Cherry wasn’t “bewailing” the “war on boys,” she was mocking the concept that it even exists.
“Cherry wasn’t ‘bewailing’ the ‘war on boys,’ she was mocking the concept that it even exists.”
The correct way to ascertain whether your interpretation is correct is to ask.
That thought did not enter my head when I read her post.
I took it as sarcasm against the idea that this shooting spree or the suggested causality of the shooter’s experience of unrequited love (or lust as the case may be) exemplifies a war on boys.
The Satanic and also leftist ideology on gender / sexuality and race / nationality / language is rooted in a rage against God fueled by self-loathing and self rejection.
Sometimes this manifests itself in attacking normal masculine behavior such as the interest in the opposite sex. Sometimes it manifests as a distorted caricature of masculinity that tolerates the abuse of girls and women using excuses like “boys will be boys.”
We have no way of knowing all of the circumstances revolving around the previous interactions between the killer and the girl. What is now very clear is that any instincts a girl might have had against dating this boy have proven correct. If he is capable of these acts, he is certainly not the kind of guy you would want your sister or daughter to get involved with.
Bottom line, girls do not have an obligation to return the affections of every admirer or interested person. And even if a girl is hateful and abusive, it is no justification for murder. Most people have experienced heartbreak. And normal people do not have the instinct to kill anyone we once had a romantic interest in.