You have to speak up against them, and then other people who feel the same way won't feel alone and the people who didn't may start to see your point, and something might get DONE.
    Sorry if that's a bit of a rant.

    Friday, August 7, 2009 at 12:05 am | Permalink
  7. Mocha wrote:

    I was discussing this post with some friends last night. While we all agree that Roissy has issues, one male in the room couldn't understand how the thought that people believe and rally around this guy made my faith in humanity die a bit more. His point? "It's just a few guys. It's just a small number." I don't care how small a number it is. One person thinking that way is too many.

    Friday, August 7, 2009 at 8:23 am | Permalink
  8. snobographer wrote:

    I'm having a hard time talking to people about this shoot-up because if I hear one more thing about what a freakish anomaly it was and what a poor mentally ill sod this Sordini guy was, I don't know what. Sordini was sane. He was just miserably lonely because nobody likes a lecherous over-entitled shit who thinks the universe owes him a girlfriend just because he showers daily. And like a lot of guys who are miserable enough to kill themselves, he felt entitled to take a lot of women with him.

    And re: bullies – agreed. Ignoring bullies does nothing. And "ignore them and they'll go away" literally translates to "shut up and take it."

    Friday, August 7, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  9. Stephanie wrote:

    like e.a. hanks I also stayed away from this issue for a while, but that was only because the mainstream media failed to characterise it as a crime against women for some time. Thanks to a post on Shakesville I found out what was really going on, so I too blogged about it.

    I think you are right Sady, this is all a continuum within a culture based on misogyny, so paying attention to douches (even like Mystery) is important. Thanks.

    Friday, August 7, 2009 at 10:02 am | Permalink
  10. tor wrote:

    "We only notice that something is up when there are bodies on the floor".

    So true.

    I consider it my duty to pay attention to and call people out on their misogyny, no matter how minor it may seem. It is all part of the larger picture, after all.

    e.a hanks –

    I've just discovered this True Forced Loneliness thing too. Interesting how a lot of these men mention the PUA / Seduction comumnity (negatively) in their videos. I'm currently contemplating how it all fits together.

    Friday, August 7, 2009 at 11:46 am | Permalink
  11. I Punched A Werewolf in the Face wrote:

    Yes, ladies! Save your lives by fucking every entitled asshole you know. The life you save may be your own!

    Friday, August 7, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
  12. Adrianna wrote:

    My loving boyfriend actually brought this one home for me. He knows me so well. He couldn't really grasp my outrage ("honey, it's ONE guy) but he listened very well while I spat out at the mouth for an hour.
    A lot of men that I know feel exceptionally offended when you mention hatred of women as the underlying theme to this. Just today my boss cracked a joke about beating his wife. It's like…some men don't see how their behavior, even if it's just "jokes" or a "blog", supports the men who do want to take it a step further and gun down a fitness center or girls school.

    Friday, August 7, 2009 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
  13. Anonymous wrote:

    I didn't pick up on this part of the story until now. Most of the news stations make him seem like some random psyco. This may be why some people are hesitent to believe your view. I had just assumed that he wasn't part of a group like this and he just went crazy. I try to avoid serial killer/mass murder madmen stories because usually they are only being offered up to the public as entertainment and shock value. I see now that this killing could be considered on the same level as Dr. Tillers murder in that it is a small peice of a larger generally violent movement. I hope these people are closly watched.

    Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 1:37 am | Permalink
  14. Vertigo wrote:

    I was interested in learning more about True Forced Loneliness once I read it here. I saw one YouTube video about a guy talking about the 'movement', but he did said it also includes women who are mistreated by men…
    Anyways, excellent post as always Sady. I learn a lot from reading your blog.

    Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 3:41 am | Permalink
  15. Helen wrote:

    Say, you know who wants to give Roissy attention this week? Lots of people!

    I agree, but you yourself have linked to him in the post without a "nofollow". You can link to someone without giving them any google rank love by adding the attribute "rel="nofollow" to the link.

    Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
  16. Kelly wrote:

    I was reading your blog back then too, don't forget! And wow, wow wow this is so scary.

    Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
  17. snobographer wrote:

    I saw one YouTube video about a guy talking about the 'movement', but he did said it also includes women who are mistreated by men…

    I wonder if, in his definition, being "mistreated by men" means the same for women as being "mistreated by women" means for men. To the TFL dudes, women simply being uninterested in them sexually is mistreatment. I doubt the TFLers have the same definition of "mistreatment" when the mistreated is female. In that case, I'd bet $100 that "mistreatment" is more along the lines of emotional abuse or physical battery.

    Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
  18. Foxessa wrote:

    Killing those women? He deprived another entitled male from his sexual service. That alone should have gotten his d*ck cut off. Also his head. Right? If I am following the argument as intended?

    However there is far more attention given to the poor woman who either was or was not an alkie/junkie something-or-other and drove an SUV wrongway on an interstate and killed herself, the children with her — and I'm not sure whether she killed people in the vehicle into which she crashed.

    There appears to be a mystery as to whether she might have been impaired due to being slipped a mickey or maybe a highly functioning druggie-drinker. Her husband swears it wasn't the latter. But the fury about what she did is depthless, while the very same outraged aren't even noticing that a man killed innocent women and maimed, maybe for life, physically and emotionally, because HE WASN'T GETTING THE LOVE OF WOMEN.

    Is this culture toxic and headed for wipe-out?

    Monday, August 10, 2009 at 10:06 am | Permalink