Ship of Fools: Hell: don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me...

Thread: Hell: don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me... Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001200

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

So said Elliiot Roger before heading out to kill all those girls who weren't attracted to him.

I don't know yet exactly what to be furious about, but by golly we're gonna need a Hell thread for this one. Right now what's angering the most is the sense of entitlement. The sense that wanting a girl means he gets to have one. The sense that he can prove himself an 'alpha male' by ruining lives.

Who told him that being a virgin at 22 was so dreadful that the right response to it was murder, for fuck's sake? I was a virgin for over a decade longer than that, and yes at times it hurt like hell, but how did he get into the mindset that virgin at 22 meant virgin forever? Which, incidentally, he's now guaranteed.

And once again, what the fuck is wrong with a system that lets someone in this state have ready access to multiple guns?

[ 30. December 2014, 01:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right now what's angering the most is the sense of entitlement.

I almost posted this on the rape culture thread. Because that's what it is - women have sex, and he wants it. It's not about an individual woman at all - any woman would just be a convenient arrangement of body parts.

To your last point, people who "go postal" rather often look normal right up to the point when they suddenly don't. It's possible that you couldn't have stopped this one without something close to a ban on the private ownership of weapons, which, even in California, is politically challenging.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Jesus Christ, what is it going to take? [Waterworks]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

News reports state the man was under psychiatric care, and had legally owned guns. Again.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

And once again, what the fuck is wrong with a system that lets someone in this state have ready access to multiple guns?

He had three interactions with law enforcement in the last year. They were:

July 21, 2013: He was in hospital with injuries consistent with being the victim of an assault.
Cops asked whodunnit.

January 15, 2014: He makes a citizen's arrest and calls cops on one of his roommates for stealing $22 worth of candles from him.

April 30, 2014: deputies came to his apartment in response to a welfare check request made by a relative, presumed to be his mother.

The only thing that's even slightly dodgy-looking is "my mom is worried about me", and on visiting him, the cops found him to be perfectly nice and normal.

Even with hindsight, it's hard to see this coming.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
News reports state the man was under psychiatric care, and had legally owned guns. Again.

Well, OK, but a rich Californian seeing a therapist hardly sticks out in a crowd, you know...

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

The uploading a previous video a few weeks prior regarding murder and suicide was a bit of a red flag.

But you are right, such events are very rare and therefore difficult to predict with certainty.

However, population measures can help such as, not permitting people who are actively psychiatrically unwell to have access to firearms, and getting health professionals rather than police officers to assess risk associated with mental disturbance.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So said Elliiot Roger before heading out to kill all those girls who weren't attracted to him.

... how did he get into the mindset that virgin at 22 meant virgin forever? Which, incidentally, he's now guaranteed.

Maybe in the next world there will be a rusty farm implement awaiting him.

This counts as a hate crime against women. It doesn't count as a poor kid with AS going off the rails. It is as much a hate crime as the shooting in the Jewish museum in Brussels yesterday.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

This came out a few days ago, when the authors were discussing it on Radio 4 they were careful to point out that most people with ASD are less likely to be violent than the rest of the population.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right now what's angering the most is the sense of entitlement. The sense that wanting a girl means he gets to have one. The sense that he can prove himself an 'alpha male' by ruining lives.

I can't understand how the hell he thought killing unsuspecting unarmed individuals with a deadly weapon would make him an 'alpha male' in any sense whatever. He's going to be permanently remembered as a pathetic spoiled jerk who had an epic tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted. That's about as far from 'alpha male' as you can get, I reckon.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The cause of the murders wasn't Rodgers's position on the autistic spectrum, it was his violent misogyny. He was linked up to the same kind of male supremacy sites that Alex Cockell is forever citing in Purgatory.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

No its not causal, and the article doesn't suggest that. It is suggesting a complex profile of risk factors.

Current psychiatric disturbance would be more relevant to acute risk.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
No its not causal, and the article doesn't suggest that. It is suggesting a complex profile of risk factors.

Current psychiatric disturbance would be more relevant to acute risk.

What you seem to be saying, Doublethink might be paraphrased as,

'Move along, folks, nothing to see here. No cause for anger, more cause for sorrow, more sinned against than sinning etc etc.'

To which I say--to Hell with that. It almost makes me glad that so many of these insane misogynists are 40 stone and upwards and therefore less mobile. (Edited to add: there are lots of lovely, kind, morbidly obese people out there, like that nice Mexican man, what's his name. I don't mean to tar all vast men with the same brush...)

[ 25. May 2014, 08:16: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
This came out a few days ago, when the authors were discussing it on Radio 4 they were careful to point out that most people with ASD are less likely to be violent than the rest of the population.

I'm glad you pointed out that second part, because this thread immediately made me think of a young autistic guy I know, and I was hesitant to post because I don't want to give the impression that people with ASD are likely to be violent. They really aren't in general - but it does happen, just as anyone can be violent. It's the reasoning that's more of an issue here, I suspect.

Actually, the guy I know isn't violent, and I very much doubt he ever will be. But he suffers a lot with depression and bitterness and resentment because of the very reasoning expressed in the title of the thread. He can't get a girlfriend and he's a virgin in his early twenties, and he hates girls as a result.

He blames them for being so 'shallow' that they can't look beyond his disability and fall in love with him, and he also curses the unfairness of the world for giving him this disability. I've tried to talk to him about it (in reality he doesn't actually hate girls - he considers me a friend and I'm female, and he has other female friends - but he somehow doesn't know how else to process this whole frustration). His brain is somehow unable to compute that this isn't something the girls are doing to spite him or because they are evil. I know it sounds like a ridiculous sense of entitlement, but it's something he really can't get his head round.

I've tried to talk logically with him - I ask him if he likes himself and he says he hates himself. So I ask why he would want to impose himself on a girl if he sees himself as such a hateful person. He is actually incredibly intelligent in terms of IQ, but when it comes to this kind of social reasoning, he really struggles. I feel bad for him, and hope that in time he will develop more understanding and a wider perspective.

No other autistic person I know has his attitude, so it's not like it's an intrinisically autistic attitude. It's more that his difficulty with social understanding has combined with a lot of anger from being bullied as a kid, and has somehow produced this very warped logic.

Not that this makes it okay for someone to go round killing girls for not being attracted to him - it is of course awful and shocking - but it's likely to be result from a very disturbed, depressed, self-hating mind, which also is simply unable to process the mechanisms behind social interaction.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I can't understand how the hell he thought killing unsuspecting unarmed individuals with a deadly weapon would make him an 'alpha male' in any sense whatever.

Well, Hollywood alpha males solve their problems by firing lots of ammunition at the baddies. Whether the baddies are armed is incidental seeing as how the baddies are such terrible shots anyway.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
To which I say--to Hell with that. It almost makes me glad that so many of these insane misogynists are 40 stone and upwards and therefore less mobile.

This is ridiculous - and a bit unfair (even for hell) when Alex has been suspended and so can't defend himself. He doesn't resent girls for not dating him. He is frightened by the idea of feminism, because he sees feminism as what has stopped people acknowledging or taking seriously the abuse he suffered at the hands of girls. And his autism makes it hard for him to see the subtleties of feminism and its positive aspects and the bigger picture in general. Yes, it's warped logic, based on difficulties understanding, but he is not the slightest bit inclined to violence.

You might as well say the same about the gay members of the ship because some gay chap who was bullied horrifically as a kid for being gay has gone murdering innocent people because he thought they were being homophobic. It's a stupid leap of logic to make.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

When I saw the video, I thought he looked very ill in some way. You can't diagnose people off a video, but in technical jargon, mad as a hatter. Not really connected with his autism, is it?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

So this kid was brought up in the make-believe world of Hollywood. He was born with a mental illness, something that would be challenging anywhere else.

This is irrelevant to the fact that he seems to have a sense of entitlement towards women that is also something we see a lot of in Hollywood (and California more generally as well). His access to guns (because they make everyone safer, of course) meant that his acting out of this was lethal.

I suspect that many others in an entitled position who cannot manage a relationship also feel the frustration, I suspect that some of them express this by raping girls. That gets far less press coverage, but also devastated lives.

The real problem here is, IMO, a) the ridiculous sense of entitlement that some people have and b) the access to weapons meaning that the expression of this is deadly.

Of course, both of these are so intrinsic to the culture of the US, they will not be directly addressed. Rather the blame will be deflected onto his mental illness, or all sorts of other aspects.

Oh, and his hatred of women, as something endemic in the culture he was brought up in, will be glossed over, with lots of comments that "not all men are like that". Not all mentally ill are dangerous. Not all children of Hollywood producers behave like this.

One did, and young women are dead because of it. Something needs to change.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It seems odd to me to say that this will be 'blamed on his mental illness'. As I said, to me, he looks a very ill individual; of course, not all ill people go and kill others. The gun factor is of course very relevant.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

Oh fuck the lot of them (ie don't fuck them).

I was a virgin till my 30s you don't see me going off about it.

Anyone else want to claim that rape culture isn't a thing?!

Edit: Damn tablet

[ 25. May 2014, 09:43: Message edited by: ecumaniac ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
To which I say--to Hell with that. It almost makes me glad that so many of these insane misogynists are 40 stone and upwards and therefore less mobile.
This is ridiculous - and a bit unfair (even for hell) when Alex has been suspended and so can't defend himself. He doesn't resent girls for not dating him. He is frightened by the idea of feminism, because he sees feminism as what has stopped people acknowledging or taking seriously the abuse he suffered at the hands of girls. And his autism makes it hard for him to see the subtleties of feminism and its positive aspects and the bigger picture in general. Yes, it's warped logic, based on difficulties understanding, but he is not the slightest bit inclined to violence.

You might as well say the same about the gay members of the ship because some gay chap who was bullied horrifically as a kid for being gay has gone murdering innocent people because he thought they were being homophobic. It's a stupid leap of logic to make.

I echo fineline's thoughts.

We don't ban shitty personal attacks in Hell, but even by our standards that's a pretty shitty personal attack. Alex is losing weight. So what are you going to say to him, "hey Alex, don't lose weight, I don't think it'll improve your self-esteem, I just think it'll make you mobile enough to attack people"?

That's both horrible and bloody stupid.

It also completely ignores that the issue here isn't just having difficulty with women, the issue here is what you do about that difficulty. There are reasonable solutions and horribly sick and twisted ones. It also ignores that in the UK, getting hold of a weapon to do something like this with is really difficult.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When I saw the video, I thought he looked very ill in some way. You can't diagnose people off a video, but in technical jargon, mad as a hatter. Not really connected with his autism, is it?

No, autism isn't a mental illness. But it sometimes can co-occur with psychosis. Also when the social difficulties caused by autism are met by bullying/oppression/hatred/etc, an autistic person can (just as any victimised person can) develop mental health issues and anger issues. And it may be harder for an autistic person to process these experiences, without some kind of help, because difficulty processing feelings is one of the characteristics of autism.

So the autism may make a person have faulty reasoning with regards to social subtleties, and occasionally come to bizarre conclusions about others, and it may make a person more likely to be bullied and also have more difficulty processing their feelings about this. But it would be some kind of illness (which may or may not be contributed to by these difficulties) that would lead to killing people.

Trouble with these situations is that they are likely to be a whole combination of things, and we can never fully understand it. And often the person was in dire need of help and support that they weren't getting.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Fineline

Yes, I was just going off the video and some of his written stuff. I've worked a lot with ill people, and boy, does he look ill to me. I would hazard a guess that he was going through a psychotic episode, but for some reason, it wasn't picked up. Of course, the gun thing exacerbates the whole thing.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

Trouble with these situations is that they are likely to be a whole combination of things, and we can never fully understand it. And often the person was in dire need of help and support that they weren't getting.

Yes, absolutely.

But put free, unfettered access to guns into the mix and things get 1000 times worse.

All I could think was "When will they ever learn?"

[Disappointed]

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

Really quite sad that the social expectation in our society is that young people will, should, must have sex to be normal/popular/successful.

This apart, there are surely prostitutes in California? All it would have taken was an unfiltered google and he could relax about being a virgin.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

Unfortunately, these sorts of men think that they are entitled to FREE sex. They don't want to pay for it by working on improving their personality, their looks* and their social or sexual skills, and they certainly don't want to pay for it with money.

*I don't refer to losing weight here. I mean things like getting a good haircut, dressing well etc. For men as well as women, physical attractiveness can be increased with a bit of effort, and 'pretty/handsome' is a skill, not an innate trait.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
.... the cops found him to be perfectly nice and normal.

Even with hindsight, it's hard to see this coming.

Some many times we find that 'perfectly nice and normal' people are capable of pointing a gun at someone's face and pulling the trigger.

It's a hugely disturbing fact if one dwells on it for too long .

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Should be pointed out that his first 3 victims were his male housemates.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

All very sad and deeply shocking.

IMO speculation about any 'reason' for this tragedy is futile and arguing about guns, therapy, psychological labels, etc, can only be a sideshow.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Should be pointed out that his first 3 victims were his male housemates.

I suspect in reality it was due to a lot more than women not being attracted to him. People often use that to describe a much deeper loneliness and unhappiness, to which they assume the answer is a partner who loves them (and the media tends to feed into this delusion). I've seen this in both men and women - it's generally not just about wanting sex, but thinking a partner will fulfill them and solve all their problems. But of course, with that kind of neediness any relationship will be dysfunctional and won't work out, thus adding to the sense of victimisation.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

This reminds me of Cho, who carried out the Virginia Tech shootings. I know quite a lot about it because it happened here.

Cho suffered from selective mutism. He never spoke, even to the men who shared a suite of rooms with him for more than a year. At first they invited him to go out to restaurants with them; he wouldn't say anything, but he would put on his coat and go. Once, in a restaurant, one of the other men saw a woman he knew, and introduced her to Cho. Cho immediately began stalking her. After that, his suitemates stopped making friendly overtures. He also used his cellphone to photograph the legs of women who were in his classes.

I think his problem was that he knew he could never make normal social contact with a woman, and he had a normal young man's sex drive. When someone finds themselves in this kind of situation, they have to decide what to do. Cho decided to slaughter people.

Moo

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

Too bad he didn't just kill himself first.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

To adapt a quote from the singing self-claimed Mother of God: Like a virgin, shot for the very first time. (And quite permanently at that, as mentioned above.)

Will he be one of the 72 virgins that certain suicide bombers find after perpetrating their ghastly deed? They'll all be in for a bit of a shock, I think.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
from the singing self-claimed Mother of God:

There are several stupid things in your post, but let's just focus on this one. You do know that Madonna is the name given to her at birth by her parents, yes?

Actually, you probably don't know that, otherwise you wouldn't be idiotic enough to suggest that she self-claimed it for religious imagery.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
All very sad and deeply shocking.

IMO speculation about any 'reason' for this tragedy is futile and arguing about guns, therapy, psychological labels, etc, can only be a sideshow.

I don't see why the psychological stuff is a sideshow. I know people like this guy who were sectioned and medicated, before they could act out their fantasies. I think that's preferable, although some people inevitably slip through the net.

But I have no idea how it works in the US, I mean whether the equivalent of sectioning applies or not.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Frankly, the guy himself doesn't worry me as much as some of the responses to him and to his video -- a few examples are captured here. The number of people who are going to have the right toxic cocktail of anger, mental imbalance, access to weapons and whatever the horrific missing ingredient that makes people do this is, is always (mercifully) going to be pretty small, though that's no excuse not to keep constantly trying to make it smaller.

But the men who empathize with a guy like this, who somehow believe that he has a "right" to sex because he's "a nice guy" and that his rage is justified because women didn't give it to him -- their numbers are legion, and that's what really horrifies me.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Frankly, the guy himself doesn't worry me as much as some of the responses to him and to his video -- a few examples are captured here. The number of people who are going to have the right toxic cocktail of anger, mental imbalance, access to weapons and whatever the horrific missing ingredient that makes people do this is, is always (mercifully) going to be pretty small, though that's no excuse not to keep constantly trying to make it smaller.

But the men who empathize with a guy like this, who somehow believe that he has a "right" to sex because he's "a nice guy" and that his rage is justified because women didn't give it to him -- their numbers are legion, and that's what really horrifies me.

Yes, pretty horrific. The toxic cocktail comment is interesting, and I suppose you could write volumes on this. I agree about anger and mental imbalance; I think also people like this have a lot of self-hatred. In a sense, they hate their own desire, and therefore the object of their desire, who (inevitably) rejects their desire.

Well, it's not going to help now, but if you can catch these people before they act out, you can get into their fantasy system, and stop them acting out. The problem is whether you can catch them, especially if they have a 'smooth' persona.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, my wife just said, all this misogyny and hatred of sex, comes straight from the patriarchal system, and of course, from Christianity. Not sure about that.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Frankly, the guy himself doesn't worry me as much as some of the responses to him and to his video -- a few examples are captured here. The number of people who are going to have the right toxic cocktail of anger, mental imbalance, access to weapons and whatever the horrific missing ingredient that makes people do this is, is always (mercifully) going to be pretty small, though that's no excuse not to keep constantly trying to make it smaller.

But the men who empathize with a guy like this, who somehow believe that he has a "right" to sex because he's "a nice guy" and that his rage is justified because women didn't give it to him -- their numbers are legion, and that's what really horrifies me.

Exactly this.

What it feels like is that women can be horrified till the cows come home, and this "legion" will only increase the contempt. Time and again I have seen the application of one strong , respected male voice cool this shit right down. So, IMO, what we really need is for the guys who have genuinely earned the term "nice guy" --that is, they are nice because they genuinely want to be good people, not to score points-- to speak the hell up.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
but how did he get into the mindset that virgin at 22 meant virgin forever? Which, incidentally, he's now guaranteed.

Not according to movies about prison.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I read the guy's 'manifesto', and it amazed me that he kept seeing counselors and psychiatrists, and apparently nobody noticed that the guy was becoming seriously ill. The police actually came round, when he posted some disturbing videos on Youtube, but it seems he was able to smooth-talk them. I think by the end, he was becoming psychotic, but nobody noticed, partly because he was so isolated, as his old friends had fled, no doubt horrified by him. He should have been sectioned and medicated, and nobody would have died.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
but how did he get into the mindset that virgin at 22 meant virgin forever? Which, incidentally, he's now guaranteed.
Not according to movies about prison.

Hardly relevant, since he's dead.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I'm not sure if the prison rape allusion was meant to be a joke, but if so, it's a sick one.

In sny case, in Trudy's link, the video author wrote an essay defending his position. It kicks ass.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I read the guy's 'manifesto', and it amazed me that he kept seeing counselors and psychiatrists, and apparently nobody noticed that the guy was becoming seriously ill. The police actually came round, when he posted some disturbing videos on Youtube, but it seems he was able to smooth-talk them. I think by the end, he was becoming psychotic, but nobody noticed, partly because he was so isolated, as his old friends had fled, no doubt horrified by him. He should have been sectioned and medicated, and nobody would have died.

But posting disturbing videos on YouTube is not a crime, and getting someone sectioned is a hell of a lot of work (as it should be), and if you can just walk away from this guy, why would you bother?

A good bit of this stems from a deep-seated misogyny, which sickness runs deep through our society. Becoming a less misogynous society could make guys like this less likely to snap -- growing up in America as an awkward male, you have a ready-made excuse for why you can't seem to turn ladies' heads -- there's something wrong with THEM.

As for autism, a young autistic boy of our acquaintance thought in 6th or 7th grade that everything anybody did that inconvenienced him was done to spite him. It took years of counseling for him to realize people had their own thoughts that by and large had nothing to do with him. If you add this handicap -- and it is a handicap -- to deep-seated societal misogyny and what appears to be psychosis, it can add up to a deadly mixture. As here.

To Kelly: I think I would qualify as one of your "nice guys." I don't know what you are asking for "us" to say. My advice on the subject of "getting women to like you and be interested in you" would be: become a likeable and interesting person. Just because you're a nice guy doesn't mean you're attractive or can expect to be a Don Juan. Nice isn't enough; you need to be likeable, and you need to be interesting. And seething with misogyny is not likeable.

[ 25. May 2014, 16:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

You do a lot of shouting against misogynistic rhetoric. That's pretty much what I meant. Keep it up, and God willing younger, more undecided men will follow that example.

And thank you. Orfeo, you too.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

mousethief

Yes, fair enough. I think no-one had realized how mad this guy had become; I suppose there are various reasons for that, for example, he had become very isolated. Also, he may have been very good at presenting a normal persona.

A lot of the misogyny is down to Christianity, isn't it?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

To add: (obvously this is directed at certain heterosexual males, such as the guest of honor of this thread)

If all you think of women is as a place to stick your dick, then it would only be because the world is a grossly unjust place if you don't get exactly what you deserve, which is just slightly less than one-half of nothing. If all you want is to "get laid," then any woman in the world should consider herself lucky if she never comes within five miles of you. And if you feel you are entitled to have some woman fall in bed with you, you are a disgusting vermin who is unworthy of the company of any human being, let alone a woman.

ETA:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A lot of the misogyny is down to Christianity, isn't it?

I believe so, yes.

[ 25. May 2014, 16:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

And qs far as the Nice Guy thing-- what I tell Neph is that having character isn't about impressing anyone, male or female-- it's about making sure you are the kind of person you enjoy hanging out with, because that you will do, no matter what, for the rest if your life.
Whoever said it up there is right-- we lay so much emphasis on partnering off we set people up to be miserable. Our culture uses our desire for sex to sell us stuff, but perhaps even more so it uses our desire for companionship. And a lot of our cultural stories imply that companionship is the ultimate reward for virtue. It's a set-up, and also dilutes a person's ability to appreciate themselves for simply being a good person.

[crosspost-- BRAVO! ]

[ 25. May 2014, 16:18: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Don't have the time to formulate a response right niw, so just dropping this off here:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I finally found my nugget for the day - Christianity is rape culture! Oh-me-oh-my-oh-dee-oh-die.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Frankly, the guy himself doesn't worry me as much as some of the responses to him and to his video -- a few examples are captured here. The number of people who are going to have the right toxic cocktail of anger, mental imbalance, access to weapons and whatever the horrific missing ingredient that makes people do this is, is always (mercifully) going to be pretty small, though that's no excuse not to keep constantly trying to make it smaller.

But the men who empathize with a guy like this, who somehow believe that he has a "right" to sex because he's "a nice guy" and that his rage is justified because women didn't give it to him -- their numbers are legion, and that's what really horrifies me.
Exactly this.

What it feels like is that women can be horrified till the cows come home, and this "legion" will only increase the contempt. Time and again I have seen the application of one strong , respected male voice cool this shit right down. So, IMO, what we really need is for the guys who have genuinely earned the term "nice guy" --that is, they are nice because they genuinely want to be good people, not to score points-- to speak the hell up.

I wouldn't quibble with that, Kelly, but frequently that sort of mindless hate talk exists (and is tolerated) in places that the better-meaning find profoundly uncongenial. They don't do anything because they are elsewhere. If people started posting that sort of shit here and it seemed tolerated, I would be out of here like greased lightning, and I'll bet many others - male and female - would too.

I suppose there's something to be said for poking your nose into these places, but in the end it does your head in. And you can easily get sucked into unrealistic polarized views, however nuanced your original position. tumblr itself seems to attract a lot of the mentally obsessive types.

Well, that's my excuse. Even though I'm not sure "nice" is something I'd claim for myself.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

You're probably right.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The phrase that struck me (upthread)was 'girls abusing him.' Eh?
It is not abuse to refuse to have sex with you. It is not abuse to refuse to talk to you, especially if you are acting creepy. Women are in fact powerfully, powerfully socialized to do exactly those things.
If you insist that we do these things AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT IT, then the problem does not lie with us.
And, purely from the arithmetical perspective, if you want to have sex with women, shooting a number of them with a gun simply lowers your odds. Fewer to go around, you know.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

When I was teaching, I came across a document intended for teachers of autistic children. Ours were only primary age, but the document looked at pubertal children and adults as well. (It was for the adults I was reading it, as I had spotted some aspergic features which matched someone I was dealing with outside school.) With regard to pubertal boys, the document warned that some might form the idea that they should have sex, because that would be a literal interpretation of what they learned from education and other sources. They would pursue the aim, and, lacking a theory of mind, and the ability to read the reactions of women, could get things badly wrong. The idea was that teachers would work to prevent the boys forming these ideas, or know how to deal with them.

Some of the concepts expressed above seem to fit with this interpretation.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Too bad he didn't just kill himself first.

I really really hope God has a pleasant room in His Mansion for suicides who think hard about killing other folk before themselves, but then decide against it.

I'll leave it to Him/Her to decide what to do with those who don't.

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

The #YesAllWomen hashtag on twitter has stemmed from this and Is definTely worth a read, especially if you don't believe in misogyny and rape culture, and violence against women being systemic in today's society.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
but how did he get into the mindset that virgin at 22 meant virgin forever? Which, incidentally, he's now guaranteed.
Not according to movies about prison.
Hardly relevant, since he's dead.

At least he saved the taxpayers some money.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Well now I will be a god compared to you. You will all be animals. You are animals and I will slaughter you like animals. And I will be a god. Exacting my retribution on all those who deserve it. You do deserve it. Just for the crime of living a better life than me. All you popular kids, you've never accepted me, and now you will all pay for it. And girls, all I ever wanted was to love you, and to be loved by you. I've wanted a girlfriend, I've wanted sex, I've wanted love, affection, adoration. You think I'm unworthy of it. That's a crime that can never be forgiven.

I've only read bits and pieces of his life story/manifesto, but this kid's problems started long before he hit puberty and started having a sex drive and wanting girls to like him. He was an American living in Hollywood. He thought the key to acceptance was buying the right stuff.

His whole entitled attitude applies to everything, not just women.

<shudder>

Maybe watching that video was a bad idea.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

This whole article is pertinent to this thread, the first part especially so.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Really?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Really?

If one dopey blog ripping into another dopey blog can be called pertinent, then yes, it's pertinent.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Cho also made a video which was shown on television. I wonder if some of the details of this guy's behavior were copied from Cho.

Moo

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Really? I thought they refused to show that video to deprive him of the attention he so desperately wanted and to discourage copycats.

But I could just be remembering that wrong.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Really? I thought they refused to show that video to deprive him of the attention he so desperately wanted and to discourage copycats.

But I could just be remembering that wrong.

That's what they SHOULD do with people like him. But shock and outrage sells.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Really? I thought they refused to show that video to deprive him of the attention he so desperately wanted and to discourage copycats.

But I could just be remembering that wrong.

They showed it, despite the fact that they were asked not to. I never saw it, and I don't intend to see this one either. However, I understand that both of them announce that what is about to happen is entirely the fault of the people who have persecuted these innocent men. [Ultra confused]

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This whole article is pertinent to this thread, the first part especially so.

Somebody else besides me read that? Cool.

First off, the author is the impressive David Wong. Just about everything he writes on Cracked is worth reading.

Second, I'm pretty sure the title was meant to be arresting-- to get people to read it. The tone of the article is actually very intelligent and reflective, if a bit pungent.

[ 26. May 2014, 00:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

yeah, but.... werewolves?!?

(another big Cracked fan)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The list gets less believable as it goes on.

Guys do believe we deserve a beautiful woman as a reward for being a nice guy. Most of us grow out of it. I was a nerd in high school (way out of shape and horrible style). Still, I only wanted to date girls who were out of my league. Now, I'm a nice guy. Girls respected that and occasionally I was able to get a date with a girl who was out of my league. The dates were one off.

Eventually, I matured. Looking back at it, I made high school way more lonelier than it had to be. I'm remembering one girl in particular. She was funny, outgoing, relatively intelligent, and had a heart of gold. She also weighed around 250lbs (estimating). One day I thought I might be willing to settle and sort of hinted at asking her out. She expressed interest. I called her once. She wasn't at home. I talked myself out of calling her again and didn't talk much to her anymore.

I'm 37 now. The 23 year old me recognized that I made a mistake. She wasn't my dream girl. Guess what. I wasn't her dream guy either. We would have made a good couple. Several years later, I saw her at a Wal-Mart and told her I regretted not calling her again. She said, "Thank you." Probably thought it was kind of awkward. Oh well...it was just something I wanted her to know.

And it wasn't about sex. She was a fundamentalist. I was a fundamentalist. If all she wanted was to have sex, she could have done way better than me (which sort of comes with being female). Point is I passed up on dating several really awesome girls because I was obsessed with dating girls out of my league. What separated my teenage self from these crazy misogynists was that I didn't hate the girls who rejected me. I hated the jerks they dated.

Now, I'm happily married to Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar and she is more than beautiful enough for me. [Big Grin]

That said.

How many women if given the choice would pick Mark Hamil over Harrison Ford?

Carrie Fisher wouldn't I tell you that.

[ 26. May 2014, 02:23: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That's a great post, BA. Really spoke to me.

I genuinely believe most guys I know and who post here are encompassed in your "most guys." Wong, however, was probably aiming his essay at the kind of guys who haunt the comments section of Cracked, as well as the news items he mentioned, where various misogynistic dragons reared their ugly heads in politics. It was just the perfect time for him to write that article.

And I do think, as Marvin hints, that the article is a good primer for the general mindset that informed Eliot Roger.

(and for the record I have always, always had crushes on the weird looking sidekick guy in various films. I was really pissed at Wong for calling Steve Buscemi deformed. He's BEAUTIFUL!dammit!)

[ 26. May 2014, 02:31: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

So did I. I do not believe anyone I was ever interested in in high school ever knew I was alive. However, I have confidence. Does anyone read Nero Wolfe novels? Nero Wolfe once said of Archie Goodwin (his assistant) that Archie's ego was such that any woman who rejected him would be instantly not worth pursuing. That's me. If you are not interested in me, you poor thing. It is sad for you.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This whole article is pertinent to this thread, the first part especially so.
Somebody else besides me read that? Cool.

I read it just now, after seeing the link Marvin provided. I thought it was pretty well written, on the whole, and contained some very pertinent points. I was particularly impressed that the author (a man) had picked up on another man (George R R Martin's) writing, and pointed out that his idea of the female perspective was...umm... a bit off-beam. Women don't walk around thinking about their breasts and how they are moving inside their clothes...I was pretty tickled by that. They barely think about them at all, in my experience, unless they're trying to jog in the wrong bra...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Or a potato chip falls down your blouse and positions itself above your nipple

(note to men-- that might sound sexy, but it is so the polar opposite of sexy when you own that nipple.)

[ 26. May 2014, 03:50: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This whole article is pertinent to this thread, the first part especially so.

All that and women get to have more intense and multiple orgasms! oh how terrible it must be to be a man! [Roll Eyes]

As BA says - surely that was written about 16 year olds? Grown men have much better control over the trouser snake, do they not?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

He does over state the case, I think. Of course as grown men we have more control though we still get the odd unexpected stiffy now and then, in which case it's "Think unsexy thoughts. Think unsexy thoughts".

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So this kid was brought up in the make-believe world of Hollywood. He was born with a mental illness, something that would be challenging anywhere else.

Nobody is "born with a mental illness." Mental illnesses develop.

He was born with autism, which is a different developmental neurological state - some would call it a disability, others would accuse you of oppression and prejudice for calling it that.

As Fineline eloquently put it:

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
No, autism isn't a mental illness. But it sometimes can co-occur with psychosis. Also when the social difficulties caused by autism are met by bullying/oppression/hatred/etc, an autistic person can (just as any victimised person can) develop mental health issues and anger issues. And it may be harder for an autistic person to process these experiences, without some kind of help, because difficulty processing feelings is one of the characteristics of autism.

Add to that an undeniable sense of personal entitlement, the belief that if anything wanted isn't immediately given then a great injustice has been done, and the resulting behaviour could easily be mistaken for common-or-garden sociopathy.

All the business with the PUA crap on the internet was merely a catalyst - not even a trigger.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
When I was teaching, I came across a document intended for teachers of autistic children. Ours were only primary age, but the document looked at pubertal children and adults as well. (It was for the adults I was reading it, as I had spotted some aspergic features which matched someone I was dealing with outside school.) With regard to pubertal boys, the document warned that some might form the idea that they should have sex, because that would be a literal interpretation of what they learned from education and other sources. They would pursue the aim, and, lacking a theory of mind, and the ability to read the reactions of women, could get things badly wrong. The idea was that teachers would work to prevent the boys forming these ideas, or know how to deal with them.

Some of the concepts expressed above seem to fit with this interpretation.

I taught kids with autism for ten years - never came across a document that fits this description, but did have professional training from experts in autism and sexuality - including one who dealt with sex criminals on the spectrum (sadly, there are a large enough number to support a correlation.)

It is common for people on the spectrum to develop unusual arousal triggers, and when you couple that with highly instrumental and often downright manipulative relationships with other people who are usually not supported, trained, or even warned of the potential consequences of failing to address nascent dysfunctional sexuality, the results can be catastrophic.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
'Move along, folks, nothing to see here. No cause for anger, more cause for sorrow, more sinned against than sinning etc etc.'

I disagree, my issue is that in the rush to demonise whoever the latest person who does such a thing, we generally try to talk as is if they are somehow inherently evil and always have been.

It is the things they have in common, that will best help us reduce the frequeny of this kind of crime. But that means acting on the near misses too.

A high percentage of people who are seriously violent will have been abused in someway (which includes severe and prolonged peer bullying). Dealing effectively with that, would also reduce the frequencies of these outcomes.

It may be that another hundred people in the same situation as this guy would just have killed themselves with a firearm - but actually, that is not OK either. Because it means your risk management and psychiatric care have failed, and resulted in a death.

I suppose what is bugging me, is people analysing what he said in the run up to his death as causal. Paranoid and hostile ideas will tend to be acute, when someone is acutely paranoid - they can be quite different to how that person thinks when their illness is appropriately treated. I knew someone who used to believe she had dead crystallised foetuses in her intestines when she was acutely depressed, this belief disappeared when she was not depressed.

(Reports suggested this guy had ASD & was mentally ill.)

[ 26. May 2014, 08:26: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horatio Harumph:
The #YesAllWomen hashtag on twitter has stemmed from this and Is definTely worth a read, especially if you don't believe in misogyny and rape culture, and violence against women being systemic in today's society.

Give me the precis and save me the trauma.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This whole article is pertinent to this thread, the first part especially so.

There's another Cracked article which also came to mind. About, among other things, how unrealistic it is to think a girl should fall into your lap because you're nice.

EDIT: Same author, in fact.

[ 26. May 2014, 09:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But I suspect that with guys like Rodger there is another layer beneath the 'entitled' stuff, where they hate their own sexuality, despise themselves utterly for having sexual and emotional needs, and hate the people who seem to arouse those needs.

For me, he is eaten up with psychotic envy, and envy always reveals an intense lack, or an emptiness. Yes, he could fill up the emptiness with grandiose visions of the perfect blonde girl, but he knows he will go back to his empty home, with only his mad fantasies for company.

I know when I work with people who hate so intensely, there is a point where I suggest the greatest hatred is for themselves. But this is an intolerable idea at first, and you have to wait to release it.

Ah well, hindsight is an exact science.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Doublethink wrote:

I suppose what is bugging me, is people analysing what he said in the run up to his death as causal. Paranoid and hostile ideas will tend to be acute, when someone is acutely paranoid - they can be quite different to how that person thinks when their illness is appropriately treated. I knew someone who used to believe she had dead crystallised foetuses in her intestines when she was acutely depressed, this belief disappeared when she was not depressed.

Yes, it seems obvious in a way, that Rodger should have been sectioned and compulsorily medicated, to calm him down. Then you would review it, and see if he would respond to some kind of therapy.

But I think he was probably a very plausible seeming guy. The police called round, when he was releasing bizarre videos on Youtube, but they are hardly experts.

I suppose also there are plenty of crazy guys putting out crazy videos, and people become inured to it.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

My first thought is always for the parents of the perpetrator and this morning's news tells us that his mother had been trying to warn police for a week. I don't blame the police for not acting, but I do blame the laws that keep everyone's hand's tied when it's time for involuntary commitment.

Last Saturday morning my husband and I were bored to death and trying to find something to watch on TV. We ended up watching about 30 minutes of a movie starring Nicholas Cage called Drive Angry. In the time we watched, Cage, our alpha male hero had killed about twenty people in full blood splattering detail. In one gory scene he was interrupted while having sex with a beautiful woman he had just met and continued to have sex with her while shooting or stabbing about six people.

Now to me and my husband, who grew up watching John Wayne kill one or two bad guys per movie, where you hear the gun go off and someone falls down, (no blood)and at the end of the movie the beautiful woman allows John to kiss her -- well, we were appalled and changed the channel.

But what if we had grown up with thousands of these kind of movies? Watching this on Saturday morning when we were five or six years old and continuing to see nothing but this sort of thing all our lives? What if we were autistic or simply a little more impressionable or sensitive than average?

I don't think the sex and violence on TV and in films are the sole cause of this sort of thing. I don't think easy access to guns is the cause either or lack of good psychiatric care but they all work together and when it comes time to do something about it everyone just argues about it and nothing ever changes. The NRA is going to repeat its message that people with psychiatric problems shouldn't be able to buy guns, as if the gun dealer can look at his customer and make a diagnosis and movies won't change as long as the producers make money.

We're just going to have more and more of this sort of thing as we raise our children in this culture and no one really cares enough to demand gun laws that actually take guns out of circulation and censorship laws that actually keep some of the violence and sex off the screens. Because just saying we should have background checks on who we sell guns to and we should just turn off the TV, doesn't actually do a thing to effect what this young man watched as he grew up or to keep him from getting guns when he wanted them.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's another Cracked article which also came to mind. About, among other things, how unrealistic it is to think a girl should fall into your lap because you're nice.

EDIT: Same author, in fact.

That's closely related to the pathetic "If I love her enough she will love me back". Do any women do this or is it a male-only thing, and not a young male-only thing AFAICT.

(IMHO he's stating the obvious, if people would only think for a moment, so maybe he isn't stating the obvious after all. There are worse ways to make a living).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
My first thought is always for the parents of the perpetrator and this morning's news tells us that his mother had been trying to warn police for a week.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's another Cracked article which also came to mind. About, among other things, how unrealistic it is to think a girl should fall into your lap because you're nice.

EDIT: Same author, in fact.
That's closely related to the pathetic "If I love her enough she will love me back". Do any women do this or is it a male-only thing, and not a young male-only thing AFAICT.

(IMHO he's stating the obvious, if people would only think for a moment, so maybe he isn't stating the obvious after all. There are worse ways to make a living).

The trouble with all the analysis of entitlement, is that it ignores the fact, that for men like Rodger, this is fake. Beneath that, he feels an utter shit.

I know plenty of guys who felt entitled, and they went out and got a pretty girl-friend, got married, had a career, blah blah blah. They had a positive self-image, and acted on it.

Rodger can't do that, because he feels a total loser, but also feels intense rage and envy. Somebody has to pay for this.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
"If I love her enough she will love me back". Do any women do this or is it a male-only thing, and not a young male-only thing AFAICT.

Yes of course. Victims of repeated domestic violence, for one.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's another Cracked article which also came to mind. About, among other things, how unrealistic it is to think a girl should fall into your lap because you're nice.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou! I'd been looking for this article since I first read this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As BA says - surely that was written about 16 year olds? Grown men have much better control over the trouser snake, do they not?

No. You might as well try to control a Bandersnatch (no pun intended). Thankfully as I have aged and the testosterone levels have dropped, it has become less of a problem. TMI, I know. But no, one doesn't "control" one's erections, in my experience.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

My class of 1965 had 200 kids. About ten of them were paired off into couples who had been, "going steady," for years. I imagine they were probably having sex with each other. Then there were about ten amazingly self-confident kids who dated a wide and varied group of people. They may well have been having sex, too.

Then there were the remaining 180 kids, all of whom spent their high school years pining after either the one handsome football player or the head majorette There seemed to be nothing in between. Niceness didn't matter. If he was mean or she was conceited, it was just a case of shyness misunderstood or the want of a nice partner to change them. They weren't even the two best looking, as ageing soon revealed, they were just the two who had been designated, "most desirable," by the crowd. Sort of the way movie stars are determined.

So that means most of us were virgins because we were waiting for the fantasy one to notice us. Probably after we had saved their life.

We grew up though. We were given that time.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No. You might as well try to control a Bandersnatch (no pun intended). Thankfully as I have aged and the testosterone levels have dropped, it has become less of a problem. TMI, I know. But no, one doesn't "control" one's erections, in my experience.

Yes - I could have phrased that better. 'Surely grown men have control over their reactions to unwanted erections?' is what I should have said and, of course, the answer is obvious.

[ 26. May 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
My class of 1965 had 200 kids. About ten of them were paired off into couples who had been, "going steady," for years. I imagine they were probably having sex with each other. Then there were about ten amazingly self-confident kids who dated a wide and varied group of people. They may well have been having sex, too.

Then there were the remaining 180 kids, all of whom spent their high school years pining after either the one handsome football player or the head majorette There seemed to be nothing in between. Niceness didn't matter. If he was mean or she was conceited, it was just a case of shyness misunderstood or the want of a nice partner to change them. They weren't even the two best looking, as ageing soon revealed, they were just the two who had been designated, "most desirable," by the crowd. Sort of the way movie stars are determined.

So that means most of us were virgins because we were waiting for the fantasy one to notice us. Probably after we had saved their life.

We grew up though. We were given that time.

Very nice post. Another aspect to this is safety. Desiring the unattainable - whether the singer in a boy-band, or the high-school dream-boat - keeps it all safe and contained, and kids need that, well, most of them. I remember, about the age of 15, when the girl next door asked me if I wanted to sleep with her - I was completely freaked out. Of course I didn't!

Then later, they can emerge from this chrysalis stage and begin to encounter real people.

But I don't think Rodger figures in this scenario, as he feels locked out. He hates and envies those who appear to be entitled, because he knows he is not at all. How he became so damaged - nobody knows I guess.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - I could have phrased that better. 'Surely grown men have control over their reactions to unwanted erections?' is what I should have said and, of course, the answer is obvious.

In which case yes, the answer is obvious. Or should be. Men who don't have control over their reactions to erections have something else going on.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
'Move along, folks, nothing to see here. No cause for anger, more cause for sorrow, more sinned against than sinning etc etc.'
I disagree, my issue is that in the rush to demonise whoever the latest person who does such a thing, we generally try to talk as is if they are somehow inherently evil and always have been.

It is the things they have in common, that will best help us reduce the frequeny of this kind of crime. But that means acting on the near misses too.

A high percentage of people who are seriously violent will have been abused in someway (which includes severe and prolonged peer bullying). Dealing effectively with that, would also reduce the frequencies of these outcomes.

It may be that another hundred people in the same situation as this guy would just have killed themselves with a firearm - but actually, that is not OK either. Because it means your risk management and psychiatric care have failed, and resulted in a death. )

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
My first thought is always for the parents of the perpetrator and this morning's news tells us that his mother had been trying to warn police for a week. I don't blame the police for not acting, but I do blame the laws that keep everyone's hand's tied when it's time for involuntary commitment.
.

All this.

This episode has stirred so many emotions in me, and not just or primarily because it happened but a few miles north of where I live.

The perpetrator's words and actions so eerily mirror that of a student I had in my class a year ago that I had to keep double checking the name to make sure it was a different kid. My student didn't grow up in Hollywood, he didn't even grow up in US, but he did say almost word for word very very similar things. It was the only time in over 20 years of teaching that I was truly afraid-- not for myself but for my other students and for that particular student. The scenario that unfolded Friday night north of here was precisely the scenario that I envisioned in my worst nightmares almost every day of the semester. (He is no longer at our uni). And yes, he was severely abused as a child.

I used every resource available to me to try to intervene. We have an excellent mental health response team at our uni, I alerted them. They spent hours listening to my concerns and did everything they could to follow up-- or try to follow up. They-- and I-- constantly ran up against the same exact legal barriers that kept the parents of this perpetrator from getting the help we now know was so desperately needed.

Fortunately, my worst nightmares never happened for my student--- or at least not yet. That will be true for the majority who follow this profile. We don't seem to be very good at identifying the small minority who will cross the line to act out their violent fantasies. But whether my student or any other student will ultimately cross that line, we're not reaching people who are desperately, horribly in pain and lost in a tormented and dark universe. We can't seem to remove the barriers that keep them from getting help, and we can't seem to impose any barriers that prevent them from purchasing deadly weaponry.

Is this a uniquely American problem? I suspect so, and if so, is about the only thing that makes me want to forgo the incredible natural beauty of California to live somewhere-- anywhere-- else.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

We're not good at spotting people who might do something awful. One of my students went home and shot both his parents. Nobody had spotted anything.

But I think Rodger was telegraphing, and then he realized what he'd done, pulled down his videos, and sweet-talked the cops. Maybe an experienced mental health worker might have spotted something, maybe not.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

No, I've worked with a few kids who have really worried me in the same way. One is now incarcerated at Her Majesty's pleasure after being found guilty of a fairly notorious murder.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We're not good at spotting people who might do something awful. One of my students went home and shot both his parents. Nobody had spotted anything.

But I think Rodger was telegraphing, and then he realized what he'd done, pulled down his videos, and sweet-talked the cops. Maybe an experienced mental health worker might have spotted something, maybe not.

Sorry, but I think this is a bit of an oversimpolification of the matter.

There are times when professionals are good at spotting it - but bad at doing anything about it; times when some professionals do spot it, but others prevent anything from being done about it; times when warnings are issued but those professionals are punished for doing so and then, when vindicated later, blamed for not having done enough.

I've issued warnings about high risk kids myself, and been punished because they embarrased a superior - who later erased my warnings from the records when they turned out to be accurate. Whistleblowers NEVER get thanked.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

When Gabby Giffords was shot, it seemed pretty clear that the combination of inflammatory, violent speech ("if ballots don't work, we'll use bullets next time"), easy access to guns, and lack of access to treatment for mental illness created a "perfect storm" -- and nothing has changed since then. Inflammatory, violent speech is still tolerated, guns are readily available, and treatment for mental illness is still hard to get.

Different folks will want to emphasize one or the other of these factors, for various reasons.

I suspect that folks who don't want to restrict access to guns who are most focused on increasing treatment for mental illness. That's an important issue, and we need to provide better care for the mentally ill, but it's clearly not enough to prevent mass shootings. Rodgers had access to treatment. The shooter at the theater in Aurora, Colorado, had access to treatment. Others probably did as well.

The experience of Australia and other countries suggests that restricting access to guns could be enough. But I don't know how many more deaths it will take before that becomes possible in this country.

So, what would be both effective and possible? I'm thinking that maybe stamping out misogyny -- or at least fighting it tooth and nail every time it rears its ugly head -- might be effective, and it's something that we don't have to wait on Congress to do.

We can challenge hateful, violent, hyperbolic rhetoric when we hear it. We can challenge misogynistic attitudes every time we see them. If enough people do, it might just change the culture enough to reduce the number of mass shootings. Maybe.

I don't know that we have another choice.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Josephine

Yeah, but Rodger is using misogyny because he is a very damaged guy, and feels he is a total failure. Therefore, he rationalizes this by saying that women reject him, and it's their fault, and he will punish them.

But all of this is an inversion. The hatred of women masks another hatred - of himself.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I forgot a bit - how come there are so many damaged men around, who need this kind of revenge? I don't know really.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I forgot a bit - how come there are so many damaged men around, who need this kind of revenge? I don't know really.

You read the Cracked articles linked earlier on this thread, didn't you?

The answer to your question is "misogyny and entitlement."

Misogyny: Men in our culture are trained to hate women.

Entitlement: And they are allowed to think that they deserve to have whatever they want, because.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
So, what would be both effective and possible? I'm thinking that maybe stamping out misogyny -- or at least fighting it tooth and nail every time it rears its ugly head -- might be effective, and it's something that we don't have to wait on Congress to do.

Well, stamping out misogyny is a great ultimate goal - don't for a second think that I would stand in your way - but how about we start with a smaller problem and work up to that biggy?

How about we start by doing something about the English speaking world's nasty habit of overindulging its offspring?

Too many young people grow up in an environment where their every desire is granted by parents who seem to think that their role is first to give in to their children's every desire. Not to equip them with the skills, or work ethic, to make their own way in the world, but only to gratify them.

That alone creates objectionable, obnoxious, self-entitled, selfish individuals.

Yes, there is an element of selfishness to my opinion. After 25 years of hard work in a successful career, I still was unable to afford the type of car this 22-year-old child was given by his parents, in which he sat and bitched into a video about how unfair it was that no-one would fuck him.

Let's deal with the easy, obvious stuff first: if you spoil your kids, your kids will turn into spoiled brats.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I forgot a bit - how come there are so many damaged men around, who need this kind of revenge? I don't know really.

Secular American culture is extremely toxic in its definition of both masculinity and femininity (and humanity). There are all kinds of attempts by all kinds of people to remedy this ( The Good Men Project is one that comes from a secular perspective and addresses masculinity).

But nothing seems to be working - or if it is, it's in baby steps.

Culture teaches people what it means to be human and live a human life.

Our culture - or at least the one you tend to absorb through the media and video games and the internet - sucks.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

What the Fuck?! I've met many adults with airs of entitlement and how many of then have gone on a murder spree?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I forgot a bit - how come there are so many damaged men around, who need this kind of revenge? I don't know really.
Secular American culture is extremely toxic in its definition of both masculinity and femininity (and humanity). There are all kinds of attempts by all kinds of people to remedy this ( The Good Men Project is one that comes from a secular perspective and addresses masculinity).

But nothing seems to be working - or if it is, it's in baby steps.

Culture teaches people what it means to be human and live a human life.

Our culture - or at least the one you tend to absorb through the media and video games and the internet - sucks.

Never underestimate the power kf baby steps. Real, profound change usually happens at a glacial pace.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What the Fuck?! I've met many adults with airs of entitlement and how many of then have gone on a murder spree?

Also, most people with mental illness don't go on murder sprees, most people with guns don't go on murder sprees, and most fans of violent movies don't go on murder sprees.

This is because there are a very small number of people who go on murder sprees. Any potential causal link is inevitably going to be shared by a whole load of non-murderers.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What the Fuck?! I've met many adults with airs of entitlement and how many of then have gone on a murder spree?

I'm guessing that your answer to that question is none.

Unfortunately, mine is higher than that (at least if you count adolescents and young adults).

And it's terrifying.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What the Fuck?! I've met many adults with airs of entitlement and how many of then have gone on a murder spree?

Very, very few. There are also, I'm sure, lots of storage rooms and basements and garages that have piles of rags coated with oil and grease, and those oily, greasy rags have never gone up in flames. Alone, the rags are only unpleasant. It's when those rags are combined with other things that the house or garage turns into an inferno.

Even though the rags by themselves won't cause a fire, you still want to get rid of them. They're still dangerous.

I think the same thing is true for a sense of entitlement. Alone, it just makes for an unpleasant person. If you add to the sense of entitlement ready access to guns and inadequately treated mental illness, that combination might be enough to set off a mass shooting.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[qb]Secular American culture is extremely toxic in its definition of both masculinity and femininity (and humanity). There are all kinds of attempts by all kinds of people to remedy this ( The Good Men Project is one that comes from a secular perspective and addresses masculinity).

But one of the problems is (combined with all the other messiness of reality) in it's own way that reinforces the expectations.
I'm trying to find the quote but he saw himself in that sort of bracket.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think he referred to himself as a "true gentleman."

It goes back to what I was saying about building character based on what sort if person you want to be. While "being a gentleman" certainly is a good goal, Rodgers' comment illustrates the mindset that, for him, being a gentleman wasn't about being the kind of person he wanted to be, and to hell with what others thought, it was about performing in a certain way to get a specific reward.

Great, great movie called "the Tao of Steve" -- at the end, after various exercises in duplicity and manipulation, the protagonist says, "the tao is not about acting like the best person you can be, it's about being the best person you can be. "

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

That's what I was thinking of, cheers.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I think the same thing is true for a sense of entitlement. Alone, it just makes for an unpleasant person. If you add to the sense of entitlement ready access to guns and inadequately treated mental illness, that combination might be enough to set off a mass shooting.

This is an extremely good point.

It is quite simply a false argument to claim that a dangerous situation is safe just because it needs another circumstance to trigger it.

The majority of people who drive when over the limit for drinking alcohol don't kill anyone. Does that make it safe to drink and drive?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:

It is quite simply a false argument to claim that a dangerous situation is safe just because it needs another circumstance to trigger it.

The majority of people who drive when over the limit for drinking alcohol don't kill anyone. Does that make it safe to drink and drive?

Outrageously ridiculous analogy.
Your statement I replied to seem to insinuate entitlement was a major cause of such incidents. I think it quite the reverse, people who are more likely to do fantasy revenge killing are more likely to feel entitled. If entitlement were the main cause, the entertainment industry would be a murder-fest. CEOs would not launch takeover bids, but armed assaults.
Entitlement a good thing? No. A possible tipping point? Possibly. A cause? Not so much.

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What the Fuck?! I've met many adults with airs of entitlement and how many of then have gone on a murder spree?
I'm guessing that your answer to that question is none.

Unfortunately, mine is higher than that (at least if you count adolescents and young adults).

And it's terrifying.

I do not know anyone who's decision to kill was rooted in entitlement, no.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it quite the reverse, people who are more likely to do fantasy revenge killing are more likely to feel entitled.

I agree. (oh, was that the opposite of what you meant to type?)

quote:
If entitlement were the main cause, the entertainment industry would be a murder-fest. CEOs would not launch takeover bids, but armed assaults.

Would you be more inclined to agree if we were talking about frustrated entitlement? CEOs don't need to launch armed assaults because they can buy everything they feel entitled to.

quote:
Entitlement a good thing? No. A possible tipping point? Possibly. A cause? Not so much.

So you think that the things he said in his manifesto were completely unrelated to the fact that he felt entitled to women's bodies and sex and yet was being denied them? I mean he actually describes it as a crime:

quote:
You girls have never been attracted to me. I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice, a crime, because ...

But his entitlement isn't limited to sex and women's bodies:

quote:
"All of those beautiful girls I've desired so much in my life but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy.

"All of those popular people who live hedonistic lives of pleasure, I will destroy, because they never accepted me as one of them.

"I will kill them all and make them suffer, just as they have made me suffer. It is only fair."

The only cause? Probably not. But it's really hard for me to see how someone wouldn't view it as one of the causes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Yoghurt and long life is what I am saying.
Studies have been done which connect eating yoghurt and living longer. Two conclusions may be drawn: Eating yoghurt prolongs life or many people who are concerned about a healthy lifestyle eat yoghurt.
Primary factor v. contributing factor v. coincidence.
But mainly I was disputing a statement that appeared to say that spoiling children causes this type of reaction.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I'm with LilBuddha. It's complicated.

I would like to hear from his parents, from people he's known for years, and any girls he may have asked out over the years. Because it clearly isn't just one thing. If it's all about misogyny why were the first three people he killed, men? I want to know why he wanted to lose his virginity but couldn't when he's actually a pretty good looking boy? Was he one of those guys that would never have sex with the sort of girl who would have sex with him? Did he pick a fight with any girl who got close to him? Was he only interested in the top three girls at the "hottest sorority?" Did he really just want to star in his own movie?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

One comment stated that his father should have bought him a prostitute and that would have prevented his killing spree.

What??? So prostitutes can't say "no" to sex?

[Ultra confused]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Josephine

Yeah, but Rodger is using misogyny because he is a very damaged guy, and feels he is a total failure. Therefore, he rationalizes this by saying that women reject him, and it's their fault, and he will punish them.

But all of this is an inversion. The hatred of women masks another hatred - of himself.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.

We can start by not giving him such an easy target for externalising his blame.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What the Fuck?! I've met many adults with airs of entitlement and how many of then have gone on a murder spree?

A better question would be how many adults WITHOUT airs of entitlement have gone on a murder spree?

You're acting as if the claim is that an air of entitlement is sufficient. The real question is whether an air of entitlement is necessary.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Josephine

Yeah, but Rodger is using misogyny because he is a very damaged guy, and feels he is a total failure. Therefore, he rationalizes this by saying that women reject him, and it's their fault, and he will punish them.

But all of this is an inversion. The hatred of women masks another hatred - of himself.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.
We can start by not giving him such an easy target for externalising his blame.

Wow. One sentence. [Overused]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I forgot a bit - how come there are so many damaged men around, who need this kind of revenge? I don't know really.
You read the Cracked articles linked earlier on this thread, didn't you?

The answer to your question is "misogyny and entitlement."

Misogyny: Men in our culture are trained to hate women.

Entitlement: And they are allowed to think that they deserve to have whatever they want, because.

So you're saying that misogyny and entitlement make someone like this hate themselves so much? I can't see that really.

Surely, the point about Rodger is that he felt he didn't deserve anything, he was the loser to end all losers. This is terrible damage, I guess nobody knows where it came from.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Josephine

Yeah, but Rodger is using misogyny because he is a very damaged guy, and feels he is a total failure. Therefore, he rationalizes this by saying that women reject him, and it's their fault, and he will punish them.

But all of this is an inversion. The hatred of women masks another hatred - of himself.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.
We can start by not giving him such an easy target for externalising his blame.

I can't see that. The problem lies in his self-loathing, which led to his psychotic envy of others, including male friends who did have girl-friends.

His male room-mates were his first target - how do you exclude them?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The real question is whether an air of entitlement is necessary.

Kinda thought that was my underlying point. Perhaps I did not communicate this well.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The problem lies in his self-loathing,

Well, that is one diagnosis.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Josephine

Yeah, but Rodger is using misogyny because he is a very damaged guy, and feels he is a total failure. Therefore, he rationalizes this by saying that women reject him, and it's their fault, and he will punish them.

But all of this is an inversion. The hatred of women masks another hatred - of himself.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.
We can start by not giving him such an easy target for externalising his blame.
I can't see that. The problem lies in his self-loathing, which led to his psychotic envy of others, including male friends who did have girl-friends.

His male room-mates were his first target - how do you exclude them?

I don't. Male friends who did have girl-friends are in on the conspiracy. Or pawns in it. After all, women control which men get to breed (a thought of his recorded in one of those articles). His male friends should have been helping him to break the system, not enjoying the benefits of being chosen.

I think it's completely erroneous to go 'oh, but some of the victims don't fit the profile, so that can't be it'. There are radical Muslim groups who have attacked other Muslims for not being radical enough, for not rising up and attacking the Christians themselves.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

By the way, that 'man card' ad contained in the article that Josephine linked to, an ad I've seen once before, is one of the most evil and revolting things I've seen.

And not only is it allowed, it SELLS.

In one part of the world.

Sure, there are issues with how 'be a man' is used to sell products everywhere in the world. Here it's used to sell soft drink. And beer - the beer one is a problem I'm sure. And a whole bunch of other things I'm sure.

Stop it. Demand it stops. Stop letting multimillion dollar companies convey that it's 'manly' to arm yourself with something that just lets you mow people down. For God's sake, even if you allow the whole range of guns, could you at least make it so that the skill of a hunting rifle is applauded over the ability to spray bullets around randomly? What precisely is 'manly' about knowing how to squeeze a trigger?

[ 26. May 2014, 22:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Josephine

Yeah, but Rodger is using misogyny because he is a very damaged guy, and feels he is a total failure. Therefore, he rationalizes this by saying that women reject him, and it's their fault, and he will punish them.

But all of this is an inversion. The hatred of women masks another hatred - of himself.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.
We can start by not giving him such an easy target for externalising his blame.
I can't see that. The problem lies in his self-loathing, which led to his psychotic envy of others, including male friends who did have girl-friends.

His male room-mates were his first target - how do you exclude them?
I don't. Male friends who did have girl-friends are in on the conspiracy. Or pawns in it. After all, women control which men get to breed (a thought of his recorded in one of those articles). His male friends should have been helping him to break the system, not enjoying the benefits of being chosen.

I think it's completely erroneous to go 'oh, but some of the victims don't fit the profile, so that can't be it'. There are radical Muslim groups who have attacked other Muslims for not being radical enough, for not rising up and attacking the Christians themselves.

I still can't get the logic of what you're saying. Rodger is clearly a very damaged guy; one can argue about an exact diagnosis, but for me, he is showing psychotic rage and envy of others and a fierce self-loathing. I don't think anybody knows what caused that at the moment.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Okay. We can argue about an individual case until doomsday, or we can deal with the statistics that say the shooters are disproportionately male and white and the victims are disproportionately women.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay. We can argue about an individual case until doomsday, or we can deal with the statistics that say the shooters are disproportionately male and white and the victims are disproportionately women.

It's OK. I think I'd better stop, as this is doing my head in. I just can't see the connexion between entitlement and this guy's very disturbed state.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

PS I will say this, though, and then I have to leave the conversation a while.

We are always very ready to attribute atrocities to 'mental illness', and it seems to me that we do this as a way of not listening to what's being said by the perpetrators.

We should listen to what they say. Not because their perceptions are true, but because they're not liars. Their perceptions ARE their perceptions.

We don't listen to Muslim terrorists, either. We say they are nutjobs. We don't listen to the specifics of their nutjobbery. We don't analyse why they say they are angry with us. We just act as if they're inherently crazy and that therefore there's nothing we can do to stop them from wanting to blow us up.

It's a very comfortable place to be in, being helpless to prevent people from going off the rails.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Damn, now I'm sucked in again.

People are liars actually. Thus, Rodger says 'I am the perfect guy'. Liar. I think he thought he was the biggest shit in the universe, utterly unlovable.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

We should listen to what they say. Not because their perceptions are true, but because they're not liars. Their perceptions ARE their perceptions....

It's a very comfortable place to be in, being helpless to prevent people from going off the rails.

One need look no further than this thread to see that the reverse is actually true. People have clung fairly literally to his words, quickly arriving to the conclusion that this tragedy was caused by misogyny and/or entitlement/spoiled kids. It seems fairly certain to me that the causation in this and in most murder sprees is far more complex than that, but folks are talking about that because they are listening to the actual words he said.

And the reason folks are doing that is precisely because it is so UNcomfortable to feel like there's nothing we can do-- and so we try to dissect what he said to come up with a single simple, fixable cause. It is a horrible feeling knowing that something as horrific as this is possible and we have so little handle on why or how to stop it-- which is precisely why we're trying to figure it out, even if at times we're grasping at straws.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
His male room-mates were his first target - how do you exclude them?

They were in the way of his retribution against women. At least, that's what he said:

quote:
In his rambling screed, Rodger talks about having to kill his housemates "to secure the entire apartment for myself as my personal torture and killing chamber."

He said (quoted in another article that I read earlier today) that if his roommates had been nicer to him, he'd have felt bad about killing them. But they weren't nice enough to him for him to feel bad about.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

We should listen to what they say. Not because their perceptions are true, but because they're not liars. Their perceptions ARE their perceptions....

It's a very comfortable place to be in, being helpless to prevent people from going off the rails.
One need look no further than this thread to see that the reverse is actually true. People have clung fairly literally to his words, quickly arriving to the conclusion that this tragedy was caused by misogyny and/or entitlement/spoiled kids. It seems fairly certain to me that the causation in this and in most murder sprees is far more complex than that, but folks are talking about that because they are listening to the actual words he said.

And the reason folks are doing that is precisely because it is so UNcomfortable to feel like there's nothing we can do-- and so we try to dissect what he said to come up with a single simple, fixable cause. It is a horrible feeling knowing that something as horrific as this is possible and we have so little handle on why or how to stop it-- which is precisely why we're trying to figure it out, even if at times we're grasping at straws.

I think you're right, and I'm guilty of it myself. It's just so shocking to be faced with such unreason, that we look for reason in it.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Frankly, the guy himself doesn't worry me as much as some of the responses to him and to his video -- a few examples are captured here. The number of people who are going to have the right toxic cocktail of anger, mental imbalance, access to weapons and whatever the horrific missing ingredient that makes people do this is, is always (mercifully) going to be pretty small, though that's no excuse not to keep constantly trying to make it smaller.

But the men who empathize with a guy like this, who somehow believe that he has a "right" to sex because he's "a nice guy" and that his rage is justified because women didn't give it to him -- their numbers are legion, and that's what really horrifies me.

Just backing up to what Trudy said, which is the really disturbing part for me.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I have a little bit of a different take, although I also think orfeo makes a hugely important point: we should listen better.

Here was a 22-y.o. guy somewhere on the autism/Asperger spectrum; I have a couple of people similarly situated on my caseload (though they're less high-functioning than this fella seemed to be).

If this guy was anything like the folks with whom I have some experience, he was frustrated -- frustrated to a level few neurotypical people can appreciate. Frustration One: the world, at one level, seems structured around rules, both stated and unstated. Yet the world's human inhabitants constantly bend and break the stated rules (often with impunity), and the unstated ones are even more malleable, even assuming our atypical friend had figured any of these out.

Everywhere this guy looks, the rules he's trying desperately hard to grasp and follow get trashed umpteen times a day -- maybe an hour. Have you ever lain in bed kept awake listening to a buzzing mosquito, repeatedly leapt up to try to swat it (also swatting sleep further away with every attempt) and failing every !@#$%! time? It's that kind of frustration, only on steroids.

Then there are the cultural norms (probably applying regularly to the 3 young men he lived with) -- dating (which for folks of this age often includes sex). He's trying so hard to be normal (and is so utterly clueless as to the many ways in which he isn't, and cannot be), and yet this aspect of normality eludes him utterly.

Why wouldn't he feel entitled to what most of the young men around him were likely availing themselves of? He was trying with all his might, in every way he could think of, to be normal.

Add to this the fact that he is driving around in recent-model BMW (how many 22-y.o. do you know who are driving these?) and the fact that he doesn't resemble either parent much, at least in the pix I've seen, and we can conclude that his desperate, intense, and entirely wrong-headed study of the culture he's living in has led him to the conclusion that appearance is vitally important. I'm guessing he's had some "work" done. I'd bet lunch that the 'rents, driven half crazy by this guy's tantrums, weird hours (many folks with this disorder have unusual sleep patterns) have given in, in their own frustration and desire that he be "normal," to his demands for the chick-magnet car, for plastic surgery to render him "beautiful" (his label for himself)to said chicks, and for anything else that he thought would make him "blend in."

This guy was likely driven over the edge by the colossal frustration of working so desperately hard to fit into a world he had no understanding of, and an understanding he had little hope of acquiring.

And then, of course, there are the guns. The guns, the guns, the guns, the guns, the guns.

I love, at least I think I love, my country. But how in God's name we have come to this pass I just do not understand.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...or we can deal with the statistics that say the shooters are disproportionately male and white...

I have heard that Rodgers' mother was Indonesian. I don't know whether this is true.

Cho was ethnically Korean.

Moo

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just can't see the connexion between entitlement and this guy's very disturbed state.

I don't mean to contribute to doing your head in. But I think there is very much a connection. I see it more regularly than I'd like - some people have been taught that they deserve certain things* simply by virtue of existing and that they don't have to do anything in terms of being a productive member of society or decent human being in order to earn those things. They deserve them because they exist. It can be particularly difficult for people to have any kind of perspective on what they do have when they are surrounded by people who seem to have more, rather than less.

They don't necessarily believe this lie (that they really are superior and they really do deserve these things) - which is where the undercurrent of self-loathing comes from - but they also don't know what they are supposed to actually do in order to get the things and/or acceptance they actually want.

*things here being luxury goods and groveling worship rather than the basic respect human beings deserve because they're human.

But maybe that's incoherent.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And the reason folks are doing that is precisely because it is so UNcomfortable to feel like there's nothing we can do-- and so we try to dissect what he said to come up with a single simple, fixable cause.

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that there's a single, simple, fixable cause. Yes, it's complicated. But this kind of thing happens so often at this point that there have to be steps we can take to at least try to address some of these problems.

And, as others have pointed out, there are people (unlikely to take such dramatic action themselves) posting empathetic messages online. Which points to a deep cultural problem that goes way beyond any individual.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I've seen anyone suggest that there's a single, simple, fixable cause.

What I have seen people on this thread saying, or coming very close to saying, is, "That's not the one single, simple, fixable cause, so there's no point in trying to change it or fix it."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...or we can deal with the statistics that say the shooters are disproportionately male and white...
I have heard that Rodgers' mother was Indonesian. I don't know whether this is true.

Cho was ethnically Korean.

Moo

And? What's your point? I never said ALL shooters were male and white.

Heck, let's just start with male. One of the articles said that 90% of shooters are male. Are we going to pretend that being male isn't some kind of risk factor? Because if you could reduce the male rate of spree shootings down to the female rate of spree shootings, that would cut the rate of spree shootings by 80%.

I echo mousethief's last comment. It feels to me like much of this conversation is driven by some kind of notion that the only alternatives are leave things as they are or total elimination of the problem. I'm not naive enough to believe we can ever totally eliminate the problem. But we can certainly minimise the problem, by identifying risk factors and dealing with them.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Heck, let's just start with male. One of the articles said that 90% of shooters are male. Are we going to pretend that being male isn't some kind of risk factor? Because if you could reduce the male rate of spree shootings down to the female rate of spree shootings, that would cut the rate of spree shootings by 80%.

In the U.S. males are also 3 times more likely to be murder victims. 4 of Rodgers 6 murder victims were male and he had previously threatened to kill some guys he had a tussle with at a party.

After all is said and done I think this tragedy is going to be mainly about mental illness and the risk factors involved. Rodger's statements against women in his manifesto are an element in his state of mind but one of several. Nobody seems to be talking about his racist views, for instance.

Santa Barbara is my hometown so I know the area very well and what it's like. You can imagine this has been on my mind a lot lately.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Where is the point when this troubled person decided to use violence as a means of solving his problems?

It's Cain and Abel all over again. Person X feels robbed and cheated out of life and responds through violence.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Heck, let's just start with male. One of the articles said that 90% of shooters are male. Are we going to pretend that being male isn't some kind of risk factor? Because if you could reduce the male rate of spree shootings down to the female rate of spree shootings, that would cut the rate of spree shootings by 80%.
In the U.S. males are also 3 times more likely to be murder victims. 4 of Rodgers 6 murder victims were male and he had previously threatened to kill some guys he had a tussle with at a party.

Well done, you've just engaged in TWO basic category errors in just two sentences.

First of all, I was talking about 'spree shootings', not 'murders', and in spree shootings you are wrong. In spree shootings, the victims are more likely to be female.

Second of all, when I'm talking about statistics, talking about one individual case as if it disproves the point just shows you don't understand statistics. It's no more sensible than Moo deciding to tell me that one of the past shooters was Korean (which I already knew). A counter-example is only useful to disprove some kind of absolute principle, not to disprove a statistical trend.

You're also completely ignoring Rogers' INTENT and focusing on the RESULT he achieved. So what, the fact that he INTENDED to get into a sorority house and kill the girls in there doesn't matter, just because he failed in that particular part of his plan?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Rodger's statements against women in his manifesto are an element in his state of mind but one of several. Nobody seems to be talking about his racist views, for instance.

OK, there's a limit to how much I can read. But what racist views? (I'm not trying to imply that they don't exist, just that I haven't yet come across them).

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Rodger's statements against women in his manifesto are an element in his state of mind but one of several. Nobody seems to be talking about his racist views, for instance.
OK, there's a limit to how much I can read. But what racist views? (I'm not trying to imply that they don't exist, just that I haven't yet come across them).

Rodger also posted on an online forum where he made statements against African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians (despite being part-Asian himself). Somewhere in the manifesto he expressed disgust at seeing a Hispanic man with a blonde white woman.

I'll reply to Orfeo later.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'll reply to Orfeo later.

Good. Because when you do, here's something I'd like you to answer...

Why the FUCK would it make any difference to the benefits of reducing the rate of male perpetrators if in fact the victims were also usually male?

Seriously. How is that in any way an actual reply to the post from me that you quoted? Why even bring that up at that point except in an effort to deny the proposition that there might be something to the idea that women get targeted?

The relevance of the gender of the victims or intended victims isn't relevant because male or female lives are worth different amounts. The gender of the victims or intended victims is relevant because it speaks to motivations - motivations that need to be addressed if we're actually going to do something to reduce the frequency of these events instead of just opening up another bloody Hell thread every time my news services tell me it's happened AGAIN, most often in the same country.

If you don't acknoweldge the relevance of gender, you reduce the chances of coming up with an effective solution. And heck, I should thank you for bringing up the general murder victim profile, because that just shows that the profile in spree shootings is even MORE skewed towards female victims. If the 'normal' murder profile is 75-25, not 50-50, that just goes to show that something very specific is going on in spree shootings.

And hey, by all means go and discuss somewhere how to bring the general murder rate down. But that isn't the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is when people go on a spree, including when they do it after saying some very nasty things specifically relating to women, and if you're going to come in here and start telling me how women have it quite good, actually, because in 'normal' murders they're underrepresented, it doesn't sound to me like you're part of the solution.

[ 27. May 2014, 03:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It's a very comfortable place to be in, being helpless to prevent people from going off the rails.
And the reason folks are doing that is precisely because it is so UNcomfortable to feel like there's nothing we can do-- and so we try to dissect what he said to come up with a single simple, fixable cause. It is a horrible feeling knowing that something as horrific as this is possible and we have so little handle on why or how to stop it-- which is precisely why we're trying to figure it out, even if at times we're grasping at straws.
I think you're right, and I'm guilty of it myself. It's just so shocking to be faced with such unreason, that we look for reason in it.

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[QUOTE]I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that there's a single, simple, fixable cause. Yes, it's complicated. But this kind of thing happens so often at this point that there have to be steps we can take to at least try to address some of these problems.

Just reposting the context to clarify-- I'm not criticizing those who are seeking to understand, and I'm sure I've done it myself. My remark was in response to orfeo's suggestion that we find the "we can't know why" position as comfortable. I think we are speculating and seeking answers precisely because we find not knowing so very very uncomfortable. So, to clarify, I think our efforts to find answers are normal and possibly even helpful. I just don't think they're motivated by comfort.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

Okay, before I go.......

What the hell, Orfeo?

Be a slacktivist all you want. This is about my hometown. This is about where I live. For you this is a cause. For me these are my neighbors. Get over yourself.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Again, on the notion of motivations: that's what pisses me off so much about the whole 'it's due to mental illness' line, because it's often pretty much code for saying 'there's no motivation'.

That's not how mental illness works. Mental illness doesn't automatically deprive you of your ability to reason. Often it just deprives you of your ability to reason rationally.

I mean, look at this guy. Buying weapons. Planning. Reportedly he might have been planning for a year.

THAT REQUIRES REASONING. We're not talking about someone incoherently wandering around firing a gun at random coordinates and flukily hitting people. We're talking about identifying targets and destinations. We're not talking about someone who stumbled across a weapon and thought it might be fun to play with. We're talking about someone who decided he needed weapons to carry out a particular task.

The reasoning is twisted, but the reasoning exists. That's the point. And even if we can't stop people developing mental illness we can still do something about the probability that their delusions will be dangerous ones. I mean, which would you rather - an unpreventably mentally ill man who believes that women are making his life hell, or an unpreventably mentally ill man who believes that the fairies at the bottom of the garden living in the chrysanthemums are making his life hell? Which poses a greater danger to public safety? THAT'S why I said what I did about not presenting women as an easy target for someone to externalise blame for their situation.

More people should go watch Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight. Do you know why it's such a fine performance. It's because it's NOT played as 'I'm crazy and therefore I could do any random thing at any moment'. It's played as 'I'm crazy and therefore my logic is horribly warped and twisted, but I still have logic.

[ 27. May 2014, 03:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Okay, before I go.......

What the hell, Orfeo?

Be a slacktivist all you want. This is about my hometown. This is about where I live. For you this is a cause. For me these are my neighbors. Get over yourself.

No.

The whole fucking point is not to wait until it's my neighbours. Or someone else's neighbours. I don't want it to be the neighbours of my friends in Riverside County, or the neighbours of a guy I know in DC, or the neighbours of a couple I met in Chicago.

You don't get to declare that your problem is somehow a separate problem from anyone else's problem. That makes about as much sense as saying that when one plane crashes, no-one should investigate to find out if there's something that ought to be fixed on all the other planes that haven't crashed yet.

[ 27. May 2014, 03:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Again, on the notion of motivations: that's what pisses me off so much about the whole 'it's due to mental illness' line, because it's often pretty much code for saying 'there's no motivation'.

Not saying you are wrong, just saying this is not the impression I have.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Again, on the notion of motivations: that's what pisses me off so much about the whole 'it's due to mental illness' line, because it's often pretty much code for saying 'there's no motivation'.
Not saying you are wrong, just saying this is not the impression I have.

Well, it turns out that someone else has been saying most of what I want to say, including making this point better than I have. What I'm trying to get at is that calling someone a 'madman' is a technique for attributing what happened to the individual person, and not considering how it relates to the wider world. It's all just in the madman's head.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Again, on the notion of motivations: that's what pisses me off so much about the whole 'it's due to mental illness' line, because it's often pretty much code for saying 'there's no motivation'.

That's not how mental illness works. Mental illness doesn't automatically deprive you of your ability to reason. Often it just deprives you of your ability to reason rationally.

Absolutely.

I don't have my copy of The ABC Murders on me at present, but when they think they've arrested the killer, Poirot is still frustrated and wanting to figure out why the killer did it - and everyone else is saying "Well, he did it because he's insane. Obviously." To which Poirot's reply was along the lines of:

- People kill flies either because a particular fly is annoying them, and they consider the fly insignificant enough for its death to be fine, or because they believe that flies are unclean insects that spread disease, so they ought to be killed for the good of society.
- Likewise, insane people might kill someone because "I am so much more important than him that it's okay for me to kill him so that he stops inconveniencing me" or because "People like this are toxic and ought to be killed". They kill for insane reasons; they don't kill for no reason.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

That's not how mental illness works. Mental illness doesn't automatically deprive you of your ability to reason. Often it just deprives you of your ability to reason rationally.

[snip]

The reasoning is twisted, but the reasoning exists. That's the point. And even if we can't stop people developing mental illness we can still do something about the probability that their delusions will be dangerous ones. I mean, which would you rather - an unpreventably mentally ill man who believes that women are making his life hell, or an unpreventably mentally ill man who believes that the fairies at the bottom of the garden living in the chrysanthemums are making his life hell? Which poses a greater danger to public safety? THAT'S why I said what I did about not presenting women as an easy target for someone to externalise blame for their situation.

I do get what you are saying here, to an extent. The whole 'let's blame it on the random act of a madman so we don't have to examine other things' is the basic premise of the film Arlington Road, and a very scary film it is, in many ways. Are you the madman?, it asks.

And yet, and yet. I really do doubt that we can 'do something about the probability' that the delusions of the not-always-rational will be dangerous ones. It seems to me that the mere fact that there's a narrow and predictable set of kind of 'indicator themes' for these things (I am Jesus, I am Napoleon, I was abducted by aliens, a secret cabal of *** is trying to eradicate me, the CIA has implanted recording devices in my body, my doctor is trying to poison me), and so on, suggests that there is in fact something inevitable about the direction these things take.

Which is not to say that they need to lead to acting out of violence - as has been pointed out already, the vast, vast, majority of mentally ill people do not murder anyone. However, I'm not sure we can avert what small danger does exist by creating and distributing (while simultaneously appearing to be trying to restrict the distribution of) coded secret messages about chrysanthemum fairies and their evil plans for world domination...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But has anyone been saying that insanity leads to motiveless actions? I don't recollect this, but maybe somebody has.

Certainly, the professions which deal with mental disturbances would not. In fact, if you work with 'crazy' people, you spend a lot of time unpicking their logic. It may seem like bizarre logic at times, but it is a kind of logic.

For example, Rodger for me, is showing a classic type of logic (incidentally, I am not saying he is insane; nobody knows really), which goes: I know I am repulsive and weird; this is because I have been rejected by X; therefore X should be punished.

In other words, classic projection. He's the one who thinks he's repulsive, but that is an intolerable thought, so it's their fault.

Again, this is just my opinion, it is not a diagnosis!

But then quite sane people also have bizarre logic going on in them - lots of people feel worthless, find that an intolerable idea, and blame the others.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's like Porridge never posted, and for my money she's absolutely on the money.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I was going to commend her on her post, which is very insightful and helpful.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Thing is, I'm never sure if I'm on the Autistic spectrum at all, so if I am, it's very high-functioning, but nevertheless I can absolutely identify with the scenario Porridge describes; going through adolescence utterly out of the dating loop, whilst the bastards who beat the shit out of you because you're different are the ones getting the girls, having your approaches rebuffed; seeing again and again the horror on a girl's face when she realises you'd like to be more than just good friends (how terrible!) and watching her being treat like shit by some bloke who is inexplicably, even though he's a twat, more attractive to women than you are. Yeah, it can fuck you up. As I say, if I'm on the spectrum it's at the normal end, but yet I was 25 before I had any romantic involvement with the opposite sex, because of my inability to grasp subtle social conventions.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:

In other words, classic projection. He's the one who thinks he's repulsive, but that is an intolerable thought, so it's their fault.

The guy was wealthy, privileged and had lots of nice things. Did his family not love him and use material things as a substitute for genuine love?

I'm recalling basic object psychology where I learned that good self-esteem in adults is grounded in familial love when they are children.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I've never been all that convinced by the line that people who seem to be completely narcissistic and entitled actually hate themselves. I've heard it a lot but it seems counterintuitive at best. Does it come from the perspective that says that self esteem is the cure for everything? I don't know.

I heard a throwaway comment recently which I think is relative here. Someone said "when a straight woman is unable to find a sexual partner, our culture teaches her that there's something wrong with her. When a straight man is unable to fid a sexual partner, our culture teaches him that there's something wrong with all women."

Now that's not always the case, certainly - not everyone picks up on these particular messages. However, if you are a man who is having a lack of success and would like to think that it's All Women's Fault, there is absolutely no lack of resources online to reinforce that particular point of view and fuel your anger further. It's pretty clear that Rodger was very much caught up in that culture.

And I could empathise. Maybe. I had aspie teething troubles too when it came to romance. I was well into my twenties before I began some pretty intensive work on improving my social skills / empathy / understanding of people's boundaries, to the extent that I was able to find and maintain a healthy relationship. I know other aspie women who've struggled with similar issues. However, women in this situation tend to end up turning this hatred in on ourselves and saying "well, I guess I'm just a freak." If there's a whole subculture of message boards telling women that they're entitled to a hot guy however unattractive they are in terms of looks, personality and personal hygiene (but that guys are all assholes who don't deserve them anyway) then I've yet to see any evidence of it.

What's important here is that having an ASD likely means you have a lack of natural talent when it comes to social situations, and that can be unfortunate and frustrating. However, it's a sense of entitlement that will persuade you that there's nothing wrong and no need to learn. This guy may have struggled with social interactions, but his response is like a dyslexic person refusing to put any extra effort into improving their reading and instead just getting angry at people who have books.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I read part of his manifesto, and my takeaway is a severe sense of self-loathing due to his ethnicity overlaid with mental illness.

He hated that he was half-Chinese and claimed that his father (who is white) had his pick of women, including his Chinese mother and his Middle Eastern stepmother. He directed a lot of anger towards ethnic minority men, particularly Asian men, who attempted to date white women.

He also only seemed to want stereotypically attractive white women ("blonde sorority girls") and could not stand that they preferred the tanned surfer boy to himself.

He lived the life of a well-off white boy but convinced himself that being part Asian was the reason he was being rejected. He resented that the full privileges of white men - hot white girls were out of his reach.

So he killed several Asian men and several white women - the representations of himself and what he wanted but failed to get.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, self-loathing is quite common really; but with this guy, it acquired a really intense degree, plus of course, his hatred of others. It's too soon to say what was really going on, and maybe we'll never know. But to me, he comes across as 'mad'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Just noticed this in his manifesto:

"Humanity has never accepted me among them, and now I know why. I am more than human. I am superior to them all. I am Elliot Rodger ... Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent ... Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god. Humanity is a disgusting, depraved, and evil species."

Well, you could say a lot about this, but certainly mega-narcissism. But I suspect it covers up the opposite (note, this is an opinion, not a diagnosis!).

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
And? What's your point? I never said ALL shooters were male and white.

Sorry, I overreacted a bit.

I remember when the Beltway sniper attacks took place, the authorities took it for granted that they were looking for a white man. On one occasion the police came across two black men in the area from which the shots had come. They didn't bother to question them or search their car. If they had, the shootings would have stopped right then. However, the police were sure the shooter was white. The result was that several more people were shot.

What you said was part of a discussion, and it was fine. What I remembered was a preconception that led to several deaths.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I heard a throwaway comment recently which I think is relative here. Someone said "when a straight woman is unable to find a sexual partner, our culture teaches her that there's something wrong with her. When a straight man is unable to find a sexual partner, our culture teaches him that there's something wrong with all women."

It sure doesn't seem that we've come very far from the days of Jane Austen. A woman without a partner is not fulfilling her allotted role.

Heck, you can rise to be leader of an entire country (mine), but along the way you get a member of Parliament complaining that you're 'barren'. No children, not a real woman.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I agree that self-loathing is common. I'm just failing to see evidence of it in this guy's "I'm better than you and the world has failed me and now it's time for vengeance." His rhetoric seems to me more like the talk of racists who genuinely believe that white people are superior to everyone else (and of course he was racist as well).

If this guy had spent his time ranting on neo-Nazi sites, had written a racist diatribe and then gone on a racist shooting spree, would people see this differently? I don't like bringing Nazis into arguments, but this guy actually fantasised about putting women in concentration camps and watching them starve, so... I think there are parallels with the kind of thinking. His ranting doesn't come across to me as low self esteem or depression. It sounds like the kind of wildly inflated self esteem that psychopaths often exhibit. And I might add, psychopaths tend to be very successful at manipulating the hell out of people who believe that their self esteem needs to be increased.

There's a circular reasoning that says "people who don't like themselves do this sort of thing, and we know that he didn't like himself because this is what he did. Add one incidence of crime related to low self esteem to our evidence pile!" Likewise with mental health problems - "well he was clearly just crazy. Sane people don't do this stuff!" It doesn't really get us anywhere.

[ 27. May 2014, 12:33: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, it might have got somewhere, if he had been spotted in time. Well, actually, he was spotted, but unfortunately the cops who went round were satisfied with his explanation. I wonder if an experienced mental health worker would have been?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There's a circular reasoning that says "people who don't like themselves do this sort of thing, and we know that he didn't like himself because this is what he did. Add one incidence of crime related to low self esteem to our evidence pile!" Likewise with mental health problems - "well he was clearly just crazy. Sane people don't do this stuff!" It doesn't really get us anywhere.

I agree. Certainly, there's a tendency to say that you must be mad to do something like this.

The case of Anders Breivik in Norway was an interesting one. First because he was still alive to be tried. Second because he was very, very keen NOT to be declared insane. He made it quite clear that he wanted people to take the view that he had carefully planned his mass murder knowing exactly what he was doing and why.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Humanity has never accepted me among them, and now I know why. I am more than human. I am superior to them all. I am Elliot Rodger ... Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent ... Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god. Humanity is a disgusting, depraved, and evil species."

Well, you could say a lot about this, but certainly mega-narcissism. But I suspect it covers up the opposite (note, this is an opinion, not a diagnosis!).

That sounds like grandiose ideation. Grandiose ideation can be a component of lots and lots of mental illnesses and personality disorders.

I've seen several reports that he had been prescribed risperidone and refused to take it. Risperidone is an antipsychotic medication. It helps to control both delusions and aggression in schizophrenia, bipolar, and the like. It isn't useful in the treatment of personality disorders.

That prescription suggests to me that his mental health providers, at least, didn't think he was simply a narcissist.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... We're not talking about someone who stumbled across a weapon and thought it might be fun to play with. We're talking about someone who decided he needed weapons to carry out a particular task ...

And, unfortunately, about someone who lived in a place where the weapons were readily available, with little or no account being taken of his mental state.

How many more people will have to die before the Powers That Be realise that "the right to bear arms" isn't the be-all and end-all of civilisation?

My apologies for returning to an aspect of the case that so much puzzles non-Americans, but wouldn't even a slight tightening-up of their gun laws be a help?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's like Porridge never posted, and for my money she's absolutely on the money.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I was going to commend her on her post, which is very insightful and helpful.

Thank you both.

Any “entitlement” this guy may have felt was down to his having worked so desperately hard to be “normal.” (“I’ve done absolutely everything right – everything – just the way everybody else does, yet the rewards fall into everybody else’s laps, and never into mine. How can this be possible? What are THE RULES HERE?!” IME, it’s the high-functioning folk with psychological/emotional/psychiatric issues who experience the greatest frustration levels – it’s the “so close and yet so far” phenomenon.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

In other words, classic projection. He's the one who thinks he's repulsive, but that is an intolerable thought, so it's their fault.
The guy was wealthy, privileged and had lots of nice things. Did his family not love him and use material things as a substitute for genuine love?

I'm recalling basic object psychology where I learned that good self-esteem in adults is grounded in familial love when they are children.

Folks with this disorder can be very challenging to love. I’ve seen more than one family shredded by the existence in their midst of a kid “on the spectrum.” In fact, the divorce rate among couples who have a child with any disability is easily double that of the rest of the population. The resulting stress and poverty for the (usually female) parent with custody freights that parent’s love with enormous burdens.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, I'm never sure if I'm on the Autistic spectrum at all, so if I am, it's very high-functioning, but nevertheless I can absolutely identify with the scenario Porridge describes; going through adolescence utterly out of the dating loop, whilst the bastards who beat the shit out of you because you're different are the ones getting the girls, having your approaches rebuffed; seeing again and again the horror on a girl's face when she realises you'd like to be more than just good friends (how terrible!) and watching her being treat like shit by some bloke who is inexplicably, even though he's a twat, more attractive to women than you are. Yeah, it can fuck you up. As I say, if I'm on the spectrum it's at the normal end, but yet I was 25 before I had any romantic involvement with the opposite sex, because of my inability to grasp subtle social conventions.

This.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I hesitated to post to this thread, because this incident reminded of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre from 1989. The attacker separated the women and men and shot the women. He shot 28 people, mostly women, killing 14 people.

What I learned in response to it is that we must consider both the individual and the social conditions of that person, but also the cultural conditions and the availability of weapons with which to kill people. I don't know if much has been learned.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
My apologies for returning to an aspect of the case that so much puzzles non-Americans, but wouldn't even a slight tightening-up of their gun laws be a help?

The simplistic answer is taht most Americans agree that at least tightening the laws would be good--including either a large minority or a small majority, I forget which--of NRA members, but it's not going to happen. The NRA members who want to see laws changed aren't in power in the NRA--and don't always agree which laws they'd like to tighten--and the NRA has a huge amount of power.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
My apologies for returning to an aspect of the case that so much puzzles non-Americans, but wouldn't even a slight tightening-up of their gun laws be a help?
The simplistic answer is taht most Americans agree that at least tightening the laws would be good--including either a large minority or a small majority, I forget which--of NRA members, but it's not going to happen. The NRA members who want to see laws changed aren't in power in the NRA--and don't always agree which laws they'd like to tighten--and the NRA has a huge amount of power.

I suspect the members' wishes are irrelevant. That the NRA is funded not so much by members' dues as by contributions from the gun & ammo industry. What matters is what those gun & ammo execs want.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Although I think it's clear that Rodgers was mentally ill, this story, and the tumblr it links to is particularly disturbing, because it seems that there are men who are completely sane who are more like Rodgers than it is comfortable to acknowledge.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Although I think it's clear that Rodgers was mentally ill, this story, and the tumblr it links to is particularly disturbing, because it seems that there are men who are completely sane who are more like Rodgers than it is comfortable to acknowledge.

I'm not sure that is clear. There are various accounts emerging, which present a confused picture, with descriptions of Asperger's, a narcissistic personality disorder, anti-psychotic medication being prescribed, others decrying any mental health approach, and so on.

However, my concern really has been less with the actual diagnosis of Rodger, than the emergency intervention. I've had clients who were detained for simply shouting in the street, or walking into someone's house; yet this guy is publicly threatening to kill people and himself - and nothing seems to happen. Well, not nothing, the police did go round.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

There are two aspects to this, as far as I can see.

First, the causes: there are a lot of people analysing the arse off his position on the autism spectrum and all that seems to imply to them; there are just as many people making just as much effort to extrapolate from hints about his mental health; lots of people (including me) think that his ownership of a £30,000 car at the age of 22 and never having worked implies having been spoiled to the point of 'entitlement.'

Next, the effect: there is one simple thing that needs no analysis but which people seem to be very reluctant to address: misogyny.

It doesn't matter what the causes are, the blame was placed on, the anger was directed at, and the punishment given to women. Any males who suffered did so only because he wanted to get them out of the way so he could reach his intended victims.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Thing is his life history is lacking. Yes, he's banging. About women in his recent posts. But it is an error to assume that it is deep seated. I do know people who rant on one subject as the cause of their state. But that cause changes over time, depending on a current theory or situation. I am not saying misogyny wasn't a factor here, just saying it isn't necessarily as clear as that.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

The problem is that the UK and the US apply very different legal standards to these situations.

In my state, at least, a person has to be engaged in behavior that poses a clear and present danger to the person him/herself or to someone else in order to meet the standard for involuntary commitment.

Many people, when frustrated or angry or disappointed or scared (or even in jest), make remarks or write comments (or these days, make YouTube videos, tweets, emails, etc.) which, taken superficially, seem threatening.

A woman to her friend while shopping: "My husband will beat me black-and-blue if I buy those shoes."

A kid to a friend about a report card: "My mother will kill me when she sees my grades."

A kid to a friend about the end-of-year dance: "I'm gonna hang myself if she turns me down for prom."

A student to a friend about his college courses: "You know, I'd like to line the whole XYZ faculty up against a wall and shoot them."

People use hyperboles like these frequently without meaning them. It's both impractical and an infringement of rights (from a US perspective) to seize all these folks and place them in protective custody or under MH observation.

Yet a tiny percentage of these hyperbolic statements are not only fully-meant when uttered, they also subsequently get acted upon. Police, parents, and MH counselors are just that: they're not prognosticators. They're not necessarily able to accurately predict who will act and who won't. Even Rodger's mother, who tried to get help, could not be certain when or how or even whether her son would ultimately act.

I fully get that someone yelling in the streets might get picked up and carted off for observation in the UK, and much as I could wish that were true where I live, it isn't. Here, yelling in the streets might be a misdemeanor (disturbing the peace) or a violation of some local noise ordinance. It's either going to be ignored (the police are busy dealing with the latest shooting incident (GUNS! GUNS! GUNS!)or is going to be dealt with at the level of intervention requiring the least time and paperwork on the part of the authorities.

Here, the street-yeller will only receive substantial intervention when he starts assaulting people or waving a gun around in full view. And even then, if he has a legal permit for said gun, the intervention may not rise to the level you and I might like to see.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Porridge

Thank you again, very helpful.

I suppose the internet environment is a difficult one to judge, as you get lots of crazy and hostile stuff.

I just note that Rodger's mother was alarmed by his earlier videos, and called the police. I'm just wondering if a emergency intervention team would have acted differently, gone into his home, for example, and really talked with him. Somebody experienced might have got something on the radar - certainly when I first saw his video in the car, I nudged my wife, and said, he's in zone 9, (i.e. mad).

But then again, he might be so plausible that a crisis team would have been fooled.

And also, crisis teams cost a ton of money.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A further point, which is very what if, is that if Rodger had been detained, there could have been a charge of attempted murder, what with the purchase of a number of guns, and his expressed intent (in the manifesto), to kill people with them. But again, I don't know how that would pan out in US law.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just note that Rodger's mother was alarmed by his earlier videos, and called the police.

She did, but the complicating factors, from a US perspective are these: one, he was not threatening her, nor was he living with her when she made the call; and two, when police arrived at his apartment, he wasn't apparently then engaged in anything obviously dangerous to himself or his roommates. In addition, (I have not read his screeds, so I'm on shaky ground here), I'm not aware he named specific individuals in his threats. It's a fine line, but police are more likely to take threats to a specifically-named person ("roommates" wouldn't rise to this standard) seriously. Also, I doubt they read/viewed his output in full in a house-check.

That said, if this guy had been talking about shooting the president or other highly-placed specific public figure, that threat would be met with prompt intervention. He'd have been cuffed & taken in.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm just wondering if a emergency intervention team would have acted differently, gone into his home, for example, and really talked with him. Somebody experienced might have got something on the radar - certainly when I first saw his video in the car, I nudged my wife, and said, he's in zone 9, (i.e. mad).

You're assuming the existence of an emergency intervention team. This will vary state-by-state in the US. It would fall under the now-relatively-toothless and chronically-underfunded Community Mental Health Act. However, community mental health in the US is basically a bare-bones MH program for the poor (read: destitute) and for the chronically mentally ill. CMH Centers do have crisis teams; in my community they're housed within the local hospital, and they deal with the homicidal &/or suicidal folks brought to the emergency room by local or state police within this catchment area.

A separate intervention team for the chronically mentally ill folks on their rolls does home visits when somebody's off their meds and acting out. However, as patients have the right to refuse their meds (and cannot be involuntarily committed on this basis alone), this typically just amounts to lots of cajoling/begging the patient to comply with the treatment plan.

Rodger, coming from a well-to-do family and possibly still on his parents' insurance, would have been seeing private shrinks. Other than what agreements/commitments get drawn up as therapeutic "contracts" between shrink & patient, there is no "crisis intervention team." (IME, folks with Asperger's are notoriously non- compliant with shrink appointments and med regimens.) If the counselor has concerns, s/he would call the police, just as the mom did, and with likely similar results (though a shrink's concerns might raise more flags than a parent's & lead to a more thorough check.) The fact remains, though, that he couldn't be taken in custody unless the police witness dangerous behavior/conditions during their visit.

Police here usually have, as part of their training, some basic MH knowledge/skills -- like being able to do an on-the-spot suicide assessment.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then again, he might be so plausible that a crisis team would have been fooled.

And also, crisis teams cost a ton of money.

A guy on my caseload has Asperger's. He's good-looking, intelligent, personable, has (mostly) decent manners (we've drilled those into him), drives (though I personally wish he didn't), and occasionally holds down various odd jobs for short periods. He's fairly well-known and well-liked in the community where he lives on his own.

It's only after you talk with him at substantial length -- or engage him on subject matter he objects to -- that you begin to see he's not quite "right." Police who didn't know him, sent to his home on a check, would go away after 20 minutes assured that he was A-OK.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Porridge

I've had a few clients like that! I don't know if you use the term 'counter-transference', but I remember spending months going over this, as I had a few very pleasant looking clients, very urbane, who after a while started to fill me with fear, rage, and some who just could stop me thinking. Projective identification, as Klein says.

Then I realized what a powerful tool this is.

They mostly had good jobs in various professions, and one of them was a senior psychotherapist! So it goes.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
IME, folks with Asperger's are notoriously non- compliant with shrink appointments and med regimens.

Any ideas why?

I wonder if another aspect of the police check was that the police didn't have enough cause, in the legal sense, to enter Rogers' house/apartment. If they didn't have (legal) cause, then they could only legally enter (as opposed to standing at the door) if Rogers permitted them in.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I wonder if another aspect of the police check was that the police didn't have enough cause, in the legal sense, to enter Rogers' house/apartment. If they didn't have (legal) cause, then they could only legally enter (as opposed to standing at the door) if Rogers permitted them in.

He wrote about how afraid he was that they would find his writings and the guns and he'd wind up in a jail cell instead of carrying out his plan. So I'm sure he wouldn't have given them permission to enter.

I haven't had any luck digging up transcripts of the video that got the police called to his house. Around here, the manifesto itself could have resulted in a bunch of criminal charges. But I guess the previous rants were enough to cause concern but not a search warrant. Though I'm not clear on why he wasn't charged for some of the other things he admits to (well, apart from being a rich white male).

I thought this was interesting.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Though I'm not clear on why he wasn't charged for some of the other things he admits to (well, apart from being a rich white male).

IIRC, he's half Chinese. I don't know whether that means he 'counts' as white or not.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Valid point.

But given his appearance, for the purposes of our criminal injustice system, I'd say it does.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Many people, when frustrated or angry or disappointed or scared (or even in jest), make remarks or write comments (or these days, make YouTube videos, tweets, emails, etc.) which, taken superficially, seem threatening.

A woman to her friend while shopping: "My husband will beat me black-and-blue if I buy those shoes."

A kid to a friend about a report card: "My mother will kill me when she sees my grades."

A kid to a friend about the end-of-year dance: "I'm gonna hang myself if she turns me down for prom."

A student to a friend about his college courses: "You know, I'd like to line the whole XYZ faculty up against a wall and shoot them."

People use hyperboles like these frequently without meaning them. It's both impractical and an infringement of rights (from a US perspective) to seize all these folks and place them in protective custody or under MH observation.

Seriously?

Only one of those, 'my mother will kill me', actually sounds completely normal to me. The fourth one... yeah, okay, I've probably heard things like that.

The first one about being beaten black and blue sounds thoroughly ABnormal to my ears. I dunno, maybe that kind of language is normal in your environment, but if so that may suggest something about your environment.

I realise we're on the internet where it's impossible to convey tone and context and all the things that might show a difference between literal words and true intent/belief, but maybe the first step towards addressing some of these issues is not to default to laughing off people's words as meaningless.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

His ranting doesn't come across to me as low self esteem or depression. It sounds like the kind of wildly inflated self esteem that psychopaths often exhibit. And I might add, psychopaths tend to be very successful at manipulating the hell out of people who believe that their self esteem needs to be increased.

IIRC, psychopaths are generally pretty successful at turning off the crazy when there's a need to be charming, as well - such as when the police turn up at the door 'concerned about your welfare'.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
IME, folks with Asperger's are notoriously non- compliant with shrink appointments and med regimens.
Any ideas why?

Based on some recent experience of my own, I'm left wondering if most people aren't ridiculously non-compliant with their medication/health regimens. I have epilepsy, and two years ago had to go back on meds which I had formerly been managing without. I regularly get comments, in tones of surprise, from doctors, practice nurses, pharmacists, and phlebotomists, simply because I make appointments to get more meds before I've run out, then I fill the prescriptions, and I go and get the bloods done when the doctor orders them. This seems normal to me, but health professionals seem to view me as extraordinarily responsible, or something.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A rather biting comment in The Onion:

"In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place."

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

First comment on a Reddit thread about a Youtube video he posted:

quote:
If this isn't a troll, then I bet we find out this guy is a serial killer. I'm getting a strong Patrick Bateman vibe from him.

Having watched the video, I agree. Reminds me of the person I've spent the last three years being constantly afraid of. But there's nothing in it that would warrant legal intervention.

On a lighter note...

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
I've never been all that convinced by the line that people who seem to be completely narcissistic and entitled actually hate themselves. I've heard it a lot but it seems counterintuitive at best. Does it come from the perspective that says that self esteem is the cure for everything? I don't know.

The argument is more nuanced than you put it. Narcissistic people hate their real selves, the flawed, ugly and broken parts of their personality. And so they tend to create exaggerated, perfect versions of themselves and that is what they "love."

Self-love is not about loving a perfect version of yourself. It is about accepting oneself, warts and all, the good stuff and the bad stuff. It's a journey of self-realization.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

My spiritual director once told me that everyone will always have a part of their heart that is lonely. Nothing can fill that, but God.

That part will always stay lonely no matter if one is single, married, wealthy, or poor. It is the bittersweet longing for the Beatific Vision, for the Holy City, for the perfect communion with God.

The problem is that people often on this side of Eden, try to end this loneliness by chasing after things that they don't have. So, some single people fixate on finding a partner and get disappointed over and over again. Advertising and consumerism is all about telling people that they can fill that longing with stuff.

And tragically, people can get so wrapped into that loneliness and despair, that they turn to violence.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Love "The Onion."

I think Porridge is on the money, too.

quote:
Then there are the cultural norms (probably applying regularly to the 3 young men he lived with) -- dating (which for folks of this age often includes sex). He's trying so hard to be normal (and is so utterly clueless as to the many ways in which he isn't, and cannot be), and yet this aspect of normality eludes him utterly.

That answers the question I've had since seeing his picture -- Why didn't the girls like such a cute boy? I'll bet many a girl sidled up to him at a party, began flirting, and then, within minutes, felt something "off," about some little thing he said or did. And he never had the slightest idea what he did wrong.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
IME, folks with Asperger's are notoriously non- compliant with shrink appointments and med regimens.
Any ideas why?

To comply with a treatment regimen, we must acknowledge and accept that (A) we have a problem, and (B) that the problem both requires and is also amenable to the recommended treatment. Before any of us can do that, we have to have a sense of self, along with the idea, however fuzzy or intermittent, that there's a dividing line between that self and the rest of the universe. We also need enough intelligence and memory to keep in mind the consequences of not complying, and a life that’s not too chaotic or unpredictable in ways likely to prevent our compliance. Most of all, we have to be able to care what happens, both to us and to others.

People with Asperger's seem to me to have an incomplete self. Again, this is based solely on my own experience with and observation of roughly two dozen clients with this diagnosis over the years; I don’t claim any special expertise and don’t have scholarly publications on the subject. Someone with more experience with a wider range of such clients (people eligible for my case load must have at least some capacity to live, with support, independently) can come along and blow everything I say out of the water.

What I see in these folks is a “shell person;” someone with sufficient acuity and mimicking ability to “act” typical at least some of the time, but in superficial, almost mechanical, ways. At the core, where most of us have a private self-awareness, the folks I’ve seen seem to have no “there” there. Often there seems to be a learned repertoire of behaviors (“Ah, I see: when someone asks me ‘What in bloody hell do you think you’re doing?!’, they’re not actually asking for an explanation of my current activity; instead, they’re demanding that I stop at once, and my response should be, ‘Oh! Why? What’s wrong?’”). Unfortunately, they seem to lack any true capacity for self-reflection beyond this superficial level. The person may understand that there are social norms and that it smooths their paths to conform to these, but there’s no real grasp of any larger picture. The folks I've known lack most of the tenderer emotions (sympathy, empathy, affection) themselves, so they’re unable to ascribe such feelings to others. When others express such feelings in their presence, the Asperger’s individual may be utterly perplexed and have no clue what’s evoked the feeling or how to respond to it, except through his repertoire of learned responses (if he has any for the current circumstance). The rest of us may seem not quite real to this person.

Blowing off an appointment with the therapist may seem like no big deal; skipping meds, likewise. The “problem,” from this person’s perspective, is that the world is a chaotic, unpredictable, rule-ignoring mess. If only people would develop reliable, predictable scripts to follow, like him, and obey all the (apparent) rules, like him, there would be no problem.

Effective therapy with these folks really has to address helping them develop appropriate (though possibly scripted) responses to the behaviors they’re likely to encounter, and helping them acknowledge, identify and manage their confusions and frustrations. It’s long, slow, tough work.

I’m recalling work with one of these clients, who was apt to pop wildly inappropriate questions at staff during home visits. One of my staff instructed him not to ask personal questions of her. The next time she visited, she greeted him (as usual) with, “Hi, X! How are you?” His response: “How come I can’t ask you personal questions, but you can ask me personal questions?” He had no idea how to distinguish between “How are you?” and something like “Did you fart in bed last night?”

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well done, you've just engaged in TWO basic category errors in just two sentences.

First of all, I was talking about 'spree shootings', not 'murders', and in spree shootings you are wrong. In spree shootings, the victims are more likely to be female.

Don't be so certain of that. I don't know where you got your info but since since I had trouble finding statistics on the 'net I decided to count out the number of victims listed in Wikipedia for shootings in the US in the past 14 years.

The list includes incidents where the number of victims in each incident ranged from 1 to 13. Out of a total of 62 incidents I counted a total of 321 fatal victims (not including the deaths of suspects). Out of those as far as I could tell (sometimes not enough info was given in the page and I had to hunt through links also a number of victims were Asian immigrants where it was hard to tell if it was a male or female name), 136 were female and 185 were male. Broadly speaking approximately 40% of victims were female and approximately 60% of victims were male so as far as I can tell in the past 14 years in the U.S. the victims in spree shootings are still more likely to be male than female.

quote:
Second of all, when I'm talking about statistics, talking about one individual case as if it disproves the point just shows you don't understand statistics. It's no more sensible than Moo deciding to tell me that one of the past shooters was Korean (which I already knew). A counter-example is only useful to disprove some kind of absolute principle, not to disprove a statistical trend.

First of all my little investigation above calls your point into question after reviewing the incidents of the past 14 years and counting out the number and sex of the victims involved . The majority of cases I saw had suspects who were diagnosed with or suspected of having mental illness. Many if not most involved a dispute in the workplace or with a government agency.

Where all or a majority of victims were women domestic disputes were often involved but also all sorts of other motives as well. For example, the deaths at a Lane Bryant store are thought to be a result of robbery gone badly and the deaths at a postal facility in 2006 were blamed on the suspects paranoia and history of mental illness. The shooter was a woman, by the way.

Second of all, you've been using this single incident as if it's an exemplar of a statistical trend when not only the trend is questionable (as far as I can tell) but the features of the incident don't exactly match that trend.

That's your problem on this thread. You've got it backwards. You're using this tragedy as a soapbox for your point of view. The point of view may be worthy in itself but trying to shoehorn this shooting into a series of boxes that fit that POV doesn't help.

quote:
You're also completely ignoring Rogers' INTENT and focusing on the RESULT he achieved. So what, the fact that he INTENDED to get into a sorority house and kill the girls in there doesn't matter, just because he failed in that particular part of his plan?

He intended to get back at the world. He wanted to get back at it for what he felt it owed him including plenty of hot chicks. Getting into the sorority house was part of it but he'd already killed 3 guys and he then went off shooting randomly in the street. He didn't kill because he was a misogynist. There are plenty of misogynists walking the street today. (Misandrists too, for all I know). He killed because of his severe personal issues that somehow escaped treatment and intervention.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

... Which lead us back to the question, why did he become a hero to some young men? Young men who specifically praised his comments about women?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That answers the question I've had since seeing his picture -- Why didn't the girls like such a cute boy? I'll bet many a girl sidled up to him at a party, began flirting, and then, within minutes, felt something "off," about some little thing he said or did. And he never had the slightest idea what he did wrong.

I don't know. I've known other people on the autism/aspergers spectrum, and their social reactions were frequently "off", but with a little bit of education people could cope with the mismatch.

But watching that video, his reactions are more than a bit off. His ideas are so wrong-headed that I have trouble believing that no one told him what he was doing wrong. Now, maybe it's true that he had more difficulties than the people I've known, or less successful interventions/ social skills training, but... I don't know. It seems like he interpreted every attempt to tell him what he was doing wrong as a form of bullying and a lack of acceptance for him as he was. Is that a trait of those on the autism/aspergers spectrum? Or is that a trait of people raised a certain way in a certain culture? (Or both?)

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... Which lead us back to the question, why did he become a hero to some young men? Young men who specifically praised his comments about women?

Kelly,
I don't know. I haven't read comments from those young men yet (after reading all about mass shootings last night I'm not exactly in the mood for negativity tonight).

For now I'll just say: 1)Trolls. There arealways trolls so many of them could be just that; and 2)I think men and especially young men have been going through some issues the last couple of decades.

This has the potential to go down a whole different bunch of rabbit holes but for starters I think Camille Paglia is on to something here..

I've some other thoughts but I'll save them for later. Got to go....

[ 28. May 2014, 01:28: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

I just realized that interview might be behind a pay wall so in case it is there is a cached version of it here.

Mind you, I don't necessarily endorse everything she says.

OK. Now I go...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
He intended to get back at the world. He wanted to get back at it for what he felt it owed him including plenty of hot chicks. Getting into the sorority house was part of it but he'd already killed 3 guys and he then went off shooting randomly in the street. He didn't kill because he was a misogynist.

In this case we don't really have to guess that hard at what he was trying to accomplish. He left a copious record. In the words of one blogger:

quote:
Rodger told the world exactly why he went on this killing spree. He spelled it out in excruciating detail and sent his narrative of the killings to the media. In case that wasn’t enough, he made a series of YouTube videos to cement his narrative of his own crime in the public mind.

Here’s why he did it: He was distraught because he had never had a girlfriend. He was enraged because he believed he was entitled to sex and adulation from women. He believed that women would never be attracted to him because women are sub-human animals who are instinctively attracted to “brutish” “stupid” men, instead of magnificent gentlemen like himself. Women, in his view, should not be allowed to make their own decisions about whom to have sex with, because, as subhuman animals, they are incapable of choosing the good men. As a result, humanity continues to degenerate, because women only breed with stupid, unworthy men (including, to his infinite exasperation, men of color). His solution was that women SHOULDN'T HAVE RIGHTS. He explained that he was fighting a personal “War on Women” (his words), to strike fear in the hearts of all women everywhere because the women of Alpha Psi represented everything he hated and feared about the female gender. Namely, attractive women having sex with whomever they wanted and ignoring him. He explained that he was angry at men because women chose these other men over him.

He made all these points at least three times over. He was very clear about being angry at all women. He was very clear about wanting to send a message to society at large, as opposed to simply taking revenge against specific people he had a grudge against.

A person’s own account of their behavior is never the final word. But when the person outlines their motives as lucidly and in as much detail as this guy, that is the starting point for any reasonable interpreter.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to accept his motives as he explained them. They might not be rational by our analysis, but they were apparently compelling to him.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Porridge, thank you for explaining.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Why are people trying SO DAMN HARD to downplay or eliminate the role of misogyny in this asshole's murder spree? Why? Is it because privilege hates the spotlight? Is it because if we acknowledge the seething raw hatred against women that simmers just out of sight in many corners of our society, we just might have to do something about it? Is it because we might have to admit that Christianity has been fueling and feeding this misogyny for 2000 years, and needs to knock it off?

Why is it so hard to take this guy at his word?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Me a misogynist? Damn, I need to rethink my postings (and muchmore) if that is how I present myself.
I am merely saying his word cannot be accepted out of context. And the context thus far revealed encompasses too short a time frame. He likely was a misogynist. And a racist.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He likely was a misogynist.

Really? The best you can do is "likely"?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

But where, exactly, does it get us to label him a misogynist? Or a racist? Or, for that matter, mentally ill? Or a case of personality disorder (2 different categories, BTW)?

He is no less dead, nor are his victims, for 5 pages of strangers' efforts to label him accurately.

Here was a human being with catastrophically disordered thinking, enormous rage engendered by the frustrations of that disordered thinking, zero ability to cope with his rage and frustrations, a therapist and at least one parent fearful of and issuing warnings about his rage, and ready, legal access to multiple lethal weapons granted by the very society he was enraged with.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He likely was a misogynist.
Really? The best you can do is "likely"?

Very likely? Very, very, likely?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

According to NIMH, slightly more than 1 in 4 US adults has a diagnosable mental illness in any given year.

According to ABC News, 1 in 3 US households own at least one gun.

I'm guessing we may have what's known as a self-limiting problem.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But where, exactly, does it get us to label him a misogynist?

Where does it get us to recognize that the men who dragged James Byrd to death were racists? It reminded us that racism is not just about hurt feelings and can have fatal consequences.

Where did it get us to say that the men who crucified Matthew Shepard were homophobes? It showed us the real face of homophobia, that it's not limited to a few unkind words and stupid jokes.

Where does it get us to label Elliot Rodger a misogynist? Same answer. Pretending he wasn't is just an attempt to save misogyny's "good name".

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The folks I've known lack most of the tenderer emotions (sympathy, empathy, affection) themselves, so they’re unable to ascribe such feelings to others. When others express such feelings in their presence, the Asperger’s individual may be utterly perplexed and have no clue what’s evoked the feeling or how to respond to it, except through his repertoire of learned responses (if he has any for the current circumstance). The rest of us may seem not quite real to this person.

I was agreeing with many of your comments, Porridge, until this one. Now, I'm rather outraged.

I have a great deal of familiarity with Aspergers – my mother is a psychologist who specialises in it, and a third of my extended family have it – and I'm appalled that you're assessing Aspies as "lacking" some emotions. The Aspies I have encountered have, almost to a man, had a great deal of difficulty expressing emotion, but have certainly felt all those emotions you listed VERY deeply. And often in a way that causes them a great deal of pain, simply because they do have such difficulty expressing what they're feeling.

Honestly, I'm feeling rather upset with you at the moment. (And I wish I was able to explain why more clearly, but right now I can't.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But where, exactly, does it get us to label him a misogynist?
Where does it get us to recognize that the men who dragged James Byrd to death were racists? It reminded us that racism is not just about hurt feelings and can have fatal consequences.

Where did it get us to say that the men who crucified Matthew Shepard were homophobes? It showed us the real face of homophobia, that it's not limited to a few unkind words and stupid jokes.

Where does it get us to label Elliot Rodger a misogynist? Same answer. Pretending he wasn't is just an attempt to save misogyny's "good name".

Crœsos, That is just bullshit and you should know it. Not one person here is doing any such thing.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That answers the question I've had since seeing his picture -- Why didn't the girls like such a cute boy? I'll bet many a girl sidled up to him at a party, began flirting, and then, within minutes, felt something "off," about some little thing he said or did. And he never had the slightest idea what he did wrong.
I don't know. I've known other people on the autism/aspergers spectrum, and their social reactions were frequently "off", but with a little bit of education people could cope with the mismatch.

But in a 'girls meet guys' situation, they don't have the luxury of giving the man the benefit of the doubt. "he's a bit off, I feel creeped out, but maybe he's just autistic and not an actual stalker/predator". If she gets it wrong, the consequences could be very, very bad. So I don't blame the girls at all for keeping their distance from a guy whose social reactions are a bit off.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But where, exactly, does it get us to label him a misogynist? Or a racist? Or, for that matter, mentally ill? Or a case of personality disorder (2 different categories, BTW)?

It gets us to thinking about the next misogynist or racist and what that might mean.

Seriously, isn't that what the remark from the Onion is about? America is in this perpetual cycle of watching these kinds of events happen and showing no signs of prevention. Why? Because it's always purely REactive. Oh well, it's happened now, it's in the past, we couldn't stop it.

Goddamn it, start being PROactive. Come up with solutions. And what's required to come up with solutions? You have toANALYSE.

That's where it gets us, for God's sake. It's not about resurrecting Elliot Roger or Elliot Roger's victims, it's about understanding what happened well enough to have a decent shot at preventing the next 'Elliot Roger' whatever his name is.

Like I said before, what happens when a plane crashes? It gets investigated. Enormous amounts of effort go into identifying what went wrong, and then taking that information to fix other planes, or train the maintenance engineers, or if pilot error is involved to train other pilots. It's pointless telling the pilots to fly more carefully if in fact the real cause was a catastrophic mechanical failure the pilot couldn't do anything about. Analysis is required before it's possible to find a meaningful solution.

Analysis, analysis, analysis. You'd apparently tell us we should just accept the plane crashed and not try to work out why because it won't bring back the crash victims.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Don't be so certain of that. I don't know where you got your info but since since I had trouble finding statistics on the 'net I decided to count out the number of victims listed in Wikipedia for shootings in the US in the past 14 years.

If you'd read the articles linked to in this thread, you'd know where I got the statistics from and you wouldn't have trouble finding any, and you wouldn't need to carry out a Wikipedia excursion.

I believe it was in an article that Josephine linked to. I've seen the same point about the disproportionate number of female victims elsewhere since. I'm going to trust those sources over your data hunt. Certainly, two different sources have told me that there has been just one female perpetrator of this type of crime in the last several decades. That stood out rather a lot.

[ 28. May 2014, 08:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
He didn't kill because he was a misogynist. There are plenty of misogynists walking the street today. (Misandrists too, for all I know). He killed because of his severe personal issues that somehow escaped treatment and intervention.

And this just shows that you're another one of these people that doesn't comprehend the difference between sufficient factors and necessary ones, or risk factors.

It's not about finding a SINGLE, self-sufficient cause. Your assertion that he killed because of his severe personal issues is demonstrably wrong for exactly the same reason you give for misogyny - there are plenty of people with severe personal issues walking on the street today.

You can say exactly the same thing about ANY single cause, in relation to anything that is multifactorial. It's a completely meaningless statement. It's a statement denying sufficiency of a factor when no-one was claiming it.

You might as well say that I can't possibly have various genetic characteristics as a result of one of my parents having the same characteristic, because there are other people walking around who don't share that genetic characteristic with their parent. It's utterly fallacious reasoning that requires ignoring the fact that each of us has 2 parents, and 2 copies of each gene, and both of our parents had 2 copies of each gene. It also requires ignoring how certain combinations of parents don't guarantee a given result but also rule out certain results.

Seriously, go learn about something like blood types and then come back and see if you're willing to try and run such a fallacious 'single cause' argument again.

[ 28. May 2014, 08:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
I've never been all that convinced by the line that people who seem to be completely narcissistic and entitled actually hate themselves. I've heard it a lot but it seems counterintuitive at best. Does it come from the perspective that says that self esteem is the cure for everything? I don't know.
The argument is more nuanced than you put it. Narcissistic people hate their real selves, the flawed, ugly and broken parts of their personality. And so they tend to create exaggerated, perfect versions of themselves and that is what they "love."

Self-love is not about loving a perfect version of yourself. It is about accepting oneself, warts and all, the good stuff and the bad stuff. It's a journey of self-realization.

Spot on. I have a hunch that this guy actually thought sex was dirty and ugly, and projected this onto women. So they would not adore his true self, which is divine and superior. It's a kind of weird gnosticism.

Just a hunch, but I've met quite a lot of guys who have this pattern, not as pathologically, of course.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, I'm never sure if I'm on the Autistic spectrum at all, so if I am, it's very high-functioning, but nevertheless I can absolutely identify with the scenario Porridge describes; going through adolescence utterly out of the dating loop, whilst the bastards who beat the shit out of you because you're different are the ones getting the girls, having your approaches rebuffed; seeing again and again the horror on a girl's face when she realises you'd like to be more than just good friends (how terrible!) and watching her being treat like shit by some bloke who is inexplicably, even though he's a twat, more attractive to women than you are. Yeah, it can fuck you up. As I say, if I'm on the spectrum it's at the normal end, but yet I was 25 before I had any romantic involvement with the opposite sex, because of my inability to grasp subtle social conventions.

I think there's a bunch of dynamics here that are useful to highlight.

For example, often when we have discussions around privilege, the (very valid) perception for a lot of women is that, in general, men have the power, and women don't. So the lens through which different social things are viewed is about bringing equality to that power dynamic.

However, there are a lot of men out there with a different perception of things. From their point of view, there are three (perhaps four) levels of power. At the top are the rich, good-looking, strong, confident men (the alpha-male). Second is women, and at the bottom are the men who (like them) aren't strong, confident, rich, or good looking.*

From the point of view of a lot of men, in social interactions, it's the women who have the power. Because sexuality is always floating around in the back of the male psyche, women hold this massive power over them. And ironically, from the woman's point of view, the power dynamic is perceived as the other way round.

So, when Marvin pointed out (in the rape culture purg thread) that he has the same feelings of vulnerability when walking at night / in a room alone with someone, some women (and a few men) expressed surprise. But it makes total sense - a woman might fear being attacked and raped when on their own. A man has two concurrent fears - first being attacked and beaten up (by one of the strong, confident men at the top of the pile), and second, being perceived as a threat himself, by being mistaken for a predator or attacker.

These are generalities, and some speculation. But, basically, where I'm going is this: most people feel powerless. In different social dynamics, people look at other people, and from their perception, those people 'have power'. And if you have power, then surely you should be happy and confident?

So a woman can look at a man and thinks "a gender-privileged society as given you all the power!", and yet not realise that that she too has a huge amount of power over the man, simply by nature of being a woman, being this incomprehensible, desirable, delicate, strong creature.

The net result of all these different perceptions: everyone feels powerless, and everyone thinks that everyone else has the power. My guess is that the strong, confident, rich men feel as powerless as the rest of us too.

For me, as a result of a huge bunch of factors, encompassing all those that have been talked about on this thread, Elliot Roger felt totally powerless. Powerless over his disability, powerless over his mental health problems, powerless over women, powerless over 'strong' men. We can look at his wealth, his privilege, his good looks and think, well, of course he had power. But people tend to count what they lack, not what they have. And he did what he did as a desperate misguided attempt to grasp power back for himself.

This is tragic.

I don't know what the solution to this is (other than the obvious one of getting rid of the fucking guns). The gender ideals that get fed to us from so early on (Action man and Barbie) set so many of these perceptions. Perhaps the best thing that is happening in our society with regards to this is the increasing acceptance of 'other' in terms of sexuality and gender ambiguity. Encountering someone different may provoke people to stop seeing the world with such simplistic interpretations. The same with race, culture and class too. The more people integrate, then the more people will just see people as people, and the whole power dynamic thing won't feel so important any more.

* The four categories could possibly include a further division of the women into the sexually desirable ones and those that aren't. But with that, I think a lot of men who see the world this way would lump the women who they don't see as sexually desirable into the same category as them - the everyone-elses, or just leave them out of their mental equation.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Porridge

Your series of analyses are very helpful and full of detail and insight. I am learning from you.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But where, exactly, does it get us to label him a misogynist? Or a racist? Or, for that matter, mentally ill? Or a case of personality disorder (2 different categories, BTW)?

He is no less dead, nor are his victims, for 5 pages of strangers' efforts to label him accurately.

Here was a human being with catastrophically disordered thinking, enormous rage engendered by the frustrations of that disordered thinking, zero ability to cope with his rage and frustrations, a therapist and at least one parent fearful of and issuing warnings about his rage, and ready, legal access to multiple lethal weapons granted by the very society he was enraged with.

Also, enormous envy. The coupling of rage and envy like this is a classic pattern; my first reaction was 'psychotic rage and envy', but that is using the world 'psychotic' in a rather different way from the psychiatric. Anyway, a truly deadly combination, when linked to guns.

And your point about inability to cope with his own feelings and reactions is to the point; some therapists talk about being able to think about your feelings, and then, talk about them. I doubt he could do that, so they turn into an intense fantasy system, where there are no real people.

Yes, he is a misogynist, but an increasingly mad one.

I suppose I feel this anger and regret - he could have been rescued, and nobody dies. But it would need prompt emergency intervention, alas lacking.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, when Marvin pointed out (in the rape culture purg thread) that he has the same feelings of vulnerability when walking at night / in a room alone with someone, some women (and a few men) expressed surprise. But it makes total sense - a woman might fear being attacked and raped when on their own. A man has two concurrent fears - first being attacked and beaten up (by one of the strong, confident men at the top of the pile), and second, being perceived as a threat himself, by being mistaken for a predator or attacker.

Just to point out, I don't think it goes far enough, in some contexts, to say it is the 'same feelings of vulnerability'. A man has vulnerability, but as you've in fact pointed out it's not from the same causes.

Therefore it also doesn't have the same solutions.

If all you're trying to do is describe symptoms, then lots of diseases create the same or similar symptoms. But treatments for symptoms are not the same as treatment for underlying diseases.

[ 28. May 2014, 10:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

All true, Orfeo. The nature and cause of the feelings are different, but they are feelings of vulnerability nonetheless.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
All true, Orfeo. The nature and cause of the feelings are different, but they are feelings of vulnerability nonetheless.

Fine.

So are we trying to just ooh and ah with sympathy when people of either gender express their feelings of vulnerability when walking in the dark, or is anyone interested in trying to actually make them feel safer?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

From my point of view, it's about red flags. In a British context, I would say that Rodger was showing quite a few, especially if the police had searched his room - the guns, the manifesto, which records a plan towards mass murder, maybe various videos, ditto - I think this would be enough for detaining him. But I don't know if this is enough in the US, or indeed, if the cops have the right to search his room.

It's not just about explaining, but predicting. I think a notion of psychological red flags does predict (imperfectly, of course), the people who might be dangerous. But people like Rodger may be able to elude detention, since he is not raving in the street.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
People with Asperger's seem to me to have an incomplete self. Again, this is based solely on my own experience with and observation of roughly two dozen clients with this diagnosis over the years; I don’t claim any special expertise and don’t have scholarly publications on the subject. Someone with more experience with a wider range of such clients (people eligible for my case load must have at least some capacity to live, with support, independently) can come along and blow everything I say out of the water.

Or, you know, someone with Asperger's. There are quite a few of us on SoF. You don't appear to have considered that.

quote:
What I see in these folks is a “shell person;” someone with sufficient acuity and mimicking ability to “act” typical at least some of the time, but in superficial, almost mechanical, ways. At the core, where most of us have a private self-awareness, the folks I’ve seen seem to have no “there” there. Often there seems to be a learned repertoire of behaviors (“Ah, I see: when someone asks me ‘What in bloody hell do you think you’re doing?!’, they’re not actually asking for an explanation of my current activity; instead, they’re demanding that I stop at once, and my response should be, ‘Oh! Why? What’s wrong?’”). Unfortunately, they seem to lack any true capacity for self-reflection beyond this superficial level. The person may understand that there are social norms and that it smooths their paths to conform to these, but there’s no real grasp of any larger picture. The folks I've known lack most of the tenderer emotions (sympathy, empathy, affection) themselves, so they’re unable to ascribe such feelings to others. When others express such feelings in their presence, the Asperger’s individual may be utterly perplexed and have no clue what’s evoked the feeling or how to respond to it, except through his repertoire of learned responses (if he has any for the current circumstance). The rest of us may seem not quite real to this person.

I’m recalling work with one of these clients, who was apt to pop wildly inappropriate questions at staff during home visits. One of my staff instructed him not to ask personal questions of her. The next time she visited, she greeted him (as usual) with, “Hi, X! How are you?” His response: “How come I can’t ask you personal questions, but you can ask me personal questions?” He had no idea how to distinguish between “How are you?” and something like “Did you fart in bed last night?”

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand fuck you. We're not shell people. We don't lack emotion. Our emotions and our behaviour don't match up in the way you expect because we process things differently from neurotypical people. The fact that you don't instinctively understand what happens in our heads doesn't mean that there's nothing there.

(You might also want to consider that "how are you?" might be an extremely personal question, particularly for someone who is bad at lying. It's a question that I absolutely hate but because I'm not neurotypical I don't get any say in what I consider rude or intrusive.)

Incidentally, there is no medication for Asperger's. There are medications for depression and anxiety (common among aspies, particularly anxiety) and I suppose stuff for irritability. But there is no medication you can give someone to make them less autistic. So aspies failing to take meds is not remotely like someone in a psychotic episode refusing to take meds. My experience has been that as creatures of habit and routine it's pretty soothing to do the same things each day, including taking meds.

It's pretty clear from the things that you're saying about the ASD individuals you've worked with that they're lower functioning that Rodger in any case. I'm not really sure why we're having this conversation except that it's painfully fucking predictable. Every time some shit like this happens everyone scrambles to disassociate themselves from the killer by pointing out that he is Not Like Us. So if you're neurotypical and have no mental health issues it's pretty straightforward to point to those and start sounding off about how people like me (yup, I tick both ASD and mental illness boxes) are more like the killer.

I can't believe I'm having to say this, but there is not one autistic personality. There are nice ASD people, and horrible ones. For the most part, we're more likely to be obsessed with not breaking rules which funnily enough makes us less likely to commit crimes. But invariably, when one of us does, it's presented as a causal factor.

We can discuss whether Rodger killed because of his ASD or we can look at the fucking reasons he gave us for why he killed. Imagine the following (yeah, I have an imagination, too. And a sense of humour. Just in case those aspie stereotypes come up):

Mr. A. is a white supremacist. He gets himself immersed in an online culture of racial hatred and spends his time talking to people with brutal violent fantasies about race war. Mr. B. has similarly immersed himself in Islamist extremism. He likes to hang out with wannabe jihadis online. Because of the nature of the internet, each of these guys is able to spend an inordinate amount of time talking to people who agree with them, and getting more and more caught up in rhetoric and flawed arguments and twisted evidence. They get angrier. Eventually, one day, each of them snaps, writes a 140-page manifesto about how they are vastly superior to [group] and want to crush [group] and put them all in a concentration camp and watch them starve. Then they each go on a killing spree.

What happens next? Do you think it's even remotely likely that people would be as dismissive of their ideology as people have been of Rodger's misogyny? "Mr. A. might have been a bit racist, I guess, but the real issue here is his mental health!" In the case of Mr B. it's likely that the whole Muslim world is going to be accused along with him.

Rodger immersed himself in a subculture that hates women. These are the guys who send rape and death threats to anyone with a feminist blog. Their websites are full of elaborate fantasies about violence towards women. They are every bit as much about male surpremacy as Mr A. is about white surpremacy. And there's no doubt that Rodger was into this - his rhetoric/language comes straight from those websites. He's clearly been absorbing a diet of extreme misogyny and then he went ahead and actually did the things that the other guys in the subculture only talk about. If he'd done it in the name of Islam, people would be punching innocent Muslims on the streets about now. But for some reason, that element needs to take a back seat.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

On US law, friends are telling me that the cops did have probable cause, to wit, the previous videos, threatening mayhem. This might over-ride the 'unreasonable search and seizure' protection, allowing the cops to search his room, with a warrant presumably.

Once the guns and plan are found, surely Rodger is committed. I suppose one problem here is the sharing of information between agencies; supposedly in the UK, this is done in the NHS, information being funnelled to the various teams who go out to detain and section. Of course, it doesn't always work.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, there's a black joke going around, that Rodger's mother should have told the cops he had become a jihadist. He would have been detained, I think.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

[Tangent]

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

(You might also want to consider that "how are you?" might be an extremely personal question, particularly for someone who is bad at lying. It's a question that I absolutely hate but because I'm not neurotypical I don't get any say in what I consider rude or intrusive.)

I have a good, neutral answer for "how are you" which is "Still kicking thank you". (Meaning 'still alive and kicking')

It gives nothing away, but is friendly and polite. If I want to make the other person smile I then add "Just don't ask me who!"

[Smile]

[/tangent]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
From the point of view of a lot of men, in social interactions, it's the women who have the power. Because sexuality is always floating around in the back of the male psyche, women hold this massive power over them. And ironically, from the woman's point of view, the power dynamic is perceived as the other way round.

Right, because men have penises, and women have breasts and vaginas, and because the very thought of breasts and vaginas can cause a man to have an erection, and because women (the dastardly, powerful, inhuman creatures that they are) can then refuse to relieve it for him. And that's clearly an incredible amount of power for one person to have over another, and one that we have to put a stop to.

So men have, from time immemorial, worked to equalize this horrific power imbalance. And they've done a damned good job of it.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
We're not shell people. We don't lack emotion. Our emotions and our behaviour don't match up in the way you expect because we process things differently from neurotypical people. The fact that you don't instinctively understand what happens in our heads doesn't mean that there's nothing there.

(You might also want to consider that "how are you?" might be an extremely personal question, particularly for someone who is bad at lying. It's a question that I absolutely hate but because I'm not neurotypical I don't get any say in what I consider rude or intrusive.)

Incidentally, there is no medication for Asperger's. There are medications for depression and anxiety (common among aspies, particularly anxiety) and I suppose stuff for irritability. But there is no medication you can give someone to make them less autistic. So aspies failing to take meds is not remotely like someone in a psychotic episode refusing to take meds. My experience has been that as creatures of habit and routine it's pretty soothing to do the same things each day, including taking meds.

It's pretty clear from the things that you're saying about the ASD individuals you've worked with that they're lower functioning that Rodger in any case. I'm not really sure why we're having this conversation except that it's painfully fucking predictable. Every time some shit like this happens everyone scrambles to disassociate themselves from the killer by pointing out that he is Not Like Us. So if you're neurotypical and have no mental health issues it's pretty straightforward to point to those and start sounding off about how people like me (yup, I tick both ASD and mental illness boxes) are more like the killer.

I can't believe I'm having to say this, but there is not one autistic personality. There are nice ASD people, and horrible ones. For the most part, we're more likely to be obsessed with not breaking rules which funnily enough makes us less likely to commit crimes. But invariably, when one of us does, it's presented as a causal factor.

We can discuss whether Rodger killed because of his ASD or we can look at the fucking reasons he gave us for why he killed. Imagine the following (yeah, I have an imagination, too. And a sense of humour. Just in case those aspie stereotypes come up):

Mr. A. is a white supremacist. He gets himself immersed in an online culture of racial hatred and spends his time talking to people with brutal violent fantasies about race war. Mr. B. has similarly immersed himself in Islamist extremism. He likes to hang out with wannabe jihadis online. Because of the nature of the internet, each of these guys is able to spend an inordinate amount of time talking to people who agree with them, and getting more and more caught up in rhetoric and flawed arguments and twisted evidence. They get angrier. Eventually, one day, each of them snaps, writes a 140-page manifesto about how they are vastly superior to [group] and want to crush [group] and put them all in a concentration camp and watch them starve. Then they each go on a killing spree.

Spot fucking on.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But where, exactly, does it get us to label him a misogynist? Or a racist? Or, for that matter, mentally ill? Or a case of personality disorder (2 different categories, BTW)?
It gets us to thinking about the next misogynist or racist and what that might mean.

Seriously, isn't that what the remark from the Onion is about? America is in this perpetual cycle of watching these kinds of events happen and showing no signs of prevention. Why? Because it's always purely REactive. Oh well, it's happened now, it's in the past, we couldn't stop it.

Goddamn it, start being PROactive. Come up with solutions. And what's required to come up with solutions? You have toANALYSE.

That's where it gets us, for God's sake. It's not about resurrecting Elliot Roger or Elliot Roger's victims, it's about understanding what happened well enough to have a decent shot at preventing the next 'Elliot Roger' whatever his name is.

orfeo, I don't disagree with you. But I do live here, in this place where we're all but next door to having our streets running with blood (Chicago is maybe there already). I'll wager I see many more US "shots fired" stories than you do, as the *cough* lesser of these incidents likely don't make headlines very far afield, as we become paralytically inured to the ongoing carnage.

But just as we investigate airline crashes, we also investigate murders. The police DO that job; they're doing it now with the Rodger case. Yes, there is also analysis.

But murder is NOT an airline crash, where an instrument failure which a change in pre-flight inspection might catch next time out. It's not a routine flight procedure which doesn't work in certain weather conditions, and a change in pilot training might prevent.

In murder, it's always "human error." Pilots routinely get screened. Many of the unfit are weeded out before training; most of the rest will fall away during it; those who pass through these gates will continue to be screened for as long as they keep a pilot's license.

There is no way to screen 350 million people in this fashion. There's no way even to screen the 26-point-something-% of us who have mental illness in this fashion. Our system of laws and governance was originally designed to prevent the government from having the power to do any such thing. And though we're being covertly surveilled these days 16 ways from Sunday (by Amazon & Target, if not our own government), I can't see the US populace agreeing, for the sake of preventing the carnage we live with, to having themselves screened, examined, whatever-it-would-take. For pity's sake, we can't even pass sensible gun legislation: it's "Take the bad guy's gun, but keep yer mitts offa mine."

And I'll retract my query about labels. I'm wrong. They do matter.

If we had a grain of sense, we'd stop pretending that racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. etc. are merely the "opinions" (however misguided) we currently treat them as. We would recognize that these, too, are in fact mental illnesses. They are forms of the same kind of disordered thinking.

Take Guy One: he believes that the CIA listens to his thoughts through his fillings. This is patently untrue. We label him "mentally ill."

Guy Two believes that women or sexual minorities or people of color or people with disabilities (insert group of choice here) aren't actually people subject to the same rights, privileges, and failings he himself is heir to. This is patently untrue. Him we label "ignorant" or "prejudiced."

Aren't both sets of beliefs are equally delusional? However, that's probably another thread.

There's more I need to respond to, but am out of time. My apologies.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
People with Asperger's seem to me to have an incomplete self.

If they seem that way to you, I would suggest that the fault is in you and not in them.

Rodgers didn't kill a bunch of people because he has Aspergers and so wasn't entirely human and lacked the tenderer emotions. He killed a bunch of people because he was angry. He was angry because he was a misogynist who thought of women as coin machines that should dispense sexual favors on demand. When they didn't, he got angry.

Angry people are the most likely to be violent.

Even in psychosis, it's anger, not delusion, that predicts violence.

But Aspergers is not psychosis. And people with Aspergers are not "shell people" who are lacking the "tenderer emotions." They may have trouble knowing how to express such emotions in a socially acceptable way, and they may have trouble recognizing such emotions. But they have them.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
If we had a grain of sense, we'd stop pretending that racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. etc. are merely the "opinions" (however misguided) we currently treat them as. We would recognize that these, too, are in fact mental illnesses. They are forms of the same kind of disordered thinking.

No they fucking aren't.

quote:
Take Guy One: he believes that the CIA listens to his thoughts through his fillings. This is patently untrue. We label him "mentally ill."

Guy Two believes that women or sexual minorities or people of color or people with disabilities (insert group of choice here) aren't actually people subject to the same rights, privileges, and failings he himself is heir to. This is patently untrue. Him we label "ignorant" or "prejudiced."

Aren't both sets of beliefs are equally delusional? However, that's probably another thread.

There's more I need to respond to, but am out of time. My apologies.

Oh for fuck's sake. Mental illness isn't just a handy term that you can throw at anything you don't like. Both these sets of beliefs are factually incorrect. However, Guy 1 thinks this is happening because his brain is malfunctioning in some way. This is a situation you can treat with anti-psychotic meds. After finding the right treatment, this guy should be able to see the truth of the matter as well as anyone else.

Guy 2 does NOT have a malfunctioning brain. He has a brain that works in the same basic way as other brains, but he has a malfunctioning framework for the world. It may be the world he grew up in and never thought to question, or it may be the world that he came across, liked, and decided to get involved in because it made him feel good about himself. His brain is prone to the same kind of confirmation bias and other cognitive fuckups that every brain is prone to, which makes it particularly difficult to shift these views once they're entrenched. Guy 2 may come round to see the errors of his ways but there's no medication for bigotry.

Some glaringly obvious problems with the position you've just presented run as follows.

1) If racism and homophobia count as mental illness rather than cultural norms, then you're going to have to paint whole societies (or nearly whole societies) with the crazy brush. American white people in the time of slavery? All nuts. Saudis and their attitude towards gay people? More illness there. It's not workable.

2) People don't choose to be ill. Guy 1 is suffering horribly through no fault of his own. His situation may be difficult and painful but it's morally neutral. He isn't complicit. Guy 2 is grabbing his mistakes with both hands and choosing not to move away from them.

3) Do you really want to see society moving towards a situation where all people with stupid, misguided and bigoted beliefs are considered mentally ill? Because there have been societies that have been more than happy to decide that anyone with an opinion the elite didn't like were insane - Christians, political activists, women who wanted to get an education, and so on.

4) Do you really want to see society moving towards a situation where all mentally ill people are seen as bad? Scratch that. We're already seen that way. When you put all the horrible, bigoted, violent people into a new category because it helps you to feel better about their beliefs, you might like to think of the people who are already there in that category and how they might feel about all being lumped into the same lovely happy family together.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Liopleurodon, you are awesome and absolutely my favourite Shipmate right now.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Liopleurodon, you are awesome and absolutely my favourite Shipmate right now.

I won't go that far, but that was an excellent and well-argued post, Lio. Kudos.

[ 28. May 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

THANKYOU, Liopleurodon. Exactly what I was wishing I could express about Aspergers.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But where, exactly, does it get us to label him a misogynist? Or a racist? Or, for that matter, mentally ill? Or a case of personality disorder (2 different categories, BTW)?
It gets us to thinking about the next misogynist or racist and what that might mean.

Seriously, isn't that what the remark from the Onion is about? America is in this perpetual cycle of watching these kinds of events happen and showing no signs of prevention. Why? Because it's always purely REactive. Oh well, it's happened now, it's in the past, we couldn't stop it.

Goddamn it, start being PROactive. Come up with solutions. And what's required to come up with solutions? You have toANALYSE.

That's where it gets us, for God's sake. It's not about resurrecting Elliot Roger or Elliot Roger's victims, it's about understanding what happened well enough to have a decent shot at preventing the next 'Elliot Roger' whatever his name is.
orfeo, I don't disagree with you. But I do live here, in this place where we're all but next door to having our streets running with blood (Chicago is maybe there already). I'll wager I see many more US "shots fired" stories than you do, as the *cough* lesser of these incidents likely don't make headlines very far afield, as we become paralytically inured to the ongoing carnage.

But just as we investigate airline crashes, we also investigate murders. The police DO that job; they're doing it now with the Rodger case. Yes, there is also analysis.

But murder is NOT an airline crash, where an instrument failure which a change in pre-flight inspection might catch next time out. It's not a routine flight procedure which doesn't work in certain weather conditions, and a change in pilot training might prevent.

In murder, it's always "human error." Pilots routinely get screened. Many of the unfit are weeded out before training; most of the rest will fall away during it; those who pass through these gates will continue to be screened for as long as they keep a pilot's license.

There is no way to screen 350 million people in this fashion. There's no way even to screen the 26-point-something-% of us who have mental illness in this fashion. Our system of laws and governance was originally designed to prevent the government from having the power to do any such thing. And though we're being covertly surveilled these days 16 ways from Sunday (by Amazon & Target, if not our own government), I can't see the US populace agreeing, for the sake of preventing the carnage we live with, to having themselves screened, examined, whatever-it-would-take. For pity's sake, we can't even pass sensible gun legislation: it's "Take the bad guy's gun, but keep yer mitts offa mine."

And I'll retract my query about labels. I'm wrong. They do matter.

If we had a grain of sense, we'd stop pretending that racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. etc. are merely the "opinions" (however misguided) we currently treat them as. We would recognize that these, too, are in fact mental illnesses. They are forms of the same kind of disordered thinking.

Take Guy One: he believes that the CIA listens to his thoughts through his fillings. This is patently untrue. We label him "mentally ill."

Guy Two believes that women or sexual minorities or people of color or people with disabilities (insert group of choice here) aren't actually people subject to the same rights, privileges, and failings he himself is heir to. This is patently untrue. Him we label "ignorant" or "prejudiced."

Aren't both sets of beliefs are equally delusional? However, that's probably another thread.

There's more I need to respond to, but am out of time. My apologies.

But police murder investigations are REACTIVE.

That's the very essence of my point. Police murder investigations are about catching a murderer. They're not about stopping the next murder. They're not about analysing systemic trends.

There certainly is some police work that is preventative in nature, but a murder investigation is most certainly not. All that a murder investigation can possibly do in the Elliot Roger case is a bit of documentation of crime scenes, collecting facts for the coroner. What comes of it? There is no one to prosecute.

Coroners can, in fact, investigate systemic issues and make recommendations. Coroners can do things like investigate child drownings and then make recommendations about pool fences and the law in relation to pool fences.

The difference between day-to-day operation and systemic review is actually pretty fundamental to almost any system. There are endless training courses explaining to organisations how they need to not only spend time and money and people on what they do, but they need resources to keep looking at what they're doing and consider whether changes to be made. My first public service job was with a tribunal that handled cases in our administrative law system. My second public service job was with the council set up to monitor how our administrative law system is functioning, a council which would never touch an individual case.

The police do an excellent job, but it is simply not their role to work out ways of reducing the number of people who want to commit crimes. They work on enforcement and investigation, not on sociological questions.

If you're going to focus on 'screening', then of course you're going to throw up your hands and say it's impossible. Screening is enforcement.

Do you know why companies advertise? Or politicians for that matter? It's so that they can reach a huge number of people and tweak the thoughts of a whole lot of people in their favour. Do they expect to get each and every person to vote for them or buy their product? Nope. Their aim is to push enough people over in their direction to change the outcome or to increase their market share. Sure, they could probably get everyone by going to their house individually and basically staying there until they'd got the result they wanted, but the time and expense of that is impossible.

After the last US Presidential election, I saw a couple of fascinating graphs about the relative voting patterns of different US States. Nearly every State swings in the same direction at a given election (certainly the last couple), and they even swing quite similar amounts. Does that mean the President-elect won every State? Nope. It means that the States that were already fairly close to voting for him switch to voting for him.

Does every strategy to reduce smoking rates prevent all lung cancer? Nope. Does it reduce the rate of smoking a bit more? Yep. Plain packaging is working in Australia right now (which is why the tobacco companies fought it so furiously). Does every reduction in smoking rates reduce the rate of lung cancer in the population? Yep.

Do I think finding ways to dial down misogynistic culture is going to stop every mass shooting? Nope. Do I think it's going to reduce domestic violence to zero? Nope.

What I do think is that every push towards making misogyny unacceptable is going to make a few more young guys think misogyny is unacceptable and they won't do it. And heck, maybe they'll tell their still-misogynistic friends that it's unacceptable and those friends will at least know that what they're doing isn't cool with everyone. And maybe just a few of those young guys, who have a bunch of the other risk factors that in combination make a toxic spree-shooting powder keg will now be missing one key ingredient for an explosion.

You talk about screening, and you're talking about trying to implement a method to eliminate these incidents. Whereas I keep talking about ways to reduce the rate, not eliminate. Your country passing sensible gun laws would be one fabulous way of reducing the rate, seeing as how your country's rate of certain kinds of death sticks out so visibly from countries that are socio-economically comparable. But if you can't manage that, manage something else.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I agree that reducing misogyny is a good thing, and would reduce violence against women, rape, and so on. I'm not convinced it would stop people like Rodger, as I think he is gunning to kill somebody. For example, he talks about killing his mother and brother, and I think he would have done it, if they were there. In fact, I think he would have killed almost anybody (but not his father).

He is certainly a misogynist, but (in my opinion, not a diagnosis), a mad misogynist. In his craziness, I think he would go out and randomly kill. That's why I am harping on about red flags, so that people like him can be flagged up, before they kill.

But, of course, it's not either/or. We can do both.

[ 28. May 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Don't understand. Porridge posts insight one day and complete bollocks the next on the same subject.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yeah, I don't get racism or misogyny as a mental illness.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I agree that reducing misogyny is a good thing, and would reduce violence against women, rape, and so on. I'm not convinced it would stop people like Rodger, as I think he is gunning to kill somebody.

Rodger is not equal to 'people like Rodger'. I think we're safe from Rodger now. You can stop thinking he is gunning to kill somebody. His gunning is strictly past tense.

I also think that every individual is unique and that finding the perfect plan to stop Rodger is besides the point. There will be something about the NEXT 22-year-old-BMW-driving-multiple-therapists-Asian-American that makes them ever so slightly different.

EDIT: For starters, they might not have Aspergers. That is going to throw the whole 'what to do when a shell of a man starts expressing his hatred of blonde college girls' playbook completely out the window and we'll be sunk.

SECOND EDIT: Also, saying that he would randomly kill kinda ignores the fact that he didn't actually randomly kill, don't you think? Saying he had a wide range of possible targets is not the same as saying he was random.

[ 28. May 2014, 15:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

orfeo

I'm not looking for a perfect plan, no way. But I work in a profession which takes part in a system of red flags, which flags up dangerous people. It is certainly not perfect, but it can always be improved, and hopefully, new ways will be found to do that. I think there were plenty of red flags for Rodger, and the cops were nearly there, but of course, hindsight is perfect.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
orfeo

I'm not looking for a perfect plan, no way. But I work in a profession which takes part in a system of red flags, which flags up dangerous people. It is certainly not perfect, but it can always be improved, and hopefully, new ways will be found to do that. I think there were plenty of red flags for Rodger, and the cops were nearly there, but of course, hindsight is perfect.

What bothers me, though, is that in your equation of him being a 'mad misogynist', it turns out that only the 'mad' bit matters. Misogyny ceases to be even a contributing cause, despite the existence of a considerable amount of openly misogynistic material and misogynistic justification for what he planned to do. Planned.

I'm sure you and your profession could, in a proper setting, go into considerably more precise detail about just what kind of 'mad' is necessary to create the red flags. But it still leaves me with the question, what happens if a person possesses no indicators of being 'mad' apart from the supposed indicator of having actually done something horribly evil?

Liopleurodon, in one of her very many insightful posts, made that point. As you say, hindsight is perfect. There's a great temptation for circular reasoning, whereby the horrible act is the hindsight proof of madness on the basis that only a mad person could do such a horrible and 'senseless' act.

I think it was at that point, agreeing with Liopleurodon, that I mentioned Anders Breivik. The diagnosis and un-diagnosis of Breivik caused waves of controversy for that very reason. We risk a system whereby no-one can ever be convicted of a crime that we find shocking and senseless for the very reason that we find it shocking and senseless. We risk a position whereby we don't accept that anyone with extreme levels of hatred is within the bounds of rational thought.

There are whole vast philosophical questions here about the extent to which we are going to accept explanations for people's behaviour as excuses for their behaviour. We already see an endless list of factors in people's childhood and/or their mental functioning that are wheeled out to explain in court why they didn't really do it, they were driven to it in some way. It's long been an issue in the law even in relation to drunkenness. Some of this stuff is relevant to sentencing, but it bothers me how often people try to use it in relation to actual guilt.

Maybe he had to be 'mad' to be a 'mad misogynist', and maybe he couldn't help the 'mad' part, but by golly let's not make it okay for him to be a misogynist just because he was a mad one.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What bothers me, though, is that in your equation of him being a 'mad misogynist', it turns out that only the 'mad' bit matters. Misogyny ceases to be even a contributing cause, despite the existence of a considerable amount of openly misogynistic material and misogynistic justification for what he planned to do. Planned.

As has already been shown in this discussion, misogyny is not illegal, or an illness. It is merely highly objectionable and antisocial. Professionals can't intervene just because someone has offensive views.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

orfeo

A lot of complicated stuff, there.

Something similar happened with the Yorkshire Ripper, declared by the judge vehemently, to be bad not mad, but later found to be both. I mean, he went to prison and could not be controlled, so went to Broadmoor as a paranoid schizophrenic.

The problem with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and so on, is that (contra Porridge), they are not mental illnesses, nor even diagnostic of them.

But certain versions of them may be, if they are particularly intense, or imbued with fantasy, or semi-psychotic, and so on.

But as I said, I don't see it as either/or. I think education and campaigns against misogyny are essential. I have been a member of Pink Therapy for 20 years, which campaigns against homophobia, and of course, helps gays and lesbians find therapists or whatever. I even wrote a bloody book on homophobia.

I suppose Rodger is sort of frustrating to the psychological professions, since he could/should have been nabbed.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The problem with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and so on, is that (contra Porridge), they are not mental illnesses, nor even diagnostic of them.

I'm not sure anybody's claimed that. But they set up expectations, and when those expectations are not met, there is the risk of anger, and anger plus a certain kind of madness can equal violence.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On US law, friends are telling me that the cops did have probable cause, to wit, the previous videos, threatening mayhem. This might over-ride the 'unreasonable search and seizure' protection, allowing the cops to search his room, with a warrant presumably.

What videos threatening mayhem? AFAICT the misogyny and general creepiness in the videos was a warning sign, but there were no actual threats until right before he acted. He seems to have been too smart for that.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On US law, friends are telling me that the cops did have probable cause, to wit, the previous videos, threatening mayhem. This might over-ride the 'unreasonable search and seizure' protection, allowing the cops to search his room, with a warrant presumably.
What videos threatening mayhem? AFAICT the misogyny and general creepiness in the videos was a warning sign, but there were no actual threats until right before he acted. He seems to have been too smart for that.

Ah well, if you are right, then the legal/police route collapses, I think. I was told that the earlier videos issued threats that he intended to kill people, but I haven't seen them. I think they are all taken off now. They might still have produced sufficient alarm, to signal danger.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
From the point of view of a lot of men, in social interactions, it's the women who have the power. Because sexuality is always floating around in the back of the male psyche, women hold this massive power over them. And ironically, from the woman's point of view, the power dynamic is perceived as the other way round.
Right, because men have penises, and women have breasts and vaginas, and because the very thought of breasts and vaginas can cause a man to have an erection, and because women (the dastardly, powerful, inhuman creatures that they are) can then refuse to relieve it for him. And that's clearly an incredible amount of power for one person to have over another, and one that we have to put a stop to.

So men have, from time immemorial, worked to equalize this horrific power imbalance. And they've done a damned good job of it.

In my whole lengthy post, the section you've quoted was the hardest to write, as I did not want the conclusions you have written to naturally follow from it (I think for most men, they don't). Plus, I was describing (not justifying) the perception of those men.

I think it's more nuanced than what you've said. Re-read Karl's earlier post. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a gentle, kind young man, who doesn't want to dominate or control women, but does want a relationship with one. Every time he sticks his head above the parapet and even approaches a member of the opposite sex, he encounters awkwardness and rejection (e.g. skip to 1:10 in this clip from Despicable me 2 ). And, as far as he can see, those same women instead choose to date men who cheat on them and treat them like shit.

Can you not see how he might end up with a number of different perceptions? That, despite not deserving it, those bastard alpha males have all the power. But also, that women hold the power too. Not because they're withholding their vaginas, but because each rejection destroys a little more of the tiny amount of self-confidence he has left. If just one woman accepts me, then I am loveable and acceptable. Yet they all reject me.. The power isn't in withholding sex, it's all tied up in someone's identity as a person who is worthy of love and affection. (Of course, defining one's whole identity and worthiness according to one's desirability according to the opposite sex is farcical, but for many men, it's our default setting. I cannot speak for women on this).

For whatever reasons, it is generally true that for women, independence from men is a thing to be craved and respected. However, for men, approval, attention and admiration from women is what is craved. For a woman to say "I don't need men" appears strong and self-confident. For a man to say "I don't need women" seems arrogant and a little in denial. Perhaps this all comes out of trying to navigate our way into a post-patriarchal society. Who knows?

But anyway, there are a lot of men with that perception of themselves out there. Whether that perception is accurate or not (I'm sure often it is not - it is just a by product of existing insecurities and so they see the world that way even when it isn't), it is understandable. Of course, everyone is an individual. There is no male experience and no female experience, and gay and bi people have different minefields to navigate.

It would do a vast number of men a great deal of good to see the world through the eyes of a woman; the difficulties and barriers they face, the things they yearn for, the societal constructs that confound them. It would also do a lot of women good to see the world through the eyes of some of these men too, to understand the way they are, and why they are that way - their struggles and insecurities too. Not to vindicate or justify - just to understand.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

Mr. A. is a white supremacist. He gets himself immersed in an online culture of racial hatred and spends his time talking to people with brutal violent fantasies about race war. Mr. B. has similarly immersed himself in Islamist extremism. He likes to hang out with wannabe jihadis online.

I am not picking on your reasoning, and do appreciate your posts on this thread. However your scenarios will help me illustrate the point I have been attempting to make. I am not aiming this at you, but to the thread.
Here are my changes:
Mr. A. is a white man who perceives life to be unfair. He encounters white supremacist propaganda and it gives his frustrations focus. He then goes on a killing spree, targeting minorities. Is he racist? Yes. Is the reason he killed racism? Not necessarily. It might be without that trigger, he would not have gone this far. It might be he would have found another reason.
HOWEVER, this argument does not then imply racism is not a very bad thing. That it does not cause awful behaviour.
Same with the misogyny angle in this instance.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mr. A. is a white man who perceives life to be unfair. He encounters white supremacist propaganda and it gives his frustrations focus. He then goes on a killing spree, targeting minorities. Is he racist? Yes. Is the reason he killed racism? Not necessarily. It might be without that trigger, he would not have gone this far. It might be he would have found another reason.

I am informed by a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center that when white supremacists spend time with other white supremacists (either online or in real life, it doesn't seem to matter which), and when their ideas are visible in public and engaged with, the white supremacists become more extreme and more likely to commit violence.

When their opinions are marginalized, and when they meet with clear and public pushback when they do show up in public, their opinions become less extreme, and they become less likely to commit violence.

In other words, without the immersion in the extremist milieu, it's likely that he would NOT have found another reason for his murderous rampage.

Making it clear that misogyny, racism, and the like are simply Not Acceptable Beliefs will not prevent every future murderous rampage, any more than adequate handwashing will prevent every future case of infectious disease. But they will reduce the frequency of such. And that's a good thing.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mr. A. is a white man who perceives life to be unfair. He encounters white supremacist propaganda and it gives his frustrations focus. He then goes on a killing spree, targeting minorities. Is he racist? Yes. Is the reason he killed racism? Not necessarily. It might be without that trigger, he would not have gone this far. It might be he would have found another reason.
I am informed by a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center that when white supremacists spend time with other white supremacists (either online or in real life, it doesn't seem to matter which), and when their ideas are visible in public and engaged with, the white supremacists become more extreme and more likely to commit violence.

When their opinions are marginalized, and when they meet with clear and public pushback when they do show up in public, their opinions become less extreme, and they become less likely to commit violence.

In other words, without the immersion in the extremist milieu, it's likely that he would NOT have found another reason for his murderous rampage.

Making it clear that misogyny, racism, and the like are simply Not Acceptable Beliefs will not prevent every future murderous rampage, any more than adequate handwashing will prevent every future case of infectious disease. But they will reduce the frequency of such. And that's a good thing.

I agree, Josephine. But two points. Firstly, pushback needs to be pushback, not more mimetic verbal hate-talk, which sadly sometime happens.

But secondly - and I hate to say this - all those things, as well as all the other forms of hate-talk and misanthropy, wont actually be tackled by pushback alone, much as it needs to be done. They are deep-rooted perennial weeds, and like all deep rooted weeds, they spring back after the rain. The roots need killing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

Making it clear that misogyny, racism, and the like are simply Not Acceptable Beliefs will not prevent every future murderous rampage, any more than adequate handwashing will prevent every future case of infectious disease. But they will reduce the frequency of such. And that's a good thing.

I do agree and never meant to imply otherwise.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mr. A. is a white man who perceives life to be unfair. He encounters white supremacist propaganda and it gives his frustrations focus. He then goes on a killing spree, targeting minorities. Is he racist? Yes. Is the reason he killed racism? Not necessarily. It might be without that trigger, he would not have gone this far. It might be he would have found another reason.
I am informed by a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center that when white supremacists spend time with other white supremacists (either online or in real life, it doesn't seem to matter which), and when their ideas are visible in public and engaged with, the white supremacists become more extreme and more likely to commit violence.

When their opinions are marginalized, and when they meet with clear and public pushback when they do show up in public, their opinions become less extreme, and they become less likely to commit violence.

In other words, without the immersion in the extremist milieu, it's likely that he would NOT have found another reason for his murderous rampage.

Making it clear that misogyny, racism, and the like are simply Not Acceptable Beliefs will not prevent every future murderous rampage, any more than adequate handwashing will prevent every future case of infectious disease. But they will reduce the frequency of such. And that's a good thing.

I don't think anybody would argue with that, would they? Well, OK, somebody is bound to, but in general, it would get assent, except for racists and so on.

I suppose what has puzzled me has been the hostility shown by some people to a psychological approach to Rodger, as if that precluded a discussion of misogyny. I don't see that it does at all.

I've been interested in the whole thing, as the 'red flags' which are used in the psychological professions are at issue. I don't think misogyny in itself would be a red flag, but extreme misogyny would be, and as has been said, extreme misogyny flourishes in the company of other misogynists.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

When I say 'hostility', I don't mean on this forum; but elsewhere I have had feminists yelling in my face, 'no, it is not about YOUR FUCKING MASCULINIST THERAPY SHIT', and in like vein.

I don't get this. It seems like a kind of would-be monolithic or pure approach to problems. One cause, one God, one people, (oops, Godwin).

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There's a thought that has occurred to me reading through this, when people have suggested a move in society to make the misogynist attitudes uncool, not appropriate for men to hold and act on. Men who take that, from a woman's position, very welcome position, might well appear, from the position of those men on those websites I have not looked at, to be Other, letting the side down, betraying their masculinity in the face of the dominant women. It might not help. It might even mark those men out as potential targets.
I don't like this thought. For a long time I have thought there should be a campaign along the lines of Real Men Don't... (there was something like that in London on bus stops once, I think). But perhaps it just wouldn't work.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Penny S

I think for some groups of men, it is uncool. I know guys, who will groan if someone says something sexist, and say stuff like, 'have you crawled out of the dark ages?'.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On US law, friends are telling me that the cops did have probable cause, to wit, the previous videos, threatening mayhem. This might over-ride the 'unreasonable search and seizure' protection, allowing the cops to search his room, with a warrant presumably.
What videos threatening mayhem? AFAICT the misogyny and general creepiness in the videos was a warning sign, but there were no actual threats until right before he acted. He seems to have been too smart for that.
Ah well, if you are right, then the legal/police route collapses, I think. I was told that the earlier videos issued threats that he intended to kill people, but I haven't seen them. I think they are all taken off now. They might still have produced sufficient alarm, to signal danger.

I'm sorry I can't remember where, but I have read that the police did not bother to look at the Facebook postings before going to talk to Rodger and then he removed the videos from FB after their visit.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

For those of you who empathize with how frustrated poor nerdy guys who don't get the girl must feel, please read this.

And then read this.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I just shared the first of those links on Facebook, Josephine -- great article.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I just shared the first of those links on Facebook, Josephine -- great article.

heartbreaking, but yes, very good

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It is very good, and ties to one of the other observations I saw, about how many movie scripts involve a guy not just achieving what he set out to achieve, but getting 'the girl' in the process. She's part of his reward structure. It's not enough to win the race or the contest or climb the mountain or whatever, again and again the guy gets the girl as part of his success.

People in certain groups of society want their life packaged, the way their TV is packaged. Because they're sold the exact same package again and again. It's about time that we stopped telling white guys that they're the centre of every story they're in.

I watched a certain episode of The Good Wife last night (it's a couple of months old in the USA, but I don't know where everyone else is at so I won't go into the details). Then I went and read some of the reactions to a certain episode of The Good Wife. Many of the complaints had a common element: you didn't prepare us for this. You didn't follow the proper story arc. You didn't give us all the right beats so that we knew where we were. You shocked us.

Real life, of course, is shocking. It doesn't follow scripts, never mind specifically following unimaginative ones that show you exactly what you've seen a hundred times before and making you feel good that you know how the story goes.

No-one told me my grandmother was going to die on Mother's Day. No-one expected it despite her age. There's a bunch of things I wouldn't have planned to do on that day or on surrounding days if I'd known, but I didn't. It was a shock. That's the point.

When I met a guy and fell in love, no-one smoothed out the obstacles so that we could be together in the end. No-one decided that because passionate sparks flew between us, we were meant to be together and his previous entanglements would disappear or be solved within a 90-minute running time.

No-one selling the great American Dream points out that the vast majority of dreamers will never get anywhere near what they're after.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is very good, and ties to one of the other observations I saw, about how many movie scripts involve a guy not just achieving what he set out to achieve, but getting 'the girl' in the process. She's part of his reward structure. It's not enough to win the race or the contest or climb the mountain or whatever, again and again the guy gets the girl as part of his success...

No-one selling the great American Dream points out that the vast majority of dreamers will never get anywhere near what they're after.

But the real issue the article points out is how often these fictitious television scenarios entail the dreamer getting what they're after (i.e. the girl) by just taking her-- or, as the article aptly describes it, rape.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is very good, and ties to one of the other observations I saw, about how many movie scripts involve a guy not just achieving what he set out to achieve, but getting 'the girl' in the process. She's part of his reward structure. It's not enough to win the race or the contest or climb the mountain or whatever, again and again the guy gets the girl as part of his success...

No-one selling the great American Dream points out that the vast majority of dreamers will never get anywhere near what they're after.
But the real issue the article points out is how often these fictitious television scenarios entail the dreamer getting what they're after (i.e. the girl) by just taking her-- or, as the article aptly describes it, rape.

I agree. But that's because the fictitious television girls never say no. At least, they're always saying yes by the time the credits roll.

I saw the movie 500 Days of Summer recently. It was actually quite refreshing in some ways to see the girl turn around to the guy and say no. The guy's coping mechanisms with this turn of events weren't exactly exemplary.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Do people really can't figure out the difference between fiction and reality?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is very good, and ties to one of the other observations I saw, about how many movie scripts involve a guy not just achieving what he set out to achieve, but getting 'the girl' in the process. She's part of his reward structure. It's not enough to win the race or the contest or climb the mountain or whatever, again and again the guy gets the girl as part of his success...

No-one selling the great American Dream points out that the vast majority of dreamers will never get anywhere near what they're after.
But the real issue the article points out is how often these fictitious television scenarios entail the dreamer getting what they're after (i.e. the girl) by just taking her-- or, as the article aptly describes it, rape.
I agree. But that's because the fictitious television girls never say no. At least, they're always saying yes by the time the credits roll.
.

But the examples given in the article, any later yes is preceded by a sexual encounter derived through something other than a "yes"-- iow, rape. But yeah, the implication that a rape victim will later decide their rapist is their dream boat is I guess yet another aspect of rape culture.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Penny S

I think for some groups of men, it is uncool. I know guys, who will groan if someone says something sexist, and say stuff like, 'have you crawled out of the dark ages?'.

I wasn't suggesting that there aren't men like that - most of the men I know are (and I only put most because I don't have windows into the souls of the men on the fringes of those I know) - but that the men we are concerned about here aren't going to take their reactions seriously, and regard them as the arbiters of cool.

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :

Thanks for the links, Josephine. I'm glad to see some criticism of "The Big Bang"--I think the main male characters are creepy losers. And for your previous comment in regards to that nonsense about women "having power."

From the examples I've seen, self-proclaimed "nice guys" are every bit as like to be misogynists as the "alpha males" they envy so much. (And the male half of the human species is not simply divided in alphas and "nice guys," either.) The "nice guy" is just as likely to be a hair fetishist or a date racist (yes that's spelled correctly--it's one of those jerks who just has to have an "exotic" girlfriend). The young man who sees himself as kind and gentle may come off as self-absorbed and boorish; he may complain incessantly about how (quoting one of my grad school acquaintances, known as "Eeyore" to women in the department) "all women want out of men is money." Not only to other guys, but also to female colleagues and in front of the children of his friends (if he has any). Or he just doesn't have any conversation. Or he neglects his personal appearance, as though basic grooming were just too expensive and time-consuming (or "too feminine") to bother with. Or he's failed to learn that it's rude to chew with one's mouth open, a concept most 8-year-olds can understand, but one beyond the grasp of another grad school acquaintance of mine, a middle-aged man with a Ph.D. from one of the world's greatest universities.

Years ago I saw the results of a survey that asked women what they disliked about dating. First on the list was being pressured to have sex; second was having to put with lack of good manners in their dates (and I think carelessness about grooming was right up there too). How many of those clueless "nice guys" have thought about these matters at all? Because a man who can't learn courtesy and fails to treat women with respect is not "nice" at all--and he's not a man in any meaningful sense of the word.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Do people really can't figure out the difference between fiction and reality?

unfortunately, it's not that simple. Some (not-crazy) guy isn't watching Speed and thinking, "all I have to do is save people from a bomb on a bus and I get Sandra Bullock!" But there is a more insidious message that does creep in. You can see it on the other side, with all the girls getting a warped view of their own value based on the mostly-naked chicks in advertising. It's like thinking, "This is what everyone sees, so it's what everyone is expecting."

And I expect it's the same with men. not exactly saying, "be a hero and girls' pants fall off!" But instead, "Girls see men doing amazing, risky things and so I have to, also." it's two sides of the same coin, but the message gets through. And you end up with young men who drive cars they can't really afford and collect weaponry they have no idea how to use and shotgun beers they don't even like the taste of because they're proving their willingness to take chances and save the innocent people on the bus. and when that doesn't work, they get pissed. Because "I've done all of this shit and bought into the whole paradigm, where's my Sandra Bullock?!?"

and the bitch of it is, on one level it's true. Not with everyone, maybe not even the majority, but there is a trend. Young women often are more likely to fall for a James Dean, no matter how unadvisable, and I know plenty of men who are only able to find themselves attracted to young women who are even dangerously thin if they look like the girls in the magazines, and even if they're really quite hideous human beings.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Do people really can't figure out the difference between fiction and reality?

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard actors talk about being called by the name of a character they've portrayed, and talked to AS IF they were that character. "I didn't like it when you..." and so on.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I agree. But that's because the fictitious television girls never say no. At least, they're always saying yes by the time the credits roll.
.
But the examples given in the article, any later yes is preceded by a sexual encounter derived through something other than a "yes"-- iow, rape. But yeah, the implication that a rape victim will later decide their rapist is their dream boat is I guess yet another aspect of rape culture.

Yup. That's what I was trying to get at. You don't have to wait for the consent if you've got in the back of your mind that she's guaranteed to consent later on. Just take her now. She's yours anyway.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I saw the movie 500 Days of Summer recently. It was actually quite refreshing in some ways to see the girl turn around to the guy and say no. The guy's coping mechanisms with this turn of events weren't exactly exemplary.

Interesting you should say that—according to the (male) director, that movie was an attempt to dramatize and make sense of "the worst thing anyone had ever done to him," IIRC. You're supposed to sympathize with the guy, and think the girl's a horrid bitch for stringing him along and/or saying no.

The girl's the prize, and she's always going to say "yes" to you. She just doesn't know it yet.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

SO the worst thing ever done to this guy was when he put all his eggs in one basket, and that basket kept telling him this basket don't want eggs.

Who did that to him, again?

And if you reversed the gender of the roles-- if the story was about some girl who kept pursuing some guy who made it clear he didn't want a relationship-- she would be called a fool by kind folk and a stalker/ bunnyboiler/ psycho by the assholes. Both male and female assholes. Unfortunately assholes tend to outnumber kind folk nowadays.

[ 29. May 2014, 05:18: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard actors talk about being called by the name of a character they've portrayed, and talked to AS IF they were that character. "I didn't like it when you..." and so on.

I've had that happen from stage plays. I played a grieving widow 7 or 8 years ago, and this one lady freaking still comes up to me and asks how I'm coping and if there is anything she can do to help. And if was a fucking comedy!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Unfortunately assholes tend to outnumber kind folk nowadays.

Not true.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Ask RooK.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For those of you who empathize with how frustrated poor nerdy guys who don't get the girl must feel, please read this.

And then read this.

That (first) article is fine, until the end, when it says, about Rodger, 'he needed to grow up'.

This makes me despair really. What, like Rodger was just a bit immature? Oh, fuck. I give up. We have mutual incomprehension here.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I knew everything the writer of that article says we "should know". But I was still lonely, frustrated and felt like shit.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I saw the movie 500 Days of Summer recently. It was actually quite refreshing in some ways to see the girl turn around to the guy and say no. The guy's coping mechanisms with this turn of events weren't exactly exemplary.
Interesting you should say that—according to the (male) director, that movie was an attempt to dramatize and make sense of "the worst thing anyone had ever done to him," IIRC. You're supposed to sympathize with the guy, and think the girl's a horrid bitch for stringing him along and/or saying no.

The girl's the prize, and she's always going to say "yes" to you. She just doesn't know it yet.

You are definitely supposed to sympathise with him, yes, because he's the movie's central character. But I didn't come away with any sense that the movie was trying to say that she was a horrid bitch.

It's also worth noting two things from the Wikipedia article: first, that the real-life girl read the script and said that she related more to the guy character than to the girl character.

Second, that the director of the movie was well aware of the limitations of the depiction:

quote:
Yes, Summer is an immature view of a woman. She's Tom's view of a woman. He doesn't see her complexity and the consequence for him is heartbreak. In Tom's eyes, Summer is perfection, but perfection has no depth. Summer's not a girl, she's a phase.

So I'm certainly not claiming this is a perfect, equal depiction. I just think that having a girl say no is a step in the right direction from various scripts that can't imagine a girl saying no in the long term.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For those of you who empathize with how frustrated poor nerdy guys who don't get the girl must feel, please read this.

And then read this.
That (first) article is fine, until the end, when it says, about Rodger, 'he needed to grow up'.

This makes me despair really. What, like Rodger was just a bit immature? Oh, fuck. I give up. We have mutual incomprehension here.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For those of you who empathize with how frustrated poor nerdy guys who don't get the girl must feel, please read this.

Thanks for the links Josephine. This article has a lot of truth to it. There are a whole bunch of narratives out there which inform young men (and young women) that are entirely unhelpful. I've not seen Revenge of the Nerds, but I remember feeling very unsettled at a similar scene in The Boat that Rocked. And there's much worse out there. Take Crank, an action movie where Jason Statham's character has to keep his adrenaline levels up or else he'll die. In one scene, the "only" way he can survive is to have sex with his girlfriend in public. So, he attempts to do that. She says 'no' a lot and tries to get away. But he perseveres, and in the end it turns out 'no' meant 'yes please' and there is a ludicrous public sex-scene for the pleasure of people passing by. And this is a comedic interlude in the film [Projectile]

I do think what the article misses, though, is what happens for the majority of men who buy into that narrative and find it fails them. It rightly asks:

quote:
So what happens to nerdy guys who keep finding out that the princess they were promised is always in another castle? When they “do everything right,” they get good grades, they get a decent job, and that wife they were promised in the package deal doesn’t arrive? When the persistent passive-aggressive Nice Guy act fails, do they step it up to elaborate Steve-Urkel-esque stalking and stunts? Do they try elaborate Revenge of the Nerds-style ruses? Do they tap into their inner John Galt and try blatant, violent rape?

Obviously that's where some of them end up. Very, very occasionally (with a bunch of other factors), they end up as an Elliot Roger. However, like Boogie, I think most people are inherently good and caring. Instead of turning them into violent misogynists, the failure of that narrative simply develops into things like a sense of failure and powerlessness, self-loathing and rejection issues, over-eating, loneliness, withdrawal and a lack of self-confidence. For the few, the failure and hatred is evidently projected outwards, in the form of misogyny that's been talked about. However, for the majority, I believe it's focussed inwards. There has been little talk here about that silent majority.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And then read this.

This is all very useful stuff. Every man should know this stuff. I've encountered this kind of thing before. Men need to try to understand women. Women experience all kind of things that men don't, and it's high time men got their heads round it.

Here's my concern though. It works the other way too. Women need to try to understand men too. Men experience all kinds of things that women don't. (And on that, straight people should try to understand gay people, and vice-versa, and so on.)

I've posted two lengthy emails trying to look at things from the perspective of some men. Your only engagement with it was to paint it as some ridiculous "women are cock-blocks and men resent that because they deserve those women who shouldn't withhold their vaginas from them so men should control women because women hold that power over them". Which is barking up a tree so far away that it's in a different forest. And posting these links. Which are useful, but still not really dealing directly with what I was talking about. Men understanding the experiences of women, and women understanding the experiences of men aren't mutually exclusive. We need both. I'm so grateful for shipmates like you, Kelly, and lilBuddha (and others), who have helped me see things from a female perspective that I can never have. I hope I can help repay that favour in the other direction. I have more to say, but this post is long enough already.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Sorry, there were loads of crossposts.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I knew everything the writer of that article says we "should know". But I was still lonely, frustrated and felt like shit.

Exactly Karl. This sums up where the majority of those men end up. They don't end up as violent misogynists. Knowing the right answers doesn't change our emotional responses to where we find ourselves.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I wish I could put it as eloquently as GPR here.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For those of you who empathize with how frustrated poor nerdy guys who don't get the girl must feel, please read this.

And then read this.
That (first) article is fine, until the end, when it says, about Rodger, 'he needed to grow up'.

This makes me despair really. What, like Rodger was just a bit immature? Oh, fuck. I give up. We have mutual incomprehension here.
Where did you get the word 'just' from, though? Would him growing up not help? At all?

The word 'just' doesn't appear in the quote you made, but it does appear in your own sentence. To me taking that word out or putting that word in to either sentence changes the meaning significantly.

Again it feels as if you want to say that Rodger being 'mad' is the sole cause of everything, and that a mature, non-misogynistic mad version of Rodger would have generated exactly the same outcome as an immature, misogynistic mad version of Rodger.

Surely, it's the article which is into sole causes, isn't it? The comment 'he needed to grow up', is pretty unequivocal to me. The problem was that Rodger was immature, or a kind of super-nerd.

Well, obviously I don't agree with that. I just feel this despair, as there seem to be two different conversations going on, with little contact with each other. But then inside Rodger, it strikes me that he had destroyed the links between various components, especially thinking and feeling.

And I see this as something that a lot of men do, so that they end up with a kind of internal ghetto-ization of various faculties. But I'm not saying that this is a 'sole cause'; I don't think that ever applies really, or rarely.

[ 29. May 2014, 08:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Here's my concern though. It works the other way too. Women need to try to understand men too. Men experience all kinds of things that women don't. (And on that, straight people should try to understand gay people, and vice-versa, and so on.)

I've posted two lengthy emails trying to look at things from the perspective of some men. Your only engagement with it was to paint it as some ridiculous "women are cock-blocks and men resent that because they deserve those women who shouldn't withhold their vaginas from them so men should control women because women hold that power over them". Which is barking up a tree so far away that it's in a different forest. And posting these links. Which are useful, but still not really dealing directly with what I was talking about. Men understanding the experiences of women, and women understanding the experiences of men aren't mutually exclusive. We need both. I'm so grateful for shipmates like you, Kelly, and lilBuddha (and others), who have helped me see things from a female perspective that I can never have. I hope I can help repay that favour in the other direction.

This. So very, very much this.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A colleague suggested to me that Rodger had gone into a hideous Manichean fantasy world; that is, split into a beautiful perfect aspect (which is mainly himself, seen as god-like), and also a very ugly and evil aspect (which consists mainly of women, seen as demonic).

I haven't had time to mull this over, but it is quite interesting, as it shows how the extreme misogyny would fit into the 'psychic catastrophe', which seems to have enveloped Rodger.

But I'm not suggesting this as a 'sole cause'; it just offers a way of uniting the different narratives about Rodger.

It also shows a possible way of working with people like this, by trying to make these splits more explicit, as they are often concealed, from others, and from the person concerned. But we don't know that Rodger could ever have been amenable to this kind of analysis.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, it's the article which is into sole causes, isn't it? The comment 'he needed to grow up', is pretty unequivocal to me. The problem was that Rodger was immature, or a kind of super-nerd.

Sorry, but no, absolutely not. Not unless you completely ignore some basic rules of English grammar.

"I need to wash the car" does not mean the same thing as "I just need to wash the car".

"I got there in time" does not mean the same thing as "I got there just in time".

"I like strawberry ice cream" does not mean the same thing as "I only like strawberry ice cream".

At some point in my drafting career I went through an exercise with a sentence. You could insert the word 'only' into half a dozen different places in the sentence and generate half a dozen different meanings. All of those kinds of qualifying words - 'only', 'just', 'solely' - are statements of exclusivity. They change statements from 'this is one' to 'this is one and there are no others'.

"He needed to grow up" is a statement that his immaturity is a problem. It is not a statement that his immaturity is the problem. If you're not going to keep some kind of distinct function between the definite article and indefinite article in a language, then you're going to end up speaking some crude pidgin version with no subtlety in it at all. And no capacity to distinguish singular from plural.

It matters in my job whether I write 'the' or 'a'. I've just spent time on that very issue in the last couple of days, because a client has written 'the' in their instructions when legally it has to be 'a', with the result that they've proceeded to write a whole bunch of further instructions that assume there is one, single thingummy that they can deal with and I'm having to point out to them that there may be a whole range of this thingummy to deal with and they need to have a method of identifying the particular thingummy in the class of thingummys.

This thread is absolutely rife with people taking "X is a problem" statements and turning them into implied "nothing that isn't X is a problem" statements. It's a basic logical fallacy, but it's being repeated over and over. Every time someone says that misogyny in spree shooters is a problem, someone acts as if that somehow implies that spree shooters are otherwise perfect well-adjusted individuals and model citizens.

The implication is logically wrong, it will always be logically wrong, and it's been logically wrong ever since language developed the concept of plurals and English started adding 's' on the end of words to indicate it.

[ 29. May 2014, 09:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

orfeo

Well, 'he needed to grow up' is placed at the end of the article, as a kind of climax.

The writer asks the question, 'what did Elliott Rodger need?', and he gives the reply as a final flourish, 'he needed to grow up'.

Well, as I said, I don't think it's accurate at all. Rodger needed a ton of things, but he had walled himself off from them.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
orfeo

Well, 'he needed to grow up' is placed at the end of the article, as a kind of climax.

The writer asks the question, 'what did Elliott Rodger need?', and he gives the reply as a final flourish, 'he needed to grow up'.

Well, as I said, I don't think it's accurate at all. Rodger needed a ton of things, but he had walled himself off from them.

The article also calls Rodger a 'maniac'. I would have thought that would have made you happier with it.

He also expressly states that misogyny does not automatically lead to mass murder.

[ 29. May 2014, 09:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Incidentally, I think the question 'what did Elliott Rodger need?' is a very good one. I don't think there is an easy answer really. Well, I don't have one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

My wife just read that article, and she said straight away that the opposite is true, that Rodger needed to regress, in a safe environment, and go into all the infantile stuff that he still retains and expresses. I suppose in the end, this is growing up, but it's doing that by first growing down, into the baby stuff. But again, maybe he would have resisted that totally, as it's felt to be humiliating and shameful by many men.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Ok, I said I had more to say, so here goes...

I think one of the things unique to the struggle of men that women can't relate to is the notion of being a gentleman. We're living in a society where there is more and more equality, which is wonderful. But the idea that men should be gentlemen hasn't gone away.

That's a good thing. Being a gentleman is good. It means you're humble, respectful, put other people first. There are a lot of good things about being a gentleman. Of course, some feminists don't want men to be gentleman ("Don't hold the door open for us - we're perfectly capable of opening it ourselves"). However, for others, it's exactly what's expected of us. So we're caught in this catch-22. If I hold the door open, so a woman can walk through it, am I contributing to a patriarchal society that subjugates women??? If I don't, am I just being rude???

That's just a simple illustration, but it's symptomatic of something bigger. That there are a whole lot of men out there that want an equal society, but they struggle with what their identity is to help create that. There is a pressure from without and within to do the right thing, but this pressure can be very hard to cope with.

We want to retain the good things that go with being a gentleman, but these things seem to fight against each other. We have the responsibility to behave correctly. Yet, we don't want to imply that that responsibility somehow means that we should be in control.

So, for example, society still says that, in courtship, it is the man that should pursue the woman. Of course, there are occasional exceptions to that, but nevertheless, that expectation is there. So, it's the man that is expected to ask the girl to marry him. It's the man that is expected to ask the girl out, to always be the gentleman, to put her needs and emotions first.

But there's an immediately an imbalance there, on both sides. For the girl, should she really have to send the right signals and wait for the guy to ask her out? For the guy, in this new society, are we not appearing threatening by even asking? So we still play this game, which might have worked okay in a patriarchal society, but doesn't fit the way the world is now.

Again, I can only address this properly from the male point of view. What this means for us is that we experience an huge sense of responsibility coupled with a huge sense of powerlessness. We have to put ourselves out there and make ourselves vulnerable, and the woman can just say "no". Or look awkward and run away, and never speak to you again... And whether anyone likes it or not, our libido is there in the background, taunting us. But this isn't really about sex; it's about security and identity.

So we feel that we must be the one to initiate romance, to ask that girl we like out. If the girl says 'yes', then our confidence shoots to the sky, and our identity is secure. Success. However, when one, two, three, four (...) girls knock us back, we begin to think there is something wrong with us. Each rejection is another nail in the coffin of our self-confidence. And of course, many of us don't even get as far as asking, because we lack any confidence in the first place, so we project rejection even where it wasn't.

Ok, so here's my personal experience. I was the nerdy guy... but I wasn't the guy who couldn't get a girl. I had my first girlfriend at 15, which lasted a good couple of years. Then a few other girlfriends before getting married in my early twenties. I'm now in my thirties and divorced.

I know this narrative though, because I have seen enough friends go through it. Though they quickly forget it when they finally meet the right girl and everything is peachy. However, I'm going through it now. I have had four knockbacks in a row. My wife was the big one - being rejected by someone who married you is tough. Since then, I've been knocked back by three other women too, women who I think there might be a chance of something happening with, but when I tentatively approach the possibility with them (with all those gentleman dynamics above going on) discover my hope was misguided. Now, like Karl said, I know all the right answers. But like he was, I am lonely, frustrated, and feel like shit. Despite knowing all the right things, despite support of friends, there is the voice that shouts at you "you are unloveable". And that's me - despite having somehow muddled through without too much rejection in my youth, it is very difficult to stop rejection becoming my dominant narrative now. And up until now we've been talking here about young men who have only ever known rejection.

Now, none of this is going to turn me into a violent misogynist. And, as I've said, I don't think that's what happens to most men either. But, as Karl said earlier, it can fuck you up. And I think most men go through it, and the only thing that finally seems to help them get over it is just one woman finally saying "yes".

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

goperryrevs [Votive]

This 'the man should do the asking' stuff really annoys me, and it did when I was a young woman too. In fact I didn't bother with it, I did the asking - every time. I wish more women would, it would add some balance to the whole dating minefield imo.

(It wasn't that I didn't get asked, I did, it was just that the people I fancied never asked me. I am sure it was for the reasons goperryrevs said as the quiet, studious type is my type. I am a little wild and outgoing, so it adds balance 'tho can still be disconcerting for Mr Boogs after nearly 40 years!)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Yeah, well said goperryrevs, and prayers from me too. I also am really annoyed by the apparent social pressure on guys to do all the asking and chasing, with women's role being simply to send out the signals to men from whom they would welcome and approach. It's a bizarre throwback to times when society was far more patriarchal than it is now.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is very good, and ties to one of the other observations I saw, about how many movie scripts involve a guy not just achieving what he set out to achieve, but getting 'the girl' in the process. She's part of his reward structure.

Yes. So what is even more depressing is that before you even get on to the gender stuff, the underlying big, big lie is that there is some kind of value index for people, and some just *are* higher up the index than others. This really makes me sad.

I have one friend - a guy I used to work with, then he left the firm and got a much better paid job - well done, him.

I really like him - he's clever, funny, self-deprecating, informed, solidly-built but he's been single all the time I've known him (15 years) and still is now.

Once, we went out for a drink, and I challenged him on his "it's never going to happen to me" rhetoric. He drew two triangles on the table with his finger. One is all the women in the world - with loads down at the bottom, and just a few at the top of the triangle. The other is all the men in the world - same structure - loads at the bottom, and a point at the top (well, you know what a triangle looks like...)

This is the problem, he says. A woman is prepared to be with a man on the same level of the triangle as him, but also one lower down. A man is only prepared to be with a woman the same level as him or above.

How is someone who thinks like that ever going to have a loving relationship?

[Frown]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

How is someone who thinks like that ever going to have a loving relationship?

Did you ask him?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

How is someone who thinks like that ever going to have a loving relationship?

Did you ask him?

No. I'm no good at friendship.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
goperryrevs said:

Now, like Karl said, I know all the right answers. But like he was, I am lonely, frustrated, and feel like shit. Despite knowing all the right things, despite support of friends, there is the voice that shouts at you "you are unloveable". And that's me - despite having somehow muddled through without too much rejection in my youth, it is very difficult to stop rejection becoming my dominant narrative now. And up until now we've been talking here about young men who have only ever known rejection.

Excellent insights. I think also some men are beset with shame and humiliation, so when you add that on top, you end up with a dangerous mix. But the big problem is that (for some of them), the rejection and shame and humiliation are seen themselves as unacceptable. So they are denied, and then you can get the blame towards women, and so on. But the blame often conceals massive hurt.

I've worked with some scary violent men, and when you get them in a room, sitting in armchairs, they can seem very pathetic and inadequate. The hope is that they can actually experience that, and not project it onto others.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I suppose it all depends on whether (a) he's willing to be an unusual man, and (b) whether he thinks he's near the top or bottom of his triangle.

FTR, I agree with an observation of the Late Great Ken (RIP [Votive]

). Put say 100 blokes and 100 women of around the same age in a large room together. What proportion of the men in the room would an average woman be attracted to? What proportion of the women in the room would an average man be attracted to?

Ken's hypothesis, which I think isn't far off the mark, was that the numbers were around 10% and 50% respectively.

It therefore follows that a man could approach all the women he was attracted to, and be rebuffed until he finds one of the far lower number who are attracted to him. Meanwhile, a woman approaching a man she's attracted to has a 50% chance of finding her attraction returned.

In effect, therefore, women make the partnering decisions.

It's cute, probably ridiculously oversimplified, and fits my observations and experiences perfectly.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yeah, well said goperryrevs, and prayers from me too. I also am really annoyed by the apparent social pressure on guys to do all the asking and chasing, with women's role being simply to send out the signals to men from whom they would welcome and approach. It's a bizarre throwback to times when society was far more patriarchal than it is now.

Part of the reason women aren't more direct is that they will be labelled "forward" "pushy" "sluts" "unfeminine".

Rigid gender roles hurt everyone.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Part of the reason women aren't more direct is that they will be labelled "forward" "pushy" "sluts" "unfeminine".

Rigid gender roles hurt everyone.

When I was asked out by my first girlfriend (because I was, and remain, hopeless), I didn't think her any of those things. And those in my immediate social circle wouldn't have thought that either.

What they would be thinking would be "thank fuck for that", because continually screwing up is soul-destroying.

So, who exactly would think a woman asking a man out was "forward" "pushy" "slut" "unfeminine"? Is it actually her own girlfriends?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I suppose it all depends on whether (a) he's willing to be an unusual man, and (b) whether he thinks he's near the top or bottom of his triangle.

FTR, I agree with an observation of the Late Great Ken (RIP ). Put say 100 blokes and 100 women of around the same age in a large room together. What proportion of the men in the room would an average woman be attracted to? What proportion of the women in the room would an average man be attracted to?

Ken's hypothesis, which I think isn't far off the mark, was that the numbers were around 10% and 50% respectively.

It therefore follows that a man could approach all the women he was attracted to, and be rebuffed until he finds one of the far lower number who are attracted to him. Meanwhile, a woman approaching a man she's attracted to has a 50% chance of finding her attraction returned.

In effect, therefore, women make the partnering decisions.

It's cute, probably ridiculously oversimplified, and fits my observations and experiences perfectly.

Exactly how much time do the straight men of the world spend examining the courting attempts of other men instead of working on their own?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly how much time do the straight men of the world spend examining the courting attempts of other men instead of working on their own?

If you change "examining" for "brooding over", then the answer is a disproportionate amount of time.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I suppose it all depends on whether (a) he's willing to be an unusual man, and (b) whether he thinks he's near the top or bottom of his triangle.

FTR, I agree with an observation of the Late Great Ken (RIP ). Put say 100 blokes and 100 women of around the same age in a large room together. What proportion of the men in the room would an average woman be attracted to? What proportion of the women in the room would an average man be attracted to?

Ken's hypothesis, which I think isn't far off the mark, was that the numbers were around 10% and 50% respectively.

It therefore follows that a man could approach all the women he was attracted to, and be rebuffed until he finds one of the far lower number who are attracted to him. Meanwhile, a woman approaching a man she's attracted to has a 50% chance of finding her attraction returned.

In effect, therefore, women make the partnering decisions.

It's cute, probably ridiculously oversimplified, and fits my observations and experiences perfectly.
Exactly how much time do the straight men of the world spend examining the courting attempts of other men instead of working on their own?

It's probably in direct proportion to how desperate they're getting.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I saw the movie 500 Days of Summer recently. It was actually quite refreshing in some ways to see the girl turn around to the guy and say no. The guy's coping mechanisms with this turn of events weren't exactly exemplary.
Interesting you should say that—according to the (male) director, that movie was an attempt to dramatize and make sense of "the worst thing anyone had ever done to him," IIRC. You're supposed to sympathize with the guy, and think the girl's a horrid bitch for stringing him along and/or saying no.

The girl's the prize, and she's always going to say "yes" to you. She just doesn't know it yet.
You are definitely supposed to sympathise with him, yes, because he's the movie's central character. But I didn't come away with any sense that the movie was trying to say that she was a horrid bitch.

So I'm certainly not claiming this is a perfect, equal depiction. I just think that having a girl say no is a step in the right direction from various scripts that can't imagine a girl saying no in the long term.

Yes, I thought Summer was very kind and gentle through out the movie with the exception of inviting him to her engagement party, which was more a case of her not realizing that he had not reached the "old friends,," stage that she had.

Sure the guy threw some plates where the rejected girl would have eaten cartons of ice cream, but I wouldn't call him a stalker. It just took him a while to get over her.

His reaction to the break-up was typical of both sexes. Particularly the part where he felt lied to when she married someone else after telling him she never wanted to marry. She gently told him that when she met her husband she instantly felt something that she had never felt with him.

Men, even more than women, need to learn the sad truth that just because you really, really like someone doesn't mean they will like you back. Women learn this by never being asked out by the guy they like. Men ask the girl out and then think they've won the girl if she says, yes. They forget that it only means she's willing to test things out and he still might fail with her.

Everybody needs to learn that it's hard to find an equal attraction and quit expecting it from the first person you meet. I loved how the movie ended.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Men, even more than women, need to learn the sad truth that just because you really, really like someone doesn't mean they will like you back.

Ha. That was fucking easy to learn. I'd figured it out by the time I was 14. It's believing that it's actually possible that someone you really, really like might actually one day like you back that's the hard one to believe.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly how much time do the straight men of the world spend examining the courting attempts of other men instead of working on their own?

How are we supposed to work on our own courting attempts if not by examining what has worked for other people?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Thanks Boogie & SCK. It is a shitty game, but it seems that we're forced to play it anyhow. Kudos to you, Boogie, for breaking the mould.

I feel like I should address this post:

quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
Thanks for the links, Josephine. I'm glad to see some criticism of "The Big Bang"--I think the main male characters are creepy losers. And for your previous comment in regards to that nonsense about women "having power."

From the examples I've seen, self-proclaimed "nice guys" are every bit as like to be misogynists as the "alpha males" they envy so much. (And the male half of the human species is not simply divided in alphas and "nice guys," either.)

The thing is, the guy who wrote that article is himself one of those creepy losers. He wasn't criticising the show for having nerds in it, he was rightly criticising the narratives that men are fed over and over, and exhorting his fellow nerds to rise out of that. So, I can't help thinking you've missed the point.

In terms of that nonsense about women having power. Again, point missed. My point was that, in the perception of many men, when it comes to relationships, women have power. Whether or not they objectively do have the power is neither here nor there. I'm talking about perceptions. Someone's perception is valid because it is entirely subjective. And in terms of power dynamics, if my perception is that someone has power over me, then the result is that they have power over me, because my perception is what informs the dynamic itself, even if they are oblivious of that. I and others have subsequently explored why that perception exists.

As for whether all the nice guys are closet misogynists, well, as I've already said, I think that's bull. IME the misogynists are a vocal minority. However, you're right that the world can't simply be divided into alphas and nices. And of course, there are plenty of men that could benefit from the advice you give with regards to good manners and personal hygiene, but I don't think that's the magic bullet that will fix all this.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

So, who exactly would think a woman asking a man out was "forward" "pushy" "slut" "unfeminine"? Is it actually her own girlfriends?

This is how my friends describe of their workmates, or of people they used to be friends with.

My own friendship group is disproportionately high in people 1. "On the spectrum" and 2. In non traditional relationship structures. So we are big on asking for what you want using words, and not doing things when drunk. But every now and again we are reminded that we are not the norm.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
goperryrevs

This 'the man should do the asking' stuff really annoys me, and it did when I was a young woman too. In fact I didn't bother with it, I did the asking - every time. I wish more women would, it would add some balance to the whole dating minefield imo.

(It wasn't that I didn't get asked, I did, it was just that the people I fancied never asked me. I am sure it was for the reasons goperryrevs said as the quiet, studious type is my type. I am a little wild and outgoing, so it adds balance 'tho can still be disconcerting for Mr Boogs after nearly 40 years!)

Yep! Same here. I was the one that asked, and Bullfrog's surprised answer is still a party story.

I also recommend the fun of holding the door for guys and doing other 'gentlemanly' things. Some very polite guys get SOO awkward when you do something normally polite like hold the door for them. Other just as old-southern-gentleman types smoothly enter the door and thank you. Either way it's a lot more fun for holding a door than guys get.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

{tangent alert}

I think it's partly because I belong to an older generation, (I was born in 1934) but it amazes me that people get their ideas of what life should be like from movies, television, etc. rather than real life.

I grew up with two parents who loved each other very much. I expected to have the same kind of relationship with the man I married; I did.

We were both geeks who met in a co-op house for graduate students. We knew each other for three years before we started taking an interest in each other. (Any relationships that developed in that house were serious; you don't want to have a casual relationship with someone you may meet at any hour of the day.)

The fact that I was born during the Depression and was a child in WW2 made me take it for granted that I wouldn't get everything I wanted; like most other people, I went for what was feasible. It seems that nowadays many people never consider feasibility.

What I wonder is, how many people get their expectations from the media, and how many from real life? The media present such a thin and pallid picture of things.

{/tangent alert}

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That (first) article is fine, until the end, when it says, about Rodger, 'he needed to grow up'.

This makes me despair really. What, like Rodger was just a bit immature? Oh, fuck. I give up. We have mutual incomprehension here.

Where did you get the word 'just' from, though? Would him growing up not help? At all?

The word 'just' doesn't appear in the quote you made, but it does appear in your own sentence. To me taking that word out or putting that word in to either sentence changes the meaning significantly.

Again it feels as if you want to say that Rodger being 'mad' is the sole cause of everything, and that a mature, non-misogynistic mad version of Rodger would have generated exactly the same outcome as an immature, misogynistic mad version of Rodger. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Rodger's problem was not immaturity. There are lots of immature boys (and girls) in the world. I teach them. And there's nothing wrong with them-- kids mature at different rates, so there's nothing wrong with that. But "immaturity" is not what was going on with Rodger. An immature 15 year old boy is one who still would rather play with legos than talk about girls. He might be prone to making fart jokes or giggling if you say "boobs" or some homonym for a private part (heck, the word "homonym" probably gets a giggle). They grow out of it, just a bit later than their peers. But immature boys don't try to rape girls.

[ 29. May 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly how much time do the straight men of the world spend examining the courting attempts of other men instead of working on their own?
How are we supposed to work on our own courting attempts if not by examining what has worked for other people?

I dunno, but I'm not entirely buying this idea that men are struggling THIS much to find women, but women can find a man when they want one.

For starters, the suggested 10% figure of men that women find attractive bears no relationship at all to the actual proportion of the male population that is partnered. There are lots of single guys out in the world these days, but it ain't sitting at 90%.

Nor is the number of male singles anywhere near as much out of kilter with the number of female singles as the little thought experiment suggests. And it would be surprising if it was, given that the great majority of relationships consist of one male and one female.

We do not, in fact, live in a world where a small proportion of alpha males have harems of females while the great majority of men go without a partner because the women are all taken. That's pretty much the kind of fantasy that Rodger bought into and perceived himself to be on the wrong side of.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Orignally posted by quetzalcoatl, actually:
That (first) article is fine, until the end, when it says, about Rodger, 'he needed to grow up'.

This makes me despair really. What, like Rodger was just a bit immature? Oh, fuck. I give up. We have mutual incomprehension here.
Where did you get the word 'just' from, though? Would him growing up not help? At all?

The word 'just' doesn't appear in the quote you made, but it does appear in your own sentence. To me taking that word out or putting that word in to either sentence changes the meaning significantly.

Again it feels as if you want to say that Rodger being 'mad' is the sole cause of everything, and that a mature, non-misogynistic mad version of Rodger would have generated exactly the same outcome as an immature, misogynistic mad version of Rodger.
Rodger's problem was not immaturity. There are lots of immature boys (and girls) in the world. I teach them. And there's nothing wrong with them-- kids mature at different rates, so there's nothing wrong with that. But "immaturity" is not what was going on with Rodger. An immature 15 year old boy is one who still would rather play with legos than talk about girls. He might be prone to making fart jokes or giggling if you say "boobs" or some homonym for a private part (heck, the word "homonym" probably gets a giggle). They grow out of it, just a bit later than their peers. But immature boys don't try to rape girls.

Well, I'm glad we've sorted out that there's no possible correlation between immaturity and rape based on the fact that not every immature boy rapes. Especially not the ones who are 15 years old and immature. [Roll Eyes]

Seriously? I spent vast paragraphs, if not pages, pointing out this kind of logical fallacy, and you just walked right on up to it again didn't you. You also neatly managed to ignore the fact that when we call a 40 year old immature we don't mean the same thing as when we call a 15 year old immature.

Also, I fixed your crappy coding for you. In this post. If you ask nicely I'll switch into Host mode and fix the crappy coding in YOUR post for you. Oh who am I kidding, no I won't.

[ 29. May 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I've posted two lengthy emails trying to look at things from the perspective of some men. Your only engagement with it was to paint it as some ridiculous "women are cock-blocks and men resent that because they deserve those women who shouldn't withhold their vaginas from them so men should control women because women hold that power over them".

You're right, you did, and unfortunately, I haven't had the time to provide the kind of thoughtful response that they deserved. I gave a quick response to one of them, simply rephrasing one of the points that you made into rather starker terms than you had used. You suggested in a subsequent post that you knew someone might read it that way, so I don't think that my reading of it was ridiculous.

I'd like to have had the time to have engaged more deeply. I might later. I'm not sure.

quote:
Men understanding the experiences of women, and women understanding the experiences of men aren't mutually exclusive. We need both.

I agree.

I'm still puzzling over the idea that men are typically only willing to date women who are higher status and more desirable than they are, and, that being the case, we should feel sorry for them because of the pain they feel when their advances are rebuffed.

Even if that is true -- and I'm not sure that it is -- I hope you can see the difference between, "If I make a mistake about this person, I might get rejected, and that is demoralizing and depressing and as painful as all get-out" and "If I make a mistake about this person, I might get raped or killed."

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Hmm. As a female, I would say that probably 90% of women could indeed find casual sex, if only they are willing to lower their standards enough. (This is what the internet is for!)

All men, without exception, can find sex. All they need is money; prostitution is the oldest profession.

The problem is that lowest-common-denominator action is not what most people want. Women are powerfully socialized to not lower their standards; by and large we cannot do it. Even the mass-murderer was not up for paid sex; he wanted love.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
cliffdweller wrote:

Rodger's problem was not immaturity. There are lots of immature boys (and girls) in the world. I teach them. And there's nothing wrong with them-- kids mature at different rates, so there's nothing wrong with that. But "immaturity" is not what was going on with Rodger. An immature 15 year old boy is one who still would rather play with legos than talk about girls. He might be prone to making fart jokes or giggling if you say "boobs" or some homonym for a private part (heck, the word "homonym" probably gets a giggle). They grow out of it, just a bit later than their peers. But immature boys don't try to rape girls.

I thought that saying that Rodger should grow up is so wrong, it verges on pernicious. If only it was that simple.

It makes me despair really, that people can say stuff like this. Where do you start.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly how much time do the straight men of the world spend examining the courting attempts of other men instead of working on their own?
How are we supposed to work on our own courting attempts if not by examining what has worked for other people?
I dunno, but I'm not entirely buying this idea that men are struggling THIS much to find women, but women can find a man when they want one.

For starters, the suggested 10% figure of men that women find attractive bears no relationship at all to the actual proportion of the male population that is partnered. There are lots of single guys out in the world these days, but it ain't sitting at 90%.

No-one said that all the women fancy the same 10% of men. Just that any given woman would only fancy about 10% of the men in the hypothetical room.

quote:
Nor is the number of male singles anywhere near as much out of kilter with the number of female singles as the little thought experiment suggests. And it would be surprising if it was, given that the great majority of relationships consist of one male and one female.

We do not, in fact, live in a world where a small proportion of alpha males have harems of females while the great majority of men go without a partner because the women are all taken. That's pretty much the kind of fantasy that Rodger bought into and perceived himself to be on the wrong side of.

That's not the suggestion. Again, I refer you back to the important point that there's no suggestion that only 10% of men are fanciable, or that all women are attracted to the same 10% of the men.

[ 29. May 2014, 13:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno, but I'm not entirely buying this idea that men are struggling THIS much to find women, but women can find a man when they want one.

Not all men, obviously. But enough of us do to make it a known phenomenon.

And I will take any bet you'd like to offer that if we took ten men and ten women of equal but low attractiveness and sent them into a nightclub with the object of seeing how many of them could take someone home at the end of the night, the women would win virtually every time. Probably by about 8 to 2.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that saying that Rodger should grow up is so wrong, it verges on pernicious. If only it was that simple.

By "grow up" I think the article meant something like, "have that Copernican revolution that most folks have when they realize that the universe doesn't revolve around them, get a grip on the idea that other people do not exist to meet your needs, and lose the sense of entitlement that is entirely appropriate in an infant or toddler but not in a 22YO man."

Of course, if this particular 22YO man could have done that on his own, he would have. So, yeah, it's not that simple.

On the other hand, making it clear to privileged, entitled young men that their ideas are not only ugly and misogynistic, but stupid and infantile as well -- that just might help change the cultre. And changing the culture just might prevent a lot of future violence. Which would be a good thing.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Hmm. As a female, I would say that probably 90% of women could indeed find casual sex, if only they are willing to lower their standards enough. (This is what the internet is for!)

All men, without exception, can find sex. All they need is money; prostitution is the oldest profession.

The problem is that lowest-common-denominator action is not what most people want. Women are powerfully socialized to not lower their standards; by and large we cannot do it. Even the mass-murderer was not up for paid sex; he wanted love.

You're not comparing like with like though. Male prostitutes servicing women do exist, do they not? So if you add the proviso "money and willingness to see a prostitute" 100% of both sexes can get sex.

It'd be interesting (although hard to get past the ethics committee, or find subjects) to send 20 women and 20 men on a night out with the mission of getting a casual non-paid for shag, instructions to lower their standards as far as necessary. The results would confirm or falsify the Ken Hypothesis. I know where my money is.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

(Bloody hell - MtM's suggested exactly the same research project!)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It'd be interesting (although hard to get past the ethics committee, or find subjects) to send 20 women and 20 men on a night out with the mission of getting a casual non-paid for shag, instructions to lower their standards as far as necessary. The results would confirm or falsify the Ken Hypothesis. I know where my money is.

Great minds think alike, Karl!

(Though fools seldom differ [Biased]

)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that saying that Rodger should grow up is so wrong, it verges on pernicious. If only it was that simple.
By "grow up" I think the article meant something like, "have that Copernican revolution that most folks have when they realize that the universe doesn't revolve around them, get a grip on the idea that other people do not exist to meet your needs, and lose the sense of entitlement that is entirely appropriate in an infant or toddler but not in a 22YO man."

Of course, if this particular 22YO man could have done that on his own, he would have. So, yeah, it's not that simple.

On the other hand, making it clear to privileged, entitled young men that their ideas are not only ugly and misogynistic, but stupid and infantile as well -- that just might help change the cultre. And changing the culture just might prevent a lot of future violence. Which would be a good thing.

But if you start telling this stuff to somebody like Rodger, you tend to get a very strong reaction, as in fact, they tend to feel utterly powerless. The last thing they can take is people telling them what to do, and how to behave.

This presents a very tough problem for those who are trying to work with them in therapy or psychiatry. However, there are ways and means of working with them, but not by saying, you are a privileged entitled prick.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

In terms of how easy it is to find a casual sex partner or get asked out, I think we are losing sight of the fact that the average woman has put in a LOT more effort on her appearance before arriving at the meat market than the average man.

As a female, I can tell you that showing up at a night spot clean, combed and wearing decent clothes (but not any effort to cover up your physical "flaws", like makeup or shapewear) will actually put you behind the average guy who makes the same preparations, in terms of getting attention.

Maybe women have the advantage because they work harder for it?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I gave a quick response to one of them, simply rephrasing one of the points that you made into rather starker terms than you had used. You suggested in a subsequent post that you knew someone might read it that way, so I don't think that my reading of it was ridiculous.

I spent a long time on the wording precisely because I didn't want it rephrased that way, but fair do's.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm still puzzling over the idea that men are typically only willing to date women who are higher status and more desirable than they are, and, that being the case, we should feel sorry for them because of the pain they feel when their advances are rebuffed.

I don't really get this either, so I can't comment. I'm more of the mindset that dating some highly desirable supermodel or whatever would be more trouble than it's worth, and make me even more insecure than I already am. I guess I'm not alone, or the phrase "high maintenance" wouldn't exist, but really, I just don't think in those terms (what does it mean to say someone is a higher or lower status to you anyhow?), so I can't relate.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I hope you can see the difference between, "If I make a mistake about this person, I might get rejected, and that is demoralizing and depressing and as painful as all get-out" and "If I make a mistake about this person, I might get raped or killed."

Of course. As I've said, I can only see things from my own (male) perspective. I highly value you and others giving me a glimpse of the female perspective. My feeling, though, was that the male perspective was being caricatured and misrepresented, so wanted to present something more accurate.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'd like to have had the time to have engaged more deeply. I might later. I'm not sure.

Thanks. I hope you do. What you have to say is generally worth listening to.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No-one said that all the women fancy the same 10% of men. Just that any given woman would only fancy about 10% of the men in the hypothetical room.

So how is this particularly bad for MEN, then?

Because it seems to me that if, as you postulate, men tend to like 50% of the women in the room, there's a far better chance that any women who expresses interest in you is one that you want to express interest in you.

Whereas women have to deal with the fact that 90% of the advances they receive are unwelcome.

In other words, it cuts both ways. While men might be moping about despairing at how many women reject then, women are despairing at how hard it is to find a decent man. Who's going to win out of that in the LONG term? If anyone is going to change their standards, it's the women, expanding the range of men they're interested in, to the benefit of the men who apparently quite happy with a large number of people so long as they have curves and breasts.

It seems me that talking about the percentage of people who find you attractive is rather missing the point that you only need one person to find you attractive: the person you're interested in.

Also... I'd leap for joy if 10% of the people I find attractive found me attractive. I don't have that luxury. Propositioning around 98% of the people I find attractive would risk a bashing. You might have heard of these folk. They're called straight men.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
In terms of how easy it is to find a casual sex partner or get asked out, I think we are losing sight of the fact that the average woman has put in a LOT more effort on her appearance before arriving at the meat market than the average man.

As a female, I can tell you that showing up at a night spot clean, combed and wearing decent clothes (but not any effort to cover up your physical "flaws", like makeup or shapewear) will actually put you behind the average guy who makes the same preparations, in terms of getting attention.

Maybe women have the advantage because they work harder for it?

As a young adult I was into the Glam Rock scene where believe me, the male preparation effort is pretty intense. I was more than once nagged by female friends because I was taking longer over eyeliner than they were.

Same pattern. Worst still was seeing the women leaving on the arm of some greaser who smelt like his Kawasaki 500.

Never got to the bottom of it.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Re the Karl-Marvin research project, however if you sent them out night after night looking for someone they wanted to stay with, I think the odds would suddenly become about even. Yeah, I agree that it's easier for straight women to get sex on average than it is straight men. That's at least partially because many of us women are programmed to find more serious relationships actually sexier. That's certainly not universal, but I definitely think more men want (even if they morally or practically wouldn't do it) casual hook-ups than women. I'd suspect that a large majority of single men would enjoy a one-night stand with a hot woman. I think it would be a significantly smaller majority of single women. I know that I for one have never found one-night stands that appealing. Very very few people appeal to me that much the first time I see them. If there is even a significant minority of women like me, and I think there is, then the more serious the ten women and ten men are, the more the gender balance will even.

By consequence, women who are looking for a even moderately serious relationship* don't feel like they have power. Sure if we're decent looking, there may be more people who'd have a fling with us than vis versa, but if that's not what you're looking for, it doesn't make you feel any stronger or more desirable, even though it's real.

*Say they won't have sex with someone they don't at least want to stay with. I'm not imagining strict morals or marriage-level seriousness here.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No-one said that all the women fancy the same 10% of men. Just that any given woman would only fancy about 10% of the men in the hypothetical room.
So how is this particularly bad for MEN, then?

Because it seems to me that if, as you postulate, men tend to like 50% of the women in the room, there's a far better chance that any women who expresses interest in you is one that you want to express interest in you.

Whereas women have to deal with the fact that 90% of the advances they receive are unwelcome.

In other words, it cuts both ways. While men might be moping about despairing at how many women reject then, women are despairing at how hard it is to find a decent man. Who's going to win out of that in the LONG term? If anyone is going to change their standards, it's the women, expanding the range of men they're interested in, to the benefit of the men who apparently quite happy with a large number of people so long as they have curves and breasts.

It seems me that talking about the percentage of people who find you attractive is rather missing the point that you only need one person to find you attractive: the person you're interested in.

Aye. And on Ken's figures that's 10% likely for a man and 50% likely for a women [Biased]

Hence a woman is more likely to get their first choice of partner than a man is.

quote:
Also... I'd leap for joy if 10% of the people I find attractive found me attractive. I don't have that luxury. Propositioning around 98% of the people I find attractive would risk a bashing. You might have heard of these folk. They're called straight men.

This isn't a game of "who has it worst." It's a game of "this is what our problems are".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This isn't a game of "who has it worst." It's a game of "this is what our problems are".

Fine. So then, your problem is women rejecting you. Women's problem is being hit on by lots of men they find unappealing. And then finding out that some of those men are really lousy at taking no for an answer.

And my problem is being scared of what might happen if the wrong guy thinks I'm staring at him too long, but I'll put that to one side and let you straight folk work out your gender-based issues.

EDIT: No I won't, because I actually think that flippant little summary encapsulates precisely why one group's problem is liable to be transferred onto the other groups, and the other problems aren't.

[ 29. May 2014, 14:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Re the Karl-Marvin research project, however if you sent them out night after night looking for someone they wanted to stay with, I think the odds would suddenly become about even. Yeah, I agree that it's easier for straight women to get sex on average than it is straight men. That's at least partially because many of us women are programmed to find more serious relationships actually sexier. That's certainly not universal, but I definitely think more men want (even if they morally or practically wouldn't do it) casual hook-ups than women. I'd suspect that a large majority of single men would enjoy a one-night stand with a hot woman. I think it would be a significantly smaller majority of single women. I know that I for one have never found one-night stands that appealing. Very very few people appeal to me that much the first time I see them. If there is even a significant minority of women like me, and I think there is, then the more serious the ten women and ten men are, the more the gender balance will even.

By consequence, women who are looking for a even moderately serious relationship* don't feel like they have power. Sure if we're decent looking, there may be more people who'd have a fling with us than vis versa, but if that's not what you're looking for, it doesn't make you feel any stronger or more desirable, even though it's real.

*Say they won't have sex with someone they don't at least want to stay with. I'm not imagining strict morals or marriage-level seriousness here.

There's something in this; it would explain the pattern I observe of blokes who find it easy to hook up going through a lot of partners (as they're rejected by women who realise that despite superficial attractiveness they're not right for them) whilst others (like me) have a very small number of relationships before settling down (in my case, just that one). It would explain how the 50%/10% ends up roughly as a 1:1.

On the plus side, for us seldom rolling the 0 on the "will this woman be attacted to me?" d10*, is that we have fewer breakups [Biased]

(*I think mine was a d1000)

[ 29. May 2014, 14:26: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On the plus side, for us seldom rolling the 0 on the "will this woman be attacted to me?" d10*, is that we have fewer breakups

(*I think mine was a d1000)

Yeah, as someone who dated no one before halfway through college and then a bunch of people during the last two years--and none of them the right one--I don't think it clearly sucks more to be alone. That probably depends more on the person. It just sucks differently. During my various relationships I was still jealous of L who only dated one person ever, but found him freshman year of college (and is happily married to him).

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This isn't a game of "who has it worst." It's a game of "this is what our problems are".
Fine. So then, your problem is women rejecting you. Women's problem is being hit on by lots of men they find unappealing. And then finding out that some of those men are really lousy at taking no for an answer.

And my problem is being scared of what might happen if the wrong guy thinks I'm staring at him too long, but I'll put that to one side and let you straight folk work out your gender-based issues.

And children are starving and dying all across the world, so none of our problems mean shit.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

...because the world can only have one kind of problem at a time?

Anyway, the whole reason this thread began is because a particular individual's collection of problems led to death as well. And I don't believe anyone's suggested yet that the problems were nutritional.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In other words, it cuts both ways. While men might be moping about despairing at how many women reject then, women are despairing at how hard it is to find a decent man.

Yes. And the way that looks from the male side of the equation is like there's one person starving to death while the other one is surrounded by food but complaining that it's not nice enough.

I'm sure it looks very different from the female side of the equation, and I'm certainly not saying the women are doing anything wrong. But we're talking about subjective perceptions here, not objective truths.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I don't believe anyone's suggested yet that the problems were nutritional.

What an ironic crossposted analogy I just made.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Hmm. As a female, I would say that probably 90% of women could indeed find casual sex, if only they are willing to lower their standards enough. (This is what the internet is for!)

All men, without exception, can find sex. All they need is money; prostitution is the oldest profession.

The problem is that lowest-common-denominator action is not what most people want. Women are powerfully socialized to not lower their standards; by and large we cannot do it. Even the mass-murderer was not up for paid sex; he wanted love.

First, Rodgers did not want love.* We wanted control and to recieve what he "deserved", paid sex would not be that. That is cheating at solitaire.
Second, I've seen plenty of women lower their "standards" . Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer owe much financial success to this.
Third, can we just jettison this "standards" bullshit? The standards generally referenced are superficial, temporal and have little bearing on compatibility.

*No, I am not psychic, but that much should be obvious.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I don't believe anyone's suggested yet that the problems were nutritional.
What an ironic crossposted analogy I just made.

Indeed.

Massive tangent approaches...

I did actually, at one point, pour my passions into saving the world's starving children. More or less. What it actually was about was clean water.

It involved what was quite possibly the best idea I will ever have in my entire life. We raised $15,000 in the one year that we ran the fundraising. It didn't happen again after that, crushed by the combined effects of my own battle with depression and the interstate move of the other key person. I think she may have raised a small amount on her own the second year.

So that was my moment to truly change the world. It's gone now. Now my passions are reduced to yelling at people on the internet in the vague hope of inspiring someone to do more than shrug their shoulders and wait until the latest shootest tragedy fades from the headlines.

[/tangent]

[ 29. May 2014, 14:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...because the world can only have one kind of problem at a time?

Anyway, the whole reason this thread began is because a particular individual's collection of problems led to death as well. And I don't believe anyone's suggested yet that the problems were nutritional.

Sorry, I was being flippant. I said that to make two points. Firstly, in the grand scheme of things, many of our problems are not that big a deal, and part of getting over them is seeing them in context (which is why Josephine's point about genuine fear over safety vs emotional damage is pertinent). There are real problems in the world, and people of either gender being grumpy because they can't find someone to love them isn't the biggest one out there.

Secondly, though, I think your "well my problems are worse than yours" back and forth is a red herring. We are who we are. Our feelings matter, the emotional trauma we go though is real, whether it's caused by losing one's family in a genocide, or because the 10th girl in a row you've asked out has said 'no'. These experiences and emotions matter to us, and they matter to God. That someone else has it worse, or thinks that your reasons for feeling the way you do are stupid, is meaningless. It is all real.

The truth lies in holding these two extremes in tension: that it doesn't matter, and it matters hugely. "It only matters a bit" is not where truth is.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But we're talking about subjective perceptions here, not objective truths.

People were talking earlier about THE solution to Roger whatever-his-name-was.* I think this is the closest thing to a single solution to such people that we'll get. If people could just realize this, we'd be much of the way there.

*I refuse to make anyeffort to learn the name of someone who is only famous for being a murderer, in fact I prefer forgetting such a person's name.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's just that 'mattering hugely' can lead to a catastrophe, as with Rodger, where his own inflation had become dangerous. I suppose also, that as you inflate yourself, you deflate others, so you end up with a terrible Manichean fantasy system, in which you are the perfect being, but also a kind of Moloch, to which others must be sacrificed.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

[replying to goperryrevs]

^ Well, while I agree with all that up to a point, I also think it makes a problem more serious and more real when it can have serious consequences for others.

My own piece of flippancy still stands, I think. There is evidence, in my opinion, that men who are frustrated with their romantic failings decided to take those frustrations out on women in violent and lethal ways. They say that's what they're doing, anyway. Apparently we shouldn't believe this first hand evidence (any more than we should believe terrorists who explain precisely why they hate us, a parallel I drew earlier).

There is a heck of a lot less evidence, whether believed or not, of women taking out their frustrations with men in the romantic game in violent and lethal ways.

None of which, of course, means that the proportion of men who take out their frustrations on women is large. What it does mean, in my view, is that it's actually a more serious problem. If women's romantic problems show little capacity to reverberate far beyond the women having the romantic problems, then I would most certainly rank them as less important to solve than any male romantic problems that are shown to have the capacity to reverberate across entire communities.

[ 29. May 2014, 15:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

However I would say that if we are more interested as a society in solving men's romantic problems because they handle them more violently, that in itself is a pretty deep problem.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
However I would say that if we are more interested as a society in solving men's romantic problems because they handle them more violently, that in itself is a pretty deep problem.

Just appealing to basic self-interest, I'd say. Very few efforts to solve a problem are purely altruistic.

Anyway, I don't think I've really said anything about trying to solve men's romantic problems. I've been talking about trying to reduce the number of men that possess the mindset necessary to translate romantic problems into violence.

I'm most certainly not going to suggest that anyone has some kind of obligation to prevent a man from developing a lonely heart in the first place. That's precisely the kind of thought that this man's manifesto espoused. See the thread title.

[ 29. May 2014, 15:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I'm not sure they're dramatically solvable. Might be as much as you can do to spot the signs.

[cartharsis]In adolescence, girls letting boys down a little more gently than strongly implying they'd rather stick their legs in a blender, or reacting with disbelief that for a second the boy in question could possibly think they'd ever dream of lowering themselves to going out with them would help in the making blokes feel less shit about themselves stakes, as well. Comments to friends along the lines of "can you believe it? He asked me out! As if! Eww!" tend to get back to the asker.[/catharsis]

[ 29. May 2014, 15:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is evidence, in my opinion, that men who are frustrated with their romantic failings decided to take those frustrations out on women in violent and lethal ways....None of which, of course, means that the proportion of men who take out their frustrations on women is large.

Yep, of course - I think I've made some of those points myself. Even if they don't vent in violent or lethal ways, they can still vent through general misogyny and hate language.

I have argued, however, that the proportion that go down that path is small, and tried to present things from the point of view of men who don't.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
They say that's what they're doing, anyway. Apparently we shouldn't believe this first hand evidence (any more than we should believe terrorists who explain precisely why they hate us, a parallel I drew earlier).

Again, I agree with you (at least, I agree with your irony).

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Yikes! Sarcasm, not irony. Who am I? Alanis Morrisette?

[ 29. May 2014, 15:28: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I would have stuck with first description, actually.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Same pattern. Worst still was seeing the women leaving on the arm of some greaser who smelt like his Kawasaki 500. Never got to the bottom of it.

You probably reeked of need for (intimate) love back then, which smells somewhat less attractive to potential partners than vomit.

To find a mate, one needs to project "open - not needy", "interested - not needy" and "wanting - not needy" in sequence, with appropriate timing.

That tends to be hard when one is soul-crushing lonely and masturbation has become a major pastime. (Yes, I do speak from experience...)

There are three main ways out, best I can see. You can try to fake it, and become "successful" but a cad. You can get lucky and have somebody look past your neediness and rescue you. Or you can learn how to set aside your needs unsatisfied, honestly seeking a happy life on other terms, and thereby ironically much increase your chances of having your needs satisfied after all.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno, but I'm not entirely buying this idea that men are struggling THIS much to find women, but women can find a man when they want one.
Not all men, obviously. But enough of us do to make it a known phenomenon.

You know, from time to time, my children used to tell me that they got in trouble in class more than any of the other children, or that they got made fun of by classmates, or any of a number of other unpleasant things happened to them more than they happened to anyone else they knew.

And sometimes there is someone who is a magnet for bad stuff.

But more often, as I told my children, it's a matter of awareness and attention. You are with yourself 100% of the time, so you are aware of the bad things that happen to you 100% of the time. If 10 bad things happen to you, if you are, say, rejected by someone you fancy 10 times, you are painfully aware of every single one of those times.

But it is impossible for you to be aware of every single rejection that someone else has faced. You do not know of the 10 or 20 or 50 rejections that a woman has faced.

So it seems obvious to you, and to the men that you compare notes with, that men struggle more than women to find a partner. But that's simply because you haven't yet figured out that other people have experiences that you know nothing about. And you haven't listened to the women who tell you that women also struggle to find partners, too, and that women also feel pain and rejection and frustration over their romantic struggles.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

That tends to be hard when one is soul-crushing lonely and masturbation has become a major pastime. (Yes, I do speak from experience...)

Bingo, we have so much more in common than I ever realized.

quote:
There are three main ways out, best I can see. You can try to fake it, and become "successful" but a cad. You can get lucky and have somebody look past your neediness and rescue you. Or you can learn how to set aside your needs unsatisfied, honestly seeking a happy life on other terms, and thereby ironically much increase your chances of having your needs satisfied after all.

Amen all over this. ( and for record, all of the above except for the word "cad" can be applied to women.)

[ 29. May 2014, 15:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

My daughter has many friends who are very intelligent nerdy /geek girls who do not in general possess the superficial qualities valued by the average male and not one of them has had a boyfriend and most don't have a date for senior prom. Guys fixate on certain girls who are out of their league and ignore the many girls who are available and then complain girls are stuck up bitches. There are plenty of lonely plain Janes watching reruns of Firefly on Friday night.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Re the Karl-Marvin research project, however if you sent them out night after night looking for someone they wanted to stay with, I think the odds would suddenly become about even. Yeah, I agree that it's easier for straight women to get sex on average than it is straight men. That's at least partially because many of us women are programmed to find more serious relationships actually sexier. That's certainly not universal, but I definitely think more men want (even if they morally or practically wouldn't do it) casual hook-ups than women. I'd suspect that a large majority of single men would enjoy a one-night stand with a hot woman. I think it would be a significantly smaller majority of single women. I know that I for one have never found one-night stands that appealing. Very very few people appeal to me that much the first time I see them. If there is even a significant minority of women like me, and I think there is, then the more serious the ten women and ten men are, the more the gender balance will even.

By consequence, women who are looking for a even moderately serious relationship* don't feel like they have power. Sure if we're decent looking, there may be more people who'd have a fling with us than vis versa, but if that's not what you're looking for, it doesn't make you feel any stronger or more desirable, even though it's real.

*Say they won't have sex with someone they don't at least want to stay with. I'm not imagining strict morals or marriage-level seriousness here.

There was an interesting experiment that was once carried out along these lines - Clark and Hatfield, 1989. It may have a bearing on this conversation.

They tested male and female receptiveness to direct unsolicited propositions from the opposite sex, requesting either a date, to go to the apartment of the propositioner, or to have sex. The approaches were made by people who were judged to be of average and comparable attractiveness. The responses show no significant difference in willingness to go on a date (about 50%), and while women almost invariably said no to anything else, men were actually more interested, hitting 70-75% acceptance for an unsolicited one-night stand.

What I think this shows is not so much a difference in attractiveness to the opposite sex, but a difference in how we approach the first steps in dating. Men's increasing enthusiasm as the proposition becomes nearer to no-strings sexyfuntime suggests a preference for physical release over commitment, where women's declining responses indicate the opposite. When ken quoted this figure, he may have had this study in mind, as the results are certainly not too far off.

In making an approach towards the opposite sex, I suggest women are more likely to be successful because a man is likely to view it as an opening to the aforementioned sexyfuntime. Men, on the other hand, are much more likely to be knocked back, because a typical woman will be thinking more along the lines of "does he just want me for my body?" and "do I feel safe with this man?"

I'm not wedded to that conclusion, but I hope the introduction of some actual data might help to keep us on track.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

or good-looking but non-typical Janes who feel plain watching Firefly. [Biased]

(crossposted with Gumby)

[ 29. May 2014, 15:56: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno, but I'm not entirely buying this idea that men are struggling THIS much to find women, but women can find a man when they want one.
Not all men, obviously. But enough of us do to make it a known phenomenon.
You know, from time to time, my children used to tell me that they got in trouble in class more than any of the other children, or that they got made fun of by classmates, or any of a number of other unpleasant things happened to them more than they happened to anyone else they knew.

And sometimes there is someone who is a magnet for bad stuff.

But more often, as I told my children, it's a matter of awareness and attention. You are with yourself 100% of the time, so you are aware of the bad things that happen to you 100% of the time. If 10 bad things happen to you, if you are, say, rejected by someone you fancy 10 times, you are painfully aware of every single one of those times.

But it is impossible for you to be aware of every single rejection that someone else has faced. You do not know of the 10 or 20 or 50 rejections that a woman has faced.

So it seems obvious to you, and to the men that you compare notes with, that men struggle more than women to find a partner. But that's simply because you haven't yet figured out that other people have experiences that you know nothing about. And you haven't listened to the women who tell you that women also struggle to find partners, too, and that women also feel pain and rejection and frustration over their romantic struggles.

Actually, the cause of my angst wasn't comparing my experiences to women's. It was comparing it to other men's

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Actually, the cause of my angst wasn't comparing my experiences to women's. It was comparing it to other men's.

I would suggest that the same principle applies.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
or good-looking but non-typical Janes who feel plain watching Firefly.

(crossposted with Gumby)

Interesting. I never considered plain being the opposite of good looking but the opposite of made up in a way that is generally considered "beautiful" or "hot". Must be a language nuance I was not aware if. They are lovely girls.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Amen to that, too.

[crosspost]

[ 29. May 2014, 16:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure they're dramatically solvable. Might be as much as you can do to spot the signs.

[cartharsis]In adolescence, girls letting boys down a little more gently than strongly implying they'd rather stick their legs in a blender, or reacting with disbelief that for a second the boy in question could possibly think they'd ever dream of lowering themselves to going out with them would help in the making blokes feel less shit about themselves stakes, as well. Comments to friends along the lines of "can you believe it? He asked me out! As if! Eww!" tend to get back to the asker.[/catharsis]

OTOH, sometimes a woman tries politely to tell a man that she's not interested, and he refuses to believe her. I'm not talking about stalking--just repeated attempts to make her change her mind.

I once spent months trying to convince a man that it was a no-go, and he kept trying. [Roll Eyes]

Moo

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[cartharsis]In adolescence, girls letting boys down a little more gently than strongly implying they'd rather stick their legs in a blender, or reacting with disbelief that for a second the boy in question could possibly think they'd ever dream of lowering themselves to going out with them would help in the making blokes feel less shit about themselves stakes, as well. Comments to friends along the lines of "can you believe it? He asked me out! As if! Eww!" tend to get back to the asker.[/catharsis]

Girls should be taught not say this sort of nasty thing about boys.

Likewise, boys should be taught not say similarly nasty things about girls.

But there is absolutely no reason to believe that adolescent boys are subjected to more of this kind of nastiness than adolescent girls are. Yes, it's painful to be subjected to it. (I certainly on the receiving end of my share of it.) But part of growing up, for the person who dishes this kind of garbage, is to learn that it makes them look ugly and not cool. And part of growing up, for the person who is subjected to this kind of garbage, is to realize that their nastiness says a great deal about them, and very little about you.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In other words, it cuts both ways. While men might be moping about despairing at how many women reject then, women are despairing at how hard it is to find a decent man.
Yes. And the way that looks from the male side of the equation is like there's one person starving to death while the other one is surrounded by food but complaining that it's not nice enough.

I'm sure it looks very different from the female side of the equation, and I'm certainly not saying the women are doing anything wrong. But we're talking about subjective perceptions here, not objective truths.

From what I can tell, the "male" view (oh pity us, don't we have it so rough, women might actually say no and hurt our widdle egos!) is that we're all starving, that there's no food, and if there was the jerks who got there first already ate it. How dare women complain that they have to settle for angel cake like us rather than black forest? They should be grateful to have food at all! Why, we'd kill for just a crust of bread!

To which the reply might be that it's not just that you dislike what's on offer, but you know a fair bit of it is poisoned, and if you get sick, you'll get blamed for even having a fork.

Look, I get that dating fucking sucks. I KNOW that it ends in rejection, depression, and absolute soul-rotting despair. There's a reason why I've basically given up on the whole thing—there's no way it's worth all this shit, and I still don't see a way to do this without running unacceptable (that is, any) risks of infringing on another person's right to live free from unwanted advances—as I'm pretty sure the whole entire Ship knows. I have my issues, I have my baggage, I've earned my scars from shit blowing up in my face.

And you know who I have to blame? Nobody but myself.

Sure, I'd like it if the system were tilted more in my favor. Wouldn't we all? I'd love it if I were tall, dark, and handsome, rather than looking like something that fell off the cathedral in the last earthquake. But I'm not. Even if everything was tilted in my favor, would it really matter, though? I still wouldn't have the right to infringe on another person's right to determine her own actions, and I'd still have to respect her desires, especially the one to have nothing to do with a strange man if she so wishes.

And so what? If the most I have to worry about is some nice, hard, soul-crushing and going without affection for years at a time, that's not that bad by comparison. It's not rape, it's not assault, it's not the ever-present reality of socially overlooked harassment, objectification, and othering that women deal with every day.

Nobody's ever called me a slut for rejecting them. Nobody's ever chased me for blocks asking me for my number. Nobody's ever stalked me, even after I tried to drop some not-so-subtle hints. I may not like the hand I've been dealt, but it's the fault of exactly zero women, individual or collective. The worst I've ever had to deal with are mixed signals, being strung along, and some rejections that really could have been a bit less harsh.

No, I take that back. If you're worried about someone not getting the hint, of going into stalker mode—which is a legitimate worry—I think you might want to throw off your socially conditioned "ladies, be nice to men, their egos can't take what you really think, let them down easy" bullshit and tell the truth. In all reality, I probably deserved more than what I've received, and I blush to think of what I've done, of the lines I've crossed, and what I should have been given.

I mean, I may be a gentleman—yes, I open doors for everyone because that's what my mother taught me, but, surprise surprise, I've never met a single woman who gave me so much as a dirty look for doing so (and I call more than a few radical feminists friends)—a nice little morsel of angel cake, but I recognize that I'm not without my own poison. I'm no rapist, nor would I ever assault someone, but I've crossed lines and ignored hints, some of which weren't subtle. Even nice guys aren't safe.

So, by comparison, a bit of nasty rejection, awful and soul-crushing as it is, might not be the Most Horrible Thing Ever.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Realizing some of my own damage in this issue-- as I have noted, at times in my life, I have been assimilated into groups of guys, and in two very formative such situations, those guys really supported each other in talking all kinds of truly awful shit about women. A lot of these guys I trusted reasonably one on one, but It was like they surrendered their will when they got in the group and the trash talk started. In each group, there was only one guy who had the stones to talk back, but I can imagine it must have been exhausting to shout all that crap down.
I feel I have learned to trust certain individual men, but I think a good thing for my personal development would be to see a group of healthy, non-misogyny- infected guys interact with each other.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

crosspost-- Ariston, tearing up. [Overused]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Ditto [Overused]

Hats off to you, Sir!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In other words, it cuts both ways. While men might be moping about despairing at how many women reject then, women are despairing at how hard it is to find a decent man.
Yes. And the way that looks from the male side of the equation is like there's one person starving to death while the other one is surrounded by food but complaining that it's not nice enough.

I'm sure it looks very different from the female side of the equation, and I'm certainly not saying the women are doing anything wrong. But we're talking about subjective perceptions here, not objective truths.
From what I can tell, the "male" view (oh pity us, don't we have it so rough, women might actually say no and hurt our widdle egos!) is that we're all starving, that there's no food, and if there was the jerks who got there first already ate it. How dare women complain that they have to settle for angel cake like us rather than black forest? They should be grateful to have food at all! Why, we'd kill for just a crust of bread!

Honestly, no one's saying that at all, and that you think we/they are (and I don't care what version of junk you have in your pants) makes me a little bit angry.

I appreciate this isn't All Saints, but, you know...

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Thanks, Ariston.

Marvin (and any other guy who wants to know what it's like from women's side), get on Twitter and read the #YesAllWomen posts.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In other words, it cuts both ways. While men might be moping about despairing at how many women reject then, women are despairing at how hard it is to find a decent man.
Yes. And the way that looks from the male side of the equation is like there's one person starving to death while the other one is surrounded by food but complaining that it's not nice enough.

I'm sure it looks very different from the female side of the equation, and I'm certainly not saying the women are doing anything wrong. But we're talking about subjective perceptions here, not objective truths.
From what I can tell, the "male" view (oh pity us, don't we have it so rough, women might actually say no and hurt our widdle egos!) is that we're all starving, that there's no food, and if there was the jerks who got there first already ate it. How dare women complain that they have to settle for angel cake like us rather than black forest? They should be grateful to have food at all! Why, we'd kill for just a crust of bread!
Honestly, no one's saying that at all, and that you think we/they are (and I don't care what version of junk you have in your pants) makes me a little bit angry.

I appreciate this isn't All Saints, but, you know...

if not exactly quoting, he is paraphrasing something that was said on the last page.so, be angry at whoever used that food analogy first.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Marvin (and any other guy who wants to know what it's like from women's side), get on Twitter and read the #YesAllWomen posts.

I haven't read a single one yet that I didn't agree was talking about something that shouldn't happen.

But what's that supposed to mean, exactly? That my feelings don't matter or aren't important, as Ariston states? Because there's a strong vibe of "men's emotions are stupid and childish and shouldn't be taken seriously" going on here.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But what's that supposed to mean, exactly? That my feelings don't matter or aren't important, as Ariston states? Because there's a strong vibe of "men's emotions are stupid and childish and shouldn't be taken seriously" going on here.

It's not that men's emotions shouldn't be taken seriously -- women HAVE to take men's emotions seriously. We know that. And we take them very, very seriously, because we know that not taking them seriously can get us killed. Literally.

If that doesn't help you understand, then you might try googling the expression "But what about the men?" and reading a few of the links you find.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Male prostitutes servicing women do exist, do they not?

Not exactly.

Male prostitutes service men. The ones who are actually straight and doing "gay for pay" will see women as a sideline.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
{tangent alert}

I think it's partly because I belong to an older generation, (I was born in 1934) but it amazes me that people get their ideas of what life should be like from movies, television, etc. rather than real life.

<snip>

What I wonder is, how many people get their expectations from the media, and how many from real life? The media present such a thin and pallid picture of things.

{/tangent alert}

Moo

It's not just because you're from an older generation. I wonder the same thing myself. I think it may be because I, like most of the people I know, had my mass media time and content restricted by my parents and other adults, but I've been surprised by how often I've felt the urge to remind people that this is life, not a movie.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm still puzzling over the idea that men are typically only willing to date women who are higher status and more desirable than they are, and, that being the case, we should feel sorry for them because of the pain they feel when their advances are rebuffed.

I learned something in my introduction to sociology course that had a profound effect on my life. Someone did a study (can't find it online) and determined that the person who was perceived to be the more powerful person (to have more social power) was responsible for initiating any kind of social relationship. And they also found that most people measured men's power in terms of wealth and official positions of authority, while they measured women's social power in terms of her appearance (attractiveness, adherence to arbitrary beauty standards).

IME, almost everyone wants to date someone who is equal or higher status to them. It's just that how we measure that status (achievement vs. looks) is different. And of course ignores that we probably should actually be focusing on whether or not the person is a decent human being who treats others the way they would like to be treated etc. Which is not necessarily the kind of information you find out in a bar or at a party.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Josephine, Kelly - while belittling someone for expressing their feelings is in no way comparable to raping someone because they won't put out, it's still a pretty shitty thing to do. That's all, and you're perfectly free to disagree.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But what's that supposed to mean, exactly? That my feelings don't matter or aren't important, as Ariston states? Because there's a strong vibe of "men's emotions are stupid and childish and shouldn't be taken seriously" going on here.
It's not that men's emotions shouldn't be taken seriously -- women HAVE to take men's emotions seriously. We know that. And we take them very, very seriously, because we know that not taking them seriously can get us killed. Literally.

I don't think stating and restating this is helpful. Frankly, doing anything can get you killed. the chances that the man you've rejected will rape or kill you are there - but they're relatively small. The chances that a women that a man has rejected will rape and kill him may be smaller, but they also still exist.

I don't fear that how I deal with a man will get me raped or killed. of course that chance is there, but so is the chance I'll go off the road in a snowstorm and die. it doesn't keep me from driving all winter. And most forays in the car are returned from safely.

If I need to reject a man I'll do so politely and gently. Not because I'm afraid he'll kill me but because I don't want to hurt him unnecessarily.

Generally, I really appreciate this whole conversation, while at times getting very frustrated because I want to somehow dive in and keep the walls from being built. I really like seeing the conversation happen. I think we all need to air grievances before we can really come to an understanding, but let's remember that each "side" has just as valid experiences as the other. Because I want to see this conversation continue. I'm learning a lot.

and of course it's all about me.

More seriously, I can't help wondering if there is a wider societal disconnect here, or a) Ship men are generally more enlightened/self-aware than average, or b) the men I've encountered are generally less enlightened/self-aware than average. I suspect it's A.

I can't help but attempt to address what some of the men here are saying, about women being choosy and men being set up for rejection. hear me out.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that I have been quick to judge. But that judgement is based on some pretty bitter experiences. Guys - you are not the only ones to suffer from rejection. (yes, I know you know that. hear me out) I find all of this talk of men being "willing" with far more women than vice-versa frustrating. I really don't think that's true. I'm beginning to suspect, though, that the selection of women in your hypothetical hook-up experiments are limited.

If the women in those experiments were all one or more of the following: large or obese, not-made-up, from minority groups, over 40, or with "strong" personalities, would you still say the men will be attracted to 50% of them? I doubt it. In my experience, men tend to not even notice these women, except as asexual friend potential. Ask any women - turn 35 or break 200 lbs or being over 6' tall or have a strong/aggressive personality or career field, and you disappear. poof. gone. My understanding is that it's the same for minorities, outside of being an "exotic" hook-up.

I'm not claiming that women are not choosy, because we sure as fuck are. but on those surface details - looks and race and age - I think we are more willing to sit and have the conversation and see if it's worth going further. I believe (very much generalizing, here) that we are seeking less surface-based attributes. Not that we can't be just as shallow, but we're shallow in other ways.

I am hesitant to say the following, because I have been snarled at pretty hard in the past for saying so, but here goes. I'm a good-looking woman. I'm no exotic Angelina Jolie, I think I fall more in the cute-redhead-and-freckles category. Merida in 25 years. Aside from the packaging, I have lots of other attributes that generally make me attractive to men.

Because of this, I've historically had no problem gaining a man's appreciation and attention. Then I turned 35 or so. suddenly, I'm not here any more. And the men who are interested in me are either 20 years old or 60. To the first category, I'm a "Graduate" style experience, to the second, I'm a younger woman.

my personality hasn't changed. my waistline changes fairly regularly, but the reality is that I've basically been shaped like this since my early 20s. I have no grey hair, and the wrinkles are minimal. But still - I've gone from conquest to buddy (or worse, mama) in what seems like an overnight change in the eyes of the men I've known.

It's been very enlightening.

So yes, women aged 15-35 have a lot of opportunity to reject a lot of men. When every man from puberty to retirement age is flinging themselves at you like bugs to a porchlight, you get to be choosy.

But I think you guys are setting yourselves up for rejection by narrowing your own criteria, while bemoaning that women are being too choosy.

Now, if we're going with our hypothetical experiment of people seeking each other out for 15 minutes of play, no strings, then yes, women will come out the winners, according to the male-driven criteria of physical sex. But according to other criteria, criteria that I suspect more women would follow, then the men win. An experiment like that is based almost solely on the physical packaging. basically, find a body you wouldn't mind taking home as a toy.

I've played that game. it's not much fun. it leaves you feeling embarrassed and empty and in need of a shower.

instead, change the criteria around where we're seeking to match compatible personalities. Imagine our same experiment, but everyone in the room has a blindfold on, and the goal is to, say, spend 7 days on a deserted tropical island with this person. I think it would level the playing field.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But what's that supposed to mean, exactly? That my feelings don't matter or aren't important, as Ariston states? Because there's a strong vibe of "men's emotions are stupid and childish and shouldn't be taken seriously" going on here.
It's not that men's emotions shouldn't be taken seriously -- women HAVE to take men's emotions seriously. We know that. And we take them very, very seriously, because we know that not taking them seriously can get us killed. Literally.
I don't think stating and restating this is helpful.

You may be right. But at some point, "but the men get their feelings hurt!" starts to sound an awful lot like, "I'm sorry the kids died, but my second-amendment rights are more important."

That might not be fair. And it might not be helpful. But when a flaming misogynist has a plan -- not a fantasy, but a plan -- to kill every single woman in an entire sorority house, then to lure other women back to his apartment where he can torture and murder them, because some other women refused to put out for him, and when a bunch of other flaming misogynists go online (not here, but elsewhere) and say, "See what happens, girls? Maybe you'll be nicer next time," then maybe this isn't the thread for men to talk about how their feelings get hurt when women don't fancy them.

It's like the online groups for people with autism, and the threads that pop up after someone with autism gets murdered by their caregivers, and post after post after post is expressing sympathy and support for the caregivers. I understand, deeply and intimately, how hard it is for the caregivers. But there's a time and a place for caregivers to talk about how hard they have it, and what kind of support and help they need -- and that's not it.

Nor, it seems to me, is this thread the right place for men to talk about how hard they have it. They can if they want to, of course. But they might be better off starting a thread in All Saints.

[ 29. May 2014, 20:57: Message edited by: Josephine ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

Ask any women - turn 35 or break 200 lbs or being over 6' tall or have a strong/aggressive personality or career field, and you disappear. poof. gone.

If you're a man looking for something that might turn into wife-and-kids, women over 35 are no use to you. By the time you've got to know each other and are settled and stable, she'll be too old to have kids. Older men do also get progressively less fertile, but it's a much slower effect.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

I get what you're saying, Josephine, and I don't completely disagree.

But I feel the thread has moved on/diverged in a way that can be a helpful conversation.

The reality is, people like this murderer are rare. (and that god for that, or we'd all be dead) but this incident has opened up a wider conversation and opportunity for us all to have the conversation from the perspective of normal people who don't go on killing sprees. and I, for one, have learned a lot from the guys here. I only wish conversations like this one were happening throughout society so people like Elliot Roger could hear and get some perspective, or even so others could get an idea of what's going on and see the warning signs a little more starkly. because change can come from analyzing the extremes, but at some point we need to step back and discuss the norms.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

Ask any women - turn 35 or break 200 lbs or being over 6' tall or have a strong/aggressive personality or career field, and you disappear. poof. gone.
If you're a man looking for something that might turn into wife-and-kids, women over 35 are no use to you. By the time you've got to know each other and are settled and stable, she'll be too old to have kids. Older men do also get progressively less fertile, but it's a much slower effect.

I don't know how long settling into a relationship takes you, but women are generally fertile for 10 or so years beyond 35. That would be moving really slow.

however, from the bitter "I'm only appreciated for my body" camp - what you appear to be seeking with this statement is an incubator. Can you see why some women might get awfully frustrated being seen as only the sum of their physical parts?

What if she's beautiful and perfectly fertile but a complete bitch? is the fertility part more important?

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

FUCK EDIT WINDOWS! can I be a host again, please? GRRR.

... and flood protection! GAH!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

There's a TICTH thread for that comet, plus periodic whinges in The Styx.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That might not be fair. And it might not be helpful. But when a flaming misogynist has a plan -- not a fantasy, but a plan -- to kill every single woman in an entire sorority house, then to lure other women back to his apartment where he can torture and murder them, because some other women refused to put out for him, and when a bunch of other flaming misogynists go online (not here, but elsewhere) and say, "See what happens, girls? Maybe you'll be nicer next time," then maybe this isn't the thread for men to talk about how their feelings get hurt when women don't fancy them.

I guess it depends on if you're interested in why they became flaming misogynists or not.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's a TICTH thread for that comet, plus periodic whinges in The Styx.

yeah yeah yeah. guess which finger I'm holding up right now, Sioni? [Razz]

(I know, I know. get the fuck over it. once I've dried my tears and calmed my heart breaking sobs, I'll move on. Tomorrow is another day, Scarlett.)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Two of the norms are men telling other men to "man up" (see Ariston's post), and women slut-shaming other women for being too forward (see my exchange with ecumaniac, or the Prom dress thread). Both feed into the same idea that men's feelings are dangerous and shouldn't be awakened.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

In the world, "Women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, car accidents, war and malaria, according to World Bank data."

"Several global surveys suggest that half of all women who die from homicide are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.
In Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States, 40 to 70 per cent of female murder victims were killed by their partners, according to the World Health Organization."

UN.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Two of the norms are men telling other men to "man up" (see Ariston's post), and women slut-shaming other women for being too forward (see my exchange with ecumaniac, or the Prom dress thread). Both feed into the same idea that men's feelings are dangerous and shouldn't be awakened.

absolutely. Ariston's post made me want to cry and the whole prom thread had me shrieking to the empty room.

And in all honesty, this is how I was raised. It's only really started chafing in recent years. We are taught (we=girls) that if you flirt too hard or dress a certain way then you are in danger. and I, at least, was taught that it is not my fault, but that's just how it is. And is that wrong? Not necessarily. Even if your chances of being attacked are super slim, you still don't want to increase it any.

But it goes beyond that, too. you dress conservatively (for instance) for your safety, but then if you don't, it means you are welcoming that danger, right? And even now, where I'm actually pretty damn good at defending myself should the need arise, and nobody who knows me really feeling otherwise, I get little lectures for having cleavage showing or even (for gawd's sake!) wearing my hair down and long, because "you're sending the wrong message". And not just from women - actually the worst experience I had in that "slut shaming" category came from a man who was neither husband nor father.

But how to we fix this? because us parents really do need to have the conversation with our daughters about not setting yourself up for danger, and we can't control how everyone else raises their sons. But we can stop the morality judgements for how a woman behaves or dresses, and trust that her mother and father did have that conversation with her and she gets to make her own choices, and cleavage and short-shorts are not a sign of low morals.

[ 29. May 2014, 21:40: Message edited by: comet ]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I don't think stating and restating this is helpful. Frankly, doing anything can get you killed. the chances that the man you've rejected will rape or kill you are there - but they're relatively small. The chances that a women that a man has rejected will rape and kill him may be smaller, but they also still exist.

I don't fear that how I deal with a man will get me raped or killed. of course that chance is there, but so is the chance I'll go off the road in a snowstorm and die. it doesn't keep me from driving all winter. And most forays in the car are returned from safely.

If I need to reject a man I'll do so politely and gently. Not because I'm afraid he'll kill me but because I don't want to hurt him unnecessarily.

Generally, I really appreciate this whole conversation, while at times getting very frustrated because I want to somehow dive in and keep the walls from being built. I really like seeing the conversation happen. I think we all need to air grievances before we can really come to an understanding, but let's remember that each "side" has just as valid experiences as the other. Because I want to see this conversation continue. I'm learning a lot.

Exactly. Me too. This [Overused]

I have the feeling there's a certain amount of entrenchment starting to happen, and I hate to see that, as most of the views expressed on the thread (about misogyny, anyway, were not miles apart to begin with).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I don't know how long settling into a relationship takes you, but women are generally fertile for 10 or so years beyond 35. That would be moving really slow.

Biological reductionism only ever produces half-truths when applied to humans. But as far as the relevant half-truth here goes: the underlying biological calculus would not be whether the woman can still conceive a child, but rather how much offspring she is likely to produce over the entire course of the relationship. At around 20, you would be looking at about 7 children on average. At >35, perhaps at 3. And then you need to take into account that there is a higher likelihood for the child having medical issues if born to an aged mother, as well as an increased likelihood of the mother dying before the child is raised (think pre-modern life expectancy). That's a considerable reduction in "expected procreation success".

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
however, from the bitter "I'm only appreciated for my body" camp - what you appear to be seeking with this statement is an incubator. Can you see why some women might get awfully frustrated being seen as only the sum of their physical parts?

Sure. But our sexual drives and desires are at least as much biologically determined as they are culturally shaped. That it is reasonable to be attracted to someone, or indeed culturally favoured, does not make you attracted to them. There is a certain autonomy to our sexual impulses, they are not under our comprehensive control. Youth just is sexually attractive, on average, and more so in women.

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
What if she's beautiful and perfectly fertile but a complete bitch? is the fertility part more important?

Experience suggests that men will grit their teeth and bonk the beauty...

[ 29. May 2014, 21:53: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But when a flaming misogynist has a plan -- not a fantasy, but a plan -- to kill every single woman in an entire sorority house, then to lure other women back to his apartment where he can torture and murder them, because some other women refused to put out for him, and when a bunch of other flaming misogynists go online (not here, but elsewhere) and say, "See what happens, girls? Maybe you'll be nicer next time," then maybe this isn't the thread for men to talk about how their feelings get hurt when women don't fancy them.

But none of those flaming misogynists are going to come onto ship of fools and spout their shit. Because if they did they'd be shot down by every single poster here. So at some point this thread is going to develop beyond "misogyny is bad, isn't it?"..."yes it is", and try to understand why these things happen and how someone can end up like that.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Nor, it seems to me, is this thread the right place for men to talk about how hard they have it. They can if they want to, of course. But they might be better off starting a thread in All Saints.

I've allowed myself one small section of one post to talk about how hard I have it, and that was just to give context. I initially thought about posting some of the stuff I did in the 'rape culture' thread, but in terms of where the conversation was going, it fitted here. Otherwise the rest of what I have posted is solely for the benefit of mutual understanding. I can only post from the point of view of being a man, because that is what I am. I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm trying to explain (from my point of view) some of the dynamics of how men end up like Elliot, but also how a lot of men don't, despite having gone through similar experiences.

I don't need to post in All Saints. I'm not looking for support (though I appreciated Boogie's and SCK's sentiments). I have support from RL friends. I'm aware I'm posting in Hell, and the discussion we've been having can, in a way, only happen in Hell - it wouldn't be the same in Purgatory. If Ariston or whoever tells me to pull my big girl panties up I can deal with that.

I've said it enough times, Josephine. You are one of the wisest people on the ship. I still remember things that you have posted years ago. You are awesome. On this thread though, it seems like you're so keen on telling that you're not willing to listen or understand. By my nature, I just don't understand women. I need women like you and other similarly awesome shipmates to tell me as it is, and I appreciate that so much. But we're talking on this thread about a man, and how he turned into a monster. None of us want what he became and did to happen to anyone else. On this thread you have a bunch of men trying to understand and explain a tiny sliver of what might have been going through his head, because as men they have had some vaguely similar experiences. To understand, and to look for ways to change things so this kind of thing happens less often.

Honestly, that caricature you made in reply to my earlier post was so crazy far off the mark of how I (and, I believe, most men) feel. But that's fine. You're a woman, and I don't expect you to get what it's like to be a man (and by a man, I mean the vast majority of normal, non-misogynistic men that abound, not the hate-filled weirdos you're encountering elsewhere).

So, if you think my motive for posting here is for sympathy or support, you are dead wrong. I am only trying to learn, and share the little understanding and insight that I do have.

Oh, and Comet, you win the prize for being fully awesome yet again.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
But how to we fix this? because us parents really do need to have the conversation with our daughters about not setting yourself up for danger, and we can't control how everyone else raises their sons.

We need to have 'the conversations' with our sons, as well, for a start. And no, I don't know quite how you would approach it, exactly, and yes, I'm sure it would be one of the most uncomfortable conversations it's possible to have.

But then, how's this for a fucked-up exchange? One of my colleagues, who had her first baby, three weeks before I had my first (a girl), said to me (without any trace of irony or anything), 'Oh, I'm so glad I had a son! If you have daughters it seems to me you never stop worrying about them!' 'What on earth do you mean?', say I. 'Well, you know, when they're teenagers,' she says, 'Girls! They can get pregnant! They might get raped!'. I raised my eyebrows and said 'You know, if I had to choose between being the parent of a rape victim and the parent of a rapist...'

This is the thing - people can see the danger of someone dear to them falling victim to being assaulted, but they close their minds to the possibility that someone dear to them might become an assaulter. Even when, as I have unfortunately seen, there is documentary evidence right in front of their eyes and everyone else believes it.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Even if your chances of being attacked are super slim, you still don't want to increase it any.

I suppose it depends on how you're defining an attack. If you're talking about an altercation that results in a black eye, broken bones, and the like, your chances of being attacked probably are super-slim.

But if your definition of an attack includes being grabbed by a man and kissed or groped against your will, your chance of being attacked are not slim at all. In fact, I suspect that most women have been attacked in this way. The first time it happened to me, I was not at a bar, or a nightclub, or on a date. I had not been drinking. I was not provocatively dressed. I was a 14-year-old tourist out seeing the sights in a crowded public area in broad daylight.

I don't think my experience was unique. I don't even think it was particularly unusual.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
women are generally fertile for 10 or so years beyond 35.

In the sense of "still ovulating", sure, but female fertility starts to drop pretty quickly at age 35.

quote:

however, from the bitter "I'm only appreciated for my body" camp - what you appear to be seeking with this statement is an incubator.

No, I don't think that's right. A lot of people - perhaps most people - want children. This doesn't mean they are seeking a brood mother or sperm donor - but that they see marriage, kids and the white picket fence as part of their ideal future.

Unless you believe all the "one true soulmate" business, each person has many potential partners that would make a good match. The purpose of dating is to determine whether you have found one of them, and, mutatis mutandis, whether you are a good match in return.

Given that, a rational person whi wants children is going to concentrate his or her efforts in the direction of those who are more likely to be fertile.

This doesn't, of course, preclude meeting and falling in love with someone who turns out to be infertile, but those who want children won't be deliberately seeking out the infertile or less fertile.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For those of you who empathize with how frustrated poor nerdy guys who don't get the girl must feel, please read this.

And then read this.

Thanks for sharing these, Josephine - the first one, in particular, just goes to show how pernicious is the idea that women like being pursued, even when they have indicated that they don't, that they want to have their wishes overridden, because they are looking for evidence of grand passion, or something.

And because my mind was attuned to it, I found another example - this execrable song, which was playing at the gym this morning. As it's by a New Zealand artist, it probably won't have been inflicted on the rest of the world, except maybe Australia - but honestly, take a look at the lyrics here ; - pretty much a textbook example of what has been talked about in stalking/objectification terms, presented, if you watch the video, as all sort of cute and sweet and wholesome and summer-fun. Thanks, Sony Music. Epic. Well done. Thanks NZ On Air for helping fund that - what the fuck were you thinking? Oh wait, you weren't. This stuff is ingrained. It doesn't get noticed until someone points it out.

Thanks (non-sarcastic thanks) to the people who have and are pointing it out.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm trying to explain (from my point of view) some of the dynamics of how men end up like Elliot, but also how a lot of men don't, despite having gone through similar experiences.

Yes, all men -- probably 100% of men -- get rejected by some women some of the time, and I am as certain as I can be that all of those men feel pain from that rejection. And I am sorry for that. I don't like it when other people feel pain.

But I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not they turn into Elliott Rodgers. I honestly don't.

Men turn into Elliott Rodgers, not because they are rejected, but because they think that women don't have the right to reject them. When they are rejected, they think they've been cheated out of something that is theirs by right.

And so the pain that normal, healthy, ordinary men like you feel when you've been rejected doesn't seem to me to have anything at all to do with Elliott Rodgers.

I understand that it hurts to be rejected. I've been rejected. It hurts.

But bringing it up the pain that men feel when they're rejected in a discussion of a man who tried to kill women because he was rejected makes it sound like you're trying to justify what he did. Yeah, it was evil and misogynistic. But, look, he was rejected, and that hurt, and ...

And what?

The implication seems to be that women, by rejecting men, are responsible for the violence that gets directed against them by those men. The implication seems to be that, if women would just be nice to every man that fancies them, all this could be prevented.

And I know you don't mean to be saying that. But that's how it sounds.

(And thank you for your kind words. I do appreciate them, whether or not I deserve them.)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
We need to have 'the conversations' with our sons, as well, for a start. And no, I don't know quite how you would approach it, exactly, and yes, I'm sure it would be one of the most uncomfortable conversations it's possible to have.

Coming out of the blue, yes, I imagine it'd be excruciating. But as part of an ongoing conversation on how the world sort-of works, what's expected of adults and how far short we can all fall from those expectations, it's not going to be any more difficult than some of the other conversations I've had already.

As a result of the Rodgers shooting, I've already had part of the conversation with my daughter, where I've told her that some men will want to hurt her even if all she's done is ignore them. Even if all they think she's done is ignore them. That was fun.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Josephine wrote:

But when a flaming misogynist has a plan -- not a fantasy, but a plan -- to kill every single woman in an entire sorority house, then to lure other women back to his apartment where he can torture and murder them, because some other women refused to put out for him, and when a bunch of other flaming misogynists go online (not here, but elsewhere) and say, "See what happens, girls? Maybe you'll be nicer next time," then maybe this isn't the thread for men to talk about how their feelings get hurt when women don't fancy them.

I'm sorry, I find this completely incredible. You are really saying that men cannot start to talk about their feelings then. How the hell else are we ever going to understand male psychology, including misogyny?

Words fail me really. I feel like wearing one of those gags.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
women are generally fertile for 10 or so years beyond 35.
In the sense of "still ovulating", sure, but female fertility starts to drop pretty quickly at age 35.

quote:

however, from the bitter "I'm only appreciated for my body" camp - what you appear to be seeking with this statement is an incubator.
No, I don't think that's right. A lot of people - perhaps most people - want children. This doesn't mean they are seeking a brood mother or sperm donor - but that they see marriage, kids and the white picket fence as part of their ideal future.

Unless you believe all the "one true soulmate" business, each person has many potential partners that would make a good match. The purpose of dating is to determine whether you have found one of them, and, mutatis mutandis, whether you are a good match in return.

Given that, a rational person whi wants children is going to concentrate his or her efforts in the direction of those who are more likely to be fertile.

This doesn't, of course, preclude meeting and falling in love with someone who turns out to be infertile, but those who want children won't be deliberately seeking out the infertile or less fertile.

Boy, oh boy. You think she might have meant "usefulness outside of dating", maybe?

Here Kelly makes a gratitude list.: I am so glad I am friends with Ariston. He doesn't give a shit whether I am fertile or not. i am so glad I am friends with Marv. Differences in rhetoric aside, he treats mr like a sister. I am so glad I sm friends with Mousethief. He will be angry at me for weeks, but always wind up being my friend. He doesn't give a shit whether ir not I am fertile. I am so glad I am friends with/ possibly flourting eith E. He likes me for my creative energy, and doesn't seem to give a shit whether I am fertile. All I have to be is me.

I am thankful that most of the young virile men I meet are up for a friendly chat,. How they make up fir the occasionsl young dildo that treats you like you insulted their vision by appearing before them with imfertile characteristics. I was shiiting around about peopke sucking in general--i ahd just gotten off the freeway-- but the truth of the matter is that humans are social, and most people treat each other like people, and figure out the dateability index later.

God-- yeah, I'm invoking God-- did not just create us to breed, he created us to feed each other's souls. People who leave infertile old crones out of that eqation do so at their peril.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Fucking iPad. [Mad]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Comet Posted:

quote:
But how to we fix this? because us parents really do need to have the conversation with our daughters about not setting yourself up for danger, and we can't control how everyone else raises their sons.

Lord help me for sticking my toe in this mess but hey here goes...............

When are the Mums going to talk to the sons? Raise the sons? Teach the sons? When are the women going to take responsibility for their parenting of abusive men?

I know many, many women are hurt by men. Many of them will go on to have sons. Many mothers, sisters, daughters and friends know of women who they love who are hurt by men. Where is the decision to say it stops with my sons? In all this stuff about the Elliot Roger I did not read anything about his mother.

I an NOT pointing fingers or blaming. I am just asking a question.
Who has the biggest potential influence on the monsters?*

Pyx_e

* this is a rhetorical question we ALL know the answer.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Would you be shocked if I said I know what you mean?

I have to get to a proper keyboard for this, but I just got back into regular early childhood work, I keep thinking about this thread, and I am pissed. Hold that thought.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Comet Posted:

quote:
But how to we fix this? because us parents really do need to have the conversation with our daughters about not setting yourself up for danger, and we can't control how everyone else raises their sons.
Lord help me for sticking my toe in this mess but hey here goes...............

When are the Mums going to talk to the sons? Raise the sons? Teach the sons? When are the women going to take responsibility for their parenting of abusive men?

See my post, above. My son is only two, so it's early days, but I certainly intend to talk with him about it.

However, I think you are laying it on a bit thick saying 'when are women going to take responsibility for their parenting of abusive men?' As a mum, you can already get blamed for loving your son too much and therefore making him all sort of dependent and 'unmanly', as well as blamed for being too cold and creating a man who is emotionally constipated. And that's before we even get to the crap about making them gay with your parenting style... A better way to put it might be 'When are women going to wake up to the possibility that they could be the parent of a potential abuser?'

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

When one of my sons was in third grade, his teacher was a man.

One day, the teacher overheard a couple of boys in the class talking about a classmate's boobies. The teacher grabbed them by the scruff of the neck, took them out into the hall, and read them the riot act. He told them that they did not have the right to talk about other people's bodies that way. Her body was not there for them to mock or judge. They owed it to her, and to themselves, to treat her, and her body, with respect. (And he didn't close the door, so every child in the classroom heard the lecture.)

My son told me about it when he got home from school that day. It made quite an impression on him. And I think it's possible that, if other adults (not just moms, but dads, uncles, teachers, neighbors, coaches) all responded the same way, it would begin to make a difference.

And I think it's especially important for boys to hear that kind of message from men.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
But it goes beyond that, too. you dress conservatively (for instance) for your safety, but then if you don't, it means you are welcoming that danger, right?

"But if you don't show a bit of leg/boobs and do your hair and makeup, then how do you expect to attract a man? You'll be alone for the rest of your life." - my parents

[brick wall]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

"Of course people in general are going to dismiss you if you don't appear to be making an effort." ( and that means boobs and makeup.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Boy, oh boy. You think she might have meant "usefulness outside of dating", maybe?

The context was exactly dating. Comet was talking about how women of 35-40 or so find that all the similar-aged men have vanished - they get dating interest from kids looking for Mrs. Robinson and from older men.

My contention is that this is because men of that age are, on average, looking for a wife and kids, and that if you are a man looking for children, a woman in her 40s is a bad bet.

quote:

most people treat each other like people, and figure out the dateability index later.

Umm, yes? I think I'm missing the point here. Nobody is talking about not treating people like people. I am saying that if a single man in his 40s who wants a family is looking to meet new women, with a view to dating someone, the women he seeks out are going to tend to be closer to 30 than 40.

If we're talking about feeling attracted towards people you already know, that's a different dynamic.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But bringing it up the pain that men feel when they're rejected in a discussion of a man who tried to kill women because he was rejected makes it sound like you're trying to justify what he did. Yeah, it was evil and misogynistic. But, look, he was rejected, and that hurt, and ...

And what?

What I actually originally brought up when I started posting on this thread was the idea that Elliot Roger felt powerless:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me, as a result of a huge bunch of factors, encompassing all those that have been talked about on this thread, Elliot Roger felt totally powerless. Powerless over his disability, powerless over his mental health problems, powerless over women, powerless over 'strong' men.

The reason that he did what he did was not because some girl(s) that rejected him. There is no one reason he did what he did. I do think it was one of the many factors that led to him feeling generally powerless. By the sounds of it, his online interactions fed into that worldview and led him, tragically, towards what he did.

The thing is, no-one questioned my saying that he felt powerless over his disability or mental health. But the idea that he might (shock!) feel powerless when it came to women was challenged, which is why I've tried to explain why men might feel like that.

And besides, it's about something bigger than being sad because you're rejected. So, while it's nice that you understand it hurts to be rejected, it's not just about that. It's about things that you can't understand because you're not a man. You don't have to navigate having a male libido. You don't have the conflicting societal expectations around being a gentleman (did anyone else notice that Elliot described himself as "the supreme gentleman"?), the pressure of feeling that you have responsibility but no power, the pressure to restrict and inhibit your emotions because to be honest about them is not seen as 'manly'.

The remnants of a patriarchal society and male privilege mean that women experience barriers and struggles that men just don't. And they're probably harder than the things we have to deal with, so kudos to all you women for getting through regardless.

But that doesn't mean that men are just women, only minus those barriers. Men have barriers and difficulties of their own that are unique to men. You don't experience them. You don't struggle with them. You don't understand them. So when you say you understand, you're proving that you don't, because you can't. I don't understand what it like to walk down the street fearing that someone will rape me. You can't understand the male experience either, but I'm doing my best to give you a clue.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
When are the Mums going to talk to the sons? Raise the sons? Teach the sons? When are the women going to take responsibility for their parenting of abusive men?

When are the Dads?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
When are the Mums going to talk to the sons? Raise the sons? Teach the sons? When are the women going to take responsibility for their parenting of abusive men?
When are the Dads?

Exactly what I thought.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

And besides, it's about something bigger than being sad because you're rejected. So, while it's nice that you understand it hurts to be rejected, it's not just about that. It's about things that you can't understand because you're not a man. You don't have to navigate having a male libido. You don't have the conflicting societal expectations around being a gentleman (did anyone else notice that Elliot described himself as "the supreme gentleman"?), the pressure of feeling that you have responsibility but no power, the pressure to restrict and inhibit your emotions because to be honest about them is not seen as 'manly'.

I appreciate that you are debating in good faith, and also being polite with it. I don't actually disagree with anything you have posted above, but can I just note, for record:

1.) No, I don't have to navigate having a male libido. I have to navigate having a female libido. It may, from what I hear, be a less constant force/pressure, but don't assume it is easier to suppress or ignore when its rears its (purely metaphorical) head.

2.) I think the pressure to restrict and/or inhibit emotions and not be honest about what you are feeling cuts across all of society, sadly. I'm sort of bad at it. I do better in a milieu such as this, where, it seems to me, more honesty and openness is tolerated.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
When are the Mums going to talk to the sons? Raise the sons? Teach the sons? When are the women going to take responsibility for their parenting of abusive men?

Somewhere I picked up the impression that some men's hatred of women comes from resentment of their mothers. Some of the mothers have been genuinely abusive while others have done their best in very difficult situations which their sons did not understand. I think a son who has genuine respect for his mother is much less likely to be misogynistic.

Moo

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
1.) No, I don't have to navigate having a male libido. I have to navigate having a female libido. It may, from what I hear, be a less constant force/pressure, but don't assume it is easier to suppress or ignore when its rears its (purely metaphorical) head.

True. I'm not saying it's easier. Just saying it's different.

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
2.) I think the pressure to restrict and/or inhibit emotions and not be honest about what you are feeling cuts across all of society, sadly. I'm sort of bad at it. I do better in a milieu such as this, where, it seems to me, more honesty and openness is tolerated.

Also true, but I think in general women get more opportunities to open up than men do. This probably isn't a difference between men and women in their nature though, but more down to societal expectations and conventions.
I'm thinking here of friends whose child had cancer. The wife frequently had people visiting, asking how she was, what they could do, how she was coping. No-one ever visited the husband to ask him those same questions. That's just the way it is for a lot of men.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think a son who has genuine respect for his mother is much less likely to be misogynistic.

Moo

I think you are right about this, and it seems to me that one thing all women can do, and do quite easily, in addition to the much more difficult and not-able-to-be-guaranteed 'live a life your son can respect' bit, is not participate in trash talk of other women. Actually, daughters could learn important things from that one as well.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Two of the norms are men telling other men to "man up" (see Ariston's post), and women slut-shaming other women for being too forward (see my exchange with ecumaniac, or the Prom dress thread). Both feed into the same idea that men's feelings are dangerous and shouldn't be awakened.

This was the exchange:

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

So, who exactly would think a woman asking a man out was "forward" "pushy" "slut" "unfeminine"? Is it actually her own girlfriends?
This is how my friends describe of their workmates, or of people they used to be friends with.

My own friendship group is disproportionately high in people 1. "On the spectrum" and 2. In non traditional relationship structures. So we are big on asking for what you want using words, and not doing things when drunk. But every now and again we are reminded that we are not the norm.

OK, so my experience of slut shaming is that it happens when someone's sexual behavior is different enough from the norm (or what is perceived to be the norm) that it threatens to change people's expectations when it comes to relationships and sex.

I think I might be unusual in that during my high school and college years it was common to call both men and women sluts. I think it was partly the result of a long-running Saturday Night Live sketch. I personally tried to avoid using the word for a long time, but I gave up sometime after enough people had offered me money for sex that I had to ask people who knew me if there was something about me that made me seem like a prostitute (we eventually determined that the men were simply playing the odds).

But I was jokingly told to 'stop slutting around' for activities as innocuous as talking to men, although I'm the kind of person who inadvertently flirts with inanimate objects, so it was often described as flirting, and I was told I shouldn't do it if I wasn't interested in eventually developing some kind of sexual relationship with a man. I don't think anyone I know would have viewed a woman asking a man out as 'pushy,' 'forward,' 'unfeminine', or 'slutty.' That tended to be reserved for people engaging in activities that we wouldn't engage in, or crossing lines that we wouldn't cross.

So, for example, I was regularly called a slut and a whore in high school because two guys I rejected made up a rumor that I had fucked them both at the same time and I regularly let random guys fuck me up the ass. The balance eventually shifted and people started to believe me more than them (after all there were two of them and only one of me), but I have to say that it seemed to make a lot of the other guys I rejected feel like it was some kind of personal attack on them because after all I had sex with basically everybody else who wanted to have sex with me.

More generally, people were called sluts for public displays of affection, for certain types of dancing, and for throwing themselves at guys.*

*by which I mean getting drunk and starting to kiss him without any of the intermediary stages of checking to see if he was interested and, importantly here, available, or if he maybe already had a girlfriend. Who was on the other side of the room watching the whole thing.

It's a way of policing people's behavior and enforcing norms. Because the problem is that when it becomes normal to have sex after the third date, then after the first date, then with some random guy you just met in a bar, people who don't engage in said behavior start being labeled as prudes, uptight, sex-hating, etc. Unless you explicitly talk about it, someone who is used to people having sex after the third/first/no date will tend to read your refusal as a lack of interest.

On the one hand, it's none of my business if you have a fabulous time going home and having fantabulous sex with someone you just met. I don't have fantabulous sex outside of long-term relationships (we have to get to know each other and each other's bodies and sexual responses), and I have to worry about getting pregnant (and since I would not have an abortion, that means I have to worry about whether the two of us might be able to raise a child together). But I have one friend whose sexual behavior really bothers me because people are always mixing the two of us up (they'll remember that she was the one who said or did something and vice versa). And we're similar enough in some ways that people are always assuming that we're similar in other ways. And her sexual behavior crosses so many lines that I am simply not willing to cross; I'm constantly having to remind people that I am not her and the fact that she likes/dislikes something or wants/doesn't want something does not mean that I think/feel/am the same way. And it's made worse by the fact that she lies about me and whether or not I agree with her about certain things (like abortion, or whether or not women should shave all their public hair off, and a million other things). She has been known to create drinking game rules that involve either grabbing your own breast or grabbing the breast of the person sitting next to you (not going to happen). And this has been going on since high school.

Which is all probably getting a bit rant-y. But while I still try not to use the word slut, there are valid reasons for pointing out and wanting to point out that another woman's sexual behavior is causing you problems. Sometimes it's like pointing out that someone is being a selfish asshole and it's hurting other people - something best done among trusted friends and family.

But it's not particularly about the fact that a man's feelings are dangerous and shouldn't be awakened (although it may be a little bit more about being afraid of awakening men's feelings without knowing how capable he is of handling them or how he might cope with sexual frustration or rejection). Similarly, I would say that "man up" is not about telling a man not to have feelings but to deal with them in an appropriate way.

And, yes, that includes not letting a woman know if your reaction to sexual rejection is anger.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But if your definition of an attack includes being grabbed by a man and kissed or groped against your will, your chance of being attacked are not slim at all. In fact, I suspect that most women have been attacked in this way. The first time it happened to me, I was not at a bar, or a nightclub, or on a date. I had not been drinking. I was not provocatively dressed. I was a 14-year-old tourist out seeing the sights in a crowded public area in broad daylight. I don't think my experience was unique. I don't even think it was particularly unusual.

Well, by the age of 14 I already had survived about half a dozen serious fights, including two cases of being beaten up by gangs of more than six considerably older boys. The threat or experience of physical violence from other males was pretty common from about twelve till about my mid twenties I would say, and has since faded mostly because I neither hang out where volatile men gather in large numbers any longer (e.g., clubs and bars on the weekend) nor now wear clothes and other markers of a specific "tribe" (like punks, waves, skins, goths, ...). At least at one time in my life, I think I was in clear danger of serious injury and was saved basically by a big bus driver physically defending the entry to his bus against a gang rushing after us. I may have experienced above average violence from other boys and men in my life, but I'm far from the extreme end. Certainly I know guys who got hit harder, and I doubt that there are many men who have not been harassed and attacked physically at some point in their life.

I don't want to diminish female suffering here, which clearly has its own dimension due to the sexual component. But as far as male physical violence is concerned, it needs to be said that you are simply appearing on the radar of that violence due to your sexual development. It is not uniquely targeted at you. Rather, it has been rampant all around you and you simply become a target of it when you become sexually desirable. It is also true that once you have become a target, you are an easier target than most men. But while I have no stats for that, I'm betting that while attacks on you will be more frequent, they will be on average less intense. It's a question of upping the ante by the victim. And most attacks on men at adult level that I have experienced or know about involved groups and/or weapons.

None of this will help the most unlucky individuals, be it a woman lying their raped, or a man lying there with stab wounds to the chest. But you are simply missing out on a lot of potential male allies if you exclusively focus on what male violence does to women only. Men grow up with male violence at least as much as women do. Really. Yes, not under the aspect of sexual violence and I appreciate the special emotional significance of that. But watch your male friends closely the next time some group of men close by grows loud and restless. Or look at your man as you stroll in the dark and two people close in. Look at his body posture change when he realises it is a couple, a man and a woman, and not two men drawing close. Men are in a somewhat different position to most women, since they have the option to pose for "maybe you can hurt me, but I will hurt you, too" effect. But this hardly means that they stride the world confidently as masters of the universe, no matter what.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

so much to respond to; so much work to get done. Forgive me for drive-by posting, I'll hopefully address some more of this later.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And I think it's especially important for boys to hear that kind of message from men.

YESYESYES!

to Pyxe's post, and strictly personally - as a single mother of two boys I TRY my hardest to have these conversations with my sons. I probably put more effort into it than I did with my daughter, because of exactly what anoesis said above - it's hard enough to be the parent of a victim, but I don't know if I could survive being the parent of a perpetrator. It is my duty to humanity to challenge what they bring home from their peers, the objectifying, the the demands, the sense of sex being owed. and make no damned mistake, in the media and on the playground, that's what the little shits are feeding each other.

and YES those conversations are a stone cold bitch. "MOM! I can't believe you're talking about this! ohmygod you're so embarrassing! How could you think I'd ever do something like that? don't you even trust me?!?"*

And seriously, the victim conversation has to happen with your boys, too. and the perpetrator conversation with your girls. I have two male friends who have been raped. by women. it's horrific and agonizing because they don't feel they have social or legal recourse. and the results of their efforts prove that. (want to see a man slut-shamed? tell a group of people he's been raped by a women. it makes me physically ill what people say)

But back to what Josephine says here - I can say everything I can to my sons until I'm blue in the face, but it holds damn near zero water compared to what they would take away from a man saying it.

My boys essentially have no father. I mean, he exists, and they occasionally interact with him, but he's a cross between a buddy and santa claus. So I really rely on the other men in my life to be the good examples. I have to. anything to do with being male I have zero authority on, and they'll believe their peers before me. but if one of my male friends says something to them, it's pure gold.

so, men - please please fortheloveofgod be a good role model and talk to boys about this stuff. your sons, grandsons, students, nephews, friends' kids, that random kid down the block. you can make such a difference just by being a stand-up guy.

Boys are desperate for guidance, especially when puberty hits and they feel they're suddenly locked in the same body with a one-eyed pervert looking to betray them.

Don't worry about being awkward. it is awkward. have the goddamn conversation anyway. they'll hate you today but hear you tomorrow.

*full transcript available upon request, as we've done this so many times I have it memorized.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
it seemed to make a lot of the other guys I rejected feel like it was some kind of personal attack on them because after all I had sex with basically everybody else who wanted to have sex with me.

a joke I will often tell when called a slut by a man:

What's the different between a slut and a bitch?

A slut will have sex with everyone. A bitch will have sex with everyone except you.

I, sir, am a bitch.

(I've found it helpful, anyway)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

And it's made worse by the fact that she lies about me and whether or not I agree with her about certain things (like abortion, or whether or not women should shave all their public hair off, and a million other things). She has been known to create drinking game rules that involve either grabbing your own breast or grabbing the breast of the person sitting next to you (not going to happen). And this has been going on since high school.

Why is this person your friend?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Why is this person your friend?

She's not anymore.

She was one person in a group of friends who were very important to me for a long time; she's best friends with the wife of someone who I care a lot about. For a long time, that group of friends was important enough to me that I was willing to try to deal with her shit.

<shrug>

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

I don't want to diminish female suffering here, which clearly has its own dimension due to the sexual component. But as far as male physical violence is concerned, ... it has been rampant all around you and you simply become a target of it when you become sexually desirable.

I could be misreading you here, but it looks a bit like you might be suggesting a causal link between sexual desire and sexual violence. The appalling regularity with which eighty and ninety-year old women are raped in home invasions, and the phenomenon of male-on-male rape by otherwise heterosexual men kind of gives the lie to this. I don't think sexual violence has to do with desiring the victim, so much as desiring to shame the victim. Which is probably what a lot of other violence is about, too, but maybe not so much the gang and street-fighting you have discussed. I would have said that was more about the perpetrators, their status, their territory, etc., which is why it's often conducted in front of an audience.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But if your definition of an attack includes being grabbed by a man and kissed or groped against your will, your chance of being attacked are not slim at all. In fact, I suspect that most women have been attacked in this way. The first time it happened to me, I was not at a bar, or a nightclub, or on a date. I had not been drinking. I was not provocatively dressed. I was a 14-year-old tourist out seeing the sights in a crowded public area in broad daylight. I don't think my experience was unique. I don't even think it was particularly unusual.
Well, by the age of 14 I already had survived about half a dozen serious fights, including two cases of being beaten up by gangs of more than six considerably older boys. The threat or experience of physical violence from other males was pretty common from about twelve till about my mid twenties I would say, and has since faded mostly because I neither hang out where volatile men gather in large numbers any longer (e.g., clubs and bars on the weekend) nor now wear clothes and other markers of a specific "tribe" (like punks, waves, skins, goths, ...). At least at one time in my life, I think I was in clear danger of serious injury and was saved basically by a big bus driver physically defending the entry to his bus against a gang rushing after us. I may have experienced above average violence from other boys and men in my life, but I'm far from the extreme end. Certainly I know guys who got hit harder, and I doubt that there are many men who have not been harassed and attacked physically at some point in their life.

I don't want to diminish female suffering here, which clearly has its own dimension due to the sexual component. But as far as male physical violence is concerned, it needs to be said that you are simply appearing on the radar of that violence due to your sexual development. It is not uniquely targeted at you. Rather, it has been rampant all around you and you simply become a target of it when you become sexually desirable. It is also true that once you have become a target, you are an easier target than most men. But while I have no stats for that, I'm betting that while attacks on you will be more frequent, they will be on average less intense. It's a question of upping the ante by the victim. And most attacks on men at adult level that I have experienced or know about involved groups and/or weapons.

None of this will help the most unlucky individuals, be it a woman lying their raped, or a man lying there with stab wounds to the chest. But you are simply missing out on a lot of potential male allies if you exclusively focus on what male violence does to women only. Men grow up with male violence at least as much as women do. Really. Yes, not under the aspect of sexual violence and I appreciate the special emotional significance of that. But watch your male friends closely the next time some group of men close by grows loud and restless. Or look at your man as you stroll in the dark and two people close in. Look at his body posture change when he realises it is a couple, a man and a woman, and not two men drawing close. Men are in a somewhat different position to most women, since they have the option to pose for "maybe you can hurt me, but I will hurt you, too" effect. But this hardly means that they stride the world confidently as masters of the universe, no matter what.

Boy, this is good.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

Funny after mentioning Firefly earlier I happened to have this episode cued for tonight.

Jubal Early: You ever been raped?
[Kaylee looks at him in shock]
Kaylee: The captain is right down that hallway he can hear you...
Jubal Early: The captain's locked in his quarters. They all are. There's nobody can help you. Say it.
[she begins to cry]
Kaylee: There's - there's nobody can help me.
Jubal Early: I'm gonna tie you up now. And you know what I'm gonna do then?
[shakes her head]
Jubal Early: I'm gonna give you a present. Get rid of a problem you've got. And I won't touch you in any wrong fashion, nor hurt you at all, unless you make some kind of ruckus. You throw a monkey wrench into my dealings in any way, your body is forfeit. Ain't nothing but a body to me. And I can find all unseemly manner of use for it.

He knocks out Mal. He then hits Book. But he threatens to violate and rape Kaylee. Your body is forfeit,
It is NOT the same.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

No, it's not the same. "If you still know how, talk to me now."

Judas Iscariot.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't want to diminish female suffering here, which clearly has its own dimension due to the sexual component. But as far as male physical violence is concerned, it needs to be said that you are simply appearing on the radar of that violence due to your sexual development. It is not uniquely targeted at you. Rather, it has been rampant all around you and you simply become a target of it when you become sexually desirable. It is also true that once you have become a target, you are an easier target than most men. But while I have no stats for that, I'm betting that while attacks on you will be more frequent, they will be on average less intense. It's a question of upping the ante by the victim. And most attacks on men at adult level that I have experienced or know about involved groups and/or weapons.

You missed an important difference between men's experience and women's experience of male physical violence. Straight men don't have to figure out if the people they might be interested in dating might mete out some portion of that violence.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I could be misreading you here, but it looks a bit like you might be suggesting a causal link between sexual desire and sexual violence. The appalling regularity with which eighty and ninety-year old women are raped in home invasions, and the phenomenon of male-on-male rape by otherwise heterosexual men kind of gives the lie to this. I don't think sexual violence has to do with desiring the victim, so much as desiring to shame the victim.

I do not believe in monocausal explanations there, but I think it would be tilting at windmills to discuss that here. My point was anyhow not about why precisely men are violent to women in a sexual manner. Rather it was to point out that men are physically violent first, in particular also to other men, and that this violence extends to women in a sexual manner. And the point of saying that was that if you are looking for allies among men, then maybe reminding them whom and what they fear is a better tactic. Because asking for help against an enemy tends to works a lot better if one points out that it is a shared enemy.

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Which is probably what a lot of other violence is about, too, but maybe not so much the gang and street-fighting you have discussed. I would have said that was more about the perpetrators, their status, their territory, etc., which is why it's often conducted in front of an audience.

And how are such power games fundamentally different from what you believe rape to be, namely a power game? I do agree by the way that there are differences, but if you think that rape is all about power and little about sex, then that makes rape a lot closer to much of the violence that men direct at other men.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You missed an important difference between men's experience and women's experience of male physical violence. Straight men don't have to figure out if the people they might be interested in dating might mete out some portion of that violence.

I would consider that to be part of the "sexual dimension". It is indeed a problem I don't have much as a man. However, if I hang out with other men - and that is what you mostly do as a boy/man at least until most people "couple up" - then I do have to worry about getting drawn into fights because of them (because of who they are, where they go with me, and what they do there). Indeed, there is a non-zero chance that they may turn on me, if I don't know them well. I have to admit that this sort of thing is mostly in my past now, but in particular in my late teens it was a major issue. My sleepy little home town once had to call in a hundred riot police to separate an ongoing war between youth groups... And if I was engaging in more "high risk behaviour", like say visibly supporting a particular football club, then it would be still an issue now. But yeah, having reached middle age has meant that things are pretty quiet now among my peers. Maybe that is also the case for women, maybe not - you tell me.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Ingo, I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and experiences. The whole dimension of men fearing physical violence from other men was something I had thought about in the context of this discussion. However, I am one of the lucky ones - although I have at times feared being attacked, I have somehow always managed to avoid it, so I don't have the same experiences to talk about that you do.

I do think that RuthW's observation is pertinent. While I think that it's true that, like assault, rape is primarily a violent crime, not a sexual crime, rape is on a whole 'nother scale compared to assault. ISTM that it's the psychological element - the violation and humiliation - that do the real damage. Don't get me wrong, both are horrendous - the psychological difficulties in coping with the experience of both are very real. And I've experienced neither, so who am I to talk?... But, yeah, for me, the fear of being raped seems a lot greater than the fear of being beaten up. And being beaten up (or the fear of it) doesn't have the same huge effect that rape (or the fear of it) does, when it comes to forming romantic relationships.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think that rape is much worse than being beaten up, as it is a violation of the self. I share IngoB's experiences to an extent, i.e. street fights, being beaten up, on one occasion with a starting handle, and also, being grabbed by the cops, and invited into their van, for what they termed a couple of rounds, very scary. Also stabbed by a woman, but that's another tale. But I imagine that these things are just nowhere near as traumatizing as rape, and I have worked with rape victims.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Sheesh. I'm feeling very lucky that the worst I ever got was a few aches and bruises in scraps at school.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

I'm so dismayed by the terrible sexual violence of men. I feel a strong sense of corporate shame, just for being a man. The cases of gang rape in India are physically sickening to me. I actually get quite severe nausea. And yet... And yet...

I do feel attracted to women and I realise with some horror that I do objectivise them sexually, especially when they wear certain clothes and makeup and behave in an attractive kind of way. It's a very disturbing thing to realise that I, myself, am a potential part of the problems suffered by women, just because I'm a man- about which I have no choice.

Isn't the core problem here that men are hardwired in a particular way that makes them want the terrible power advantage over women so that they can use them as objects to bring forth their ejaculation? Is it not an indelible part of their essential make up? Shouldn't ALL of us recognise this, and stop separating men into normal guys and psychopaths?

I intend to teach my sons that women are NEVER to be objectified, however they find they make them feel, and that they must be truly regarded and treated as three-dimensional persons. Because, not despite, how attractive they are. And I think that's MY job as their father. Nobody else on the planet can do that, especially not their mother.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
When are the Mums going to talk to the sons? Raise the sons? Teach the sons? When are the women going to take responsibility for their parenting of abusive men?
When are the Dads?
Exactly what I thought.

There are many well thought out and discussed lines of thought in this thread. I am not suggesting mine trumps any of them. Just another line, though it is in my opinion a vital one.

My premise is that people (mostly men) who grow up to be violent toward women often have an Attachment Disorder.

I also fully recognise that the mother does not have to be the primary caregiver. On the other hand by a huge majority she is.

As part of my life I frequently spend time with children with Attachment Disorders. They are so lost, angry and afraid. Many of the boys have very real problems relating to women which you can see will blight their lives, the lives of their wives, partners and girlfriends. The lives of their children, thereby creating more offspring born into the same situation. Many of the girls have such a skewed understanding of love and affection you can see the path ahead of them leading to, again, a reiteration of the situation.

On the other hand I know many young people who have grown up in appalling circumstances but have come from a loving family and most importantly knew from day 1 they were loved and cherished. These kids just shine.

Usual caveats apply: you can find instances of the above which suggest the opposite.

However, my question still applies (and I hope I have explained a little more of my thinking). I am suggesting that babies who are not subjected to withdrawal of affection and care and who are not neglected have a bedrock of decency that future parenting can easily build on. Whereas children with an attachment disorder spend most of their lives afraid. That fear either goes inward into depression and despair or outward into violence and anger.

Again we can argue the rights and wrongs of who is the primary care giver male/female/both. But the reality is that it is predominantly mothers and to be frank in my experience it is neglect by mothers in the early months and years that creates the deeper issues in later life. Fathers only add spin to the bullshit.

Later appropriate parenting is very important, but what happens (or not) during the early months is vital, literally.

In addition to IngoB's point I would add that I have been beaten and abused to the point of being hospitalised and none of it matters or draws close to in comparison to emotional violence.

Fly Safe,

Pyx_e

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Which is probably what a lot of other violence is about, too, but maybe not so much the gang and street-fighting you have discussed. I would have said that was more about the perpetrators, their status, their territory, etc., which is why it's often conducted in front of an audience.
And how are such power games fundamentally different from what you believe rape to be, namely a power game? I do agree by the way that there are differences, but if you think that rape is all about power and little about sex, then that makes rape a lot closer to much of the violence that men direct at other men.

Perhaps I explained it poorly. When I said that I felt that gang and street-fighting related violence was about the perpetrators, rather than the victims, what I was envisaging was the sort of scenario where some poor schmuck (yes, a guy), gets knocked down and kicked about on the pavement by six or so thugs, with the leader going 'What you lookin' at then? Why you lookin' at me? What's your problem?', etc. Now, my reading of this situation, having only ever been a bystander, is that the guy getting kicked about hasn't done anything wrong at all, including but not limited to looking at someone funny - he's just a scapegoat. Who he is is incidental. It's not really him who's being taught a lesson. It's the bystanders, who see that these are people you really shouldn't mess with, who are being taught a lesson. Which they internalise by averting their eyes and walking on by. I guess my contention that sexual violence is qualitatively different from this, even though I think it's primarily about violence rather than sex, is that the 'lesson' is aimed at the victim of the violence.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Pyx_e

Good points about very early poor care. But the mother who is bad at this, was probably poorly taken care of herself, and so on. You end up with a kind of infinite chain of emotional abuse; so I suppose people talk also of the alienation, atomization, etc., produced in society. Quite a political mine-field.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

Isn't the core problem here that men are hardwired in a particular way that makes them want the terrible power advantage over women so that they can use them as objects to bring forth their ejaculation? Is it not an indelible part of their essential make up? Shouldn't ALL of us recognise this, and stop separating men into normal guys and psychopaths?

Or is it the complete opposite? I find myself wanting to say to the lovely men who have posted on this thread:

"I do not think this is some kind of spectrum, with sexually "successful" (whatever that could mean) men at one end, Elliott at the other, and you in the middle, but nearer to Elliott's end than to a young Mick Jagger.

This isn't something that could have happened to you. Men who go on killing sprees are not just a more extreme version of men who get hacked off sometimes at the fact that, say, the woman they would like to be with stays with a man who cheats on her."

And that desire of yours, Yorick, to play with power in the context of consensual sex, is not part of a continuum that leads to rape. The rape scene from Firefly quoted above (I think by Art Dunce) - I could work that script up into a very gratifying sexual fantasy, provided the protagonist was the man I love, who I know absolutely would never do anything without my consent. I would be turned on thinking he was turned on by it. None of this has anything at all to do with the reality of rape and violence.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The rape scene from Firefly quoted above (I think by Art Dunce) - I could work that script up into a very gratifying sexual fantasy, provided the protagonist was the man I love, who I know absolutely would never do anything without my consent. I would be turned on thinking he was turned on by it. None of this has anything at all to do with the reality of rape and violence.

Interesting. I found that really, fully, shudder-worthy. In fact I had to leave the computer and go and do something else for a while. And I have not been raped. I guess it just goes to show we're all individuals.

But yes, this discussion has provided me with tremendous insight into men's experience of both sexuality and societal pressures, and, latterly, violence, and it is good that all this gets talked about.

While I don't think there is any need for men to feel the heaviness of corporate guilt because some of their number are truly awful individuals, probably an attitude of 'If I am not part of the solution, I am part of the problem' is not a bad one to have. As has been said a few times, this is hardly a new problem, and it is to a great extent cyclical. Well, there are various points in the cycle at which one might intervene. Some of these will fall mostly to women, as Pyx_e suggests. Some, such as calling bullshit on already adult males who display inappropriate attitudes and behaviours, should fall to other men. For my part, I'd be really happy to just see this happening. It doesn't require any apologising for having testicles on the part of those so arrayed.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
What I actually originally brought up when I started posting on this thread was the idea that Elliot Roger felt powerless:

I think this is an important point. I've been thinking in another context about how people become radicalised - how they turn from someone who's quite nice, decent chap, maybe a bit odd, into someone who will start shooting people, blowing things up, flying planes into buildings, and so on. The one thing that I noticed very clearly is the sense that there is no other option. The causes and their validity are different, but at its heart they're all about powerlessness, or at least a massive power imbalance, relating to something they consider important. Our survival instinct is strong, but it can be overruled by a strong enough need to get that power we lack.

NB: I'm not saying that he should be given power to demand sex, or that he was anything but ridiculously privileged. Just that if he saw things in those terms, we need to acknowledge that. Sexual relationships were evidently something that mattered hugely to him, to the point of obsession and to the exclusion of all else, but he saw no possible way of becoming fulfilled in that direction.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis: It doesn't require any apologising for having testicles on the part of those so arrayed.

Myeah, I dunno. That seems a bit like saying guns don't kill, people do. As I said, having testicles is indeed the problem, I fear, and I think all men should take greater responsibility for that rather than seeing themselves as being essentially different from the Elliott Rogers of the world. No doubt, his parents didn't view him as the threat he was, and if they had, maybe some people wouldn't be so dead today.

I think men do need to feel corporate guilt.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis: It doesn't require any apologising for having testicles on the part of those so arrayed.
Myeah, I dunno. That seems a bit like saying guns don't kill, people do. As I said, having testicles is indeed the problem, I fear, and I think all men should take greater responsibility for that rather than seeing themselves as being essentially different from the Elliott Rogers of the world. No doubt, his parents didn't view him as the threat he was, and if they had, maybe some people wouldn't be so dead today.

I think men do need to feel corporate guilt.

I'm not sure that corporate guilt will do much good. A corporate awareness, on the lines of "Hold on: this feeling I get is just what drives some men to rape and sexual assault" may be a very useful step in preventing violent crimes against, for the most part, women.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
What I actually originally brought up when I started posting on this thread was the idea that Elliot Roger felt powerless:
I think this is an important point. I've been thinking in another context about how people become radicalised - how they turn from someone who's quite nice, decent chap, maybe a bit odd, into someone who will start shooting people, blowing things up, flying planes into buildings, and so on. The one thing that I noticed very clearly is the sense that there is no other option. The causes and their validity are different, but at its heart they're all about powerlessness, or at least a massive power imbalance, relating to something they consider important. Our survival instinct is strong, but it can be overruled by a strong enough need to get that power we lack.

NB: I'm not saying that he should be given power to demand sex, or that he was anything but ridiculously privileged. Just that if he saw things in those terms, we need to acknowledge that. Sexual relationships were evidently something that mattered hugely to him, to the point of obsession and to the exclusion of all else, but he saw no possible way of becoming fulfilled in that direction.

Yes, I think you're right. One of the problems that I see with some men today, is that they feel inadequate and powerless. This can be very dangerous, as they can start to compensate.

It strikes me about Rodger for example, that he couldn't speak. Well, he could speak quite fluently, but he could not speak to his feelings of inadequacy. Instead, he became this pumped-up Superman, but very hollow.

Well, I've worked with violent men, and one way in, is to find the vulnerability and inadequacy, which of course, they are very loath to show.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Pyx_e, mothers are undoubtedly important to children of both sexes.

But when it comes to teaching sons, there is always going to be a certain point where mothers can model expectations but it is fathers and other male role models that will be modelling behaviour.

It's inevitable because we all model ourselves on those we identify with. That includes fans of a band imitating the band, kids who like Harry Potter running around with sticks and shouting 'Expelliamus!' (I've no idea if I've spelled that right), and small male humans imitating large male humans once they have a concept of maleness.

Any mother attempting to tell her son how to behave is going to face a comeback (either express or thought in the son's head) that a father isn't: "Mum, you don't know what it's like to be a guy". In fact there are parts of this thread that make that very point. We've got women explaining in various tones that men don't automatically understand the female experience, and men explaining in various tones the same thing to women.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
I think men do need to feel corporate guilt.

Nope.

I know what I am capable of. I have tried all my adult life to be part of the solution. I have struggled against violence to women (and men). I have struggled with violent men (and women). I have asked for help with my own shit, I have asked to be told when I am screwing up, I have stepped back and stepped away. I have committed bringing up my kids and helping other kids.

It just too weak to lump all men (women, sexualities, races, socio-economic groups or whatever) into one. I can not affect all men, I can hardly affect this one. I will not feel collective guilt. I will know my own shame.

P

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No doubt, his parents didn't view him as the threat he was, and if they had, maybe some people wouldn't be so dead today.

Yorick, this is demonstrably false. The one thing we know about his parents is that they were trying to raise the alarm a week before any of this happened. They DID see him as a threat.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I do think that RuthW's observation is pertinent. While I think that it's true that, like assault, rape is primarily a violent crime, not a sexual crime, rape is on a whole 'nother scale compared to assault. ISTM that it's the psychological element - the violation and humiliation - that do the real damage. Don't get me wrong, both are horrendous - the psychological difficulties in coping with the experience of both are very real. And I've experienced neither, so who am I to talk?... But, yeah, for me, the fear of being raped seems a lot greater than the fear of being beaten up. And being beaten up (or the fear of it) doesn't have the same huge effect that rape (or the fear of it) does, when it comes to forming romantic relationships.

First, I have said myself that there is a different dimension to rape, and I said so prior to RuthW's comment. Second, getting beat up can be rather violating and humiliating indeed, with long term psychological consequences. Third, I think a male concept of what rape means psychologically is actually skewed by a male concept of how sex is supposed to go. To be honest, I have no idea how to write this without offending people. But here goes... As a heterosexual man, my visceral idea about my role in sex is that I will be doing the penetrating. Being penetrated instead is then not simply a violation of my body in a sexual manner, it is basically putting in question my sexual role. Another man is, essentially, forcing me into the role of being his woman. When men think about rape and react strongly, they invariably think about being forced into a passive homosexual role by another man. But actually, the sex-aligned equivalent of a man raping a woman would of course be a woman raping a man. And yes, that can be done given the limited control most men have over their genitals if stimulated. Now, most men would indeed prefer being beaten up severely and humiliated by a gang of men over being raped by another man. But whether they would prefer the former over being raped by a woman is a rather different question. I'm not sure personally, because I know what it means to be beaten up, and the threat of sexual violence against me by a woman is remote, with all my sexual experiences being on the pleasurable side. I do think the situation for women is different again, given for example the whole issue of potentially being impregnated by a rape. I'm not saying that a woman raping a man is a true equivalent either. But men should be aware that "how I would feel if a man raped me" is mixing in a lot more than just the sexual violation as such.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
In addition to IngoB's point I would add that I have been beaten and abused to the point of being hospitalised and none of it matters or draws close to in comparison to emotional violence.

Well, yes. The worst I've ever been hurt in my life was by an ex-girlfriend, and there was not a hint of physical violence in that. But at times like these bringing up emotional violence seems like attempting a cop-out or horrible score keeping. There is a time and a season even for truth, and some truths can wait while one deals with other truths IMHO.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not sure that corporate guilt will do much good. A corporate awareness, on the lines of "Hold on: this feeling I get is just what drives some men to rape and sexual assault" may be a very useful step in preventing violent crimes against, for the most part, women.

The single biggest killer of UK men 20-49 (and the second biggest of boys 5-19) is suicide.

So, given that men contribute to the majority of violent assaults, sexual assaults, murders and suicides, and also that many men simply don't exhibit violent or self-destructive behaviour, can any useful generalisations be made regarding our feelings?

I'm floundering a bit here, so apologise. Are men who are able to talk about how they feel to others (and not meet ridicule) less likely to develop what, for the want of a better word, becomes a pathology? Sometimes, I just think we're programmed to destroy, and at other times, that we can do anything. I've never been a particularly open person, and I think that's common for most men (I tend to put most of my feels in my books, and that only happened after I'd turned adult). I still haven't found the courage to talk to my brother about our father's terminal cancer.

Is it that all men are the problem, that only some men are the problem, or is it that too many men are the problem?

[ 30. May 2014, 11:49: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No doubt, his parents didn't view him as the threat he was, and if they had, maybe some people wouldn't be so dead today.
Yorick, this is demonstrably false. The one thing we know about his parents is that they were trying to raise the alarm a week before any of this happened. They DID see him as a threat.

Too little, too late. My point (in reply to Pyxe's post about mums) is how especially fathers can and should influence their young sons not to objectify women sexually, and that the first step here is to recognise that natural and inevitable testicle-bound tendency (to objectivise women) in ourselves. I don't see how mothers are in as good a position to do this, given that they are women.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
The appalling regularity with which eighty and ninety-year old women are raped in home invasions....

This certainly happens, but judging by what I read in the newspapers, it is rare, at least in this part of the world. Moreover, this type of assault creates far more public outrage than does assault on a younger woman.

Earlier in this thread I said that some men hate women because of their early relationship with their mothers. I suspect that men who rape elderly women fall into this category.

Moo

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It's just too weak to lump all men ... into one.

Weak? What do you mean? You surely cannot contest that most sexual violence is committed by men against women.

You do realise I'm talking about tendencies and generalities here, right?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the point of saying that was that if you are looking for allies among men, then maybe reminding them whom and what they fear is a better tactic. Because asking for help against an enemy tends to works a lot better if one points out that it is a shared enemy.

The TED Talk featured here makes that point as well.

And that may well be a difficult point to embrace, especially when fear and pain and the memory of the same begin to affect how you hear what other people are saying, and how you think about their words.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I think this is an important point. I've been thinking in another context about how people become radicalised - how they turn from someone who's quite nice, decent chap, maybe a bit odd, into someone who will start shooting people, blowing things up, flying planes into buildings, and so on. The one thing that I noticed very clearly is the sense that there is no other option. The causes and their validity are different, but at its heart they're all about powerlessness, or at least a massive power imbalance, relating to something they consider important.

The sense of powerlessness may be important -- lots of talk on these puahate sorts of groups about being "incel" -- but the sense of being celebrated and cheered on by like-minded men seems to be an important factor as well.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

I think what Pyx_e's saying is that your "I think men do need to feel corporate guilt" is off the mark. I shouldn't have to feel guilty for what someone else does. A lot of men have enough guilt and self-loathing based on their own actions. Adding to that shame and responsibility for what someone else has done (and therefore have had no control over) is futile and ultimately prohibitive to progression.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
having testicles is indeed the problem, I fear, and I think all men should take greater responsibility for that rather than seeing themselves as being essentially different from the Elliott Rogers of the world.

I can only take responsibility for my own testicles. In terms of how I, and other men are different (and similar) to Elliot Rogers, there's been a lot of discussion around that already.

(x-post, reply to Yorick)

[ 30. May 2014, 13:20: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It's just too weak to lump all men ... into one.
Weak? What do you mean? You surely cannot contest that most sexual violence is committed by men against women.

You do realise I'm talking about tendencies and generalities here, right?

See my post above. That most sexual violence is committed by men against women is incontrovertible. But is it "men", "some men", "most men", "men who think X", "men who've experienced Y", or what? Given that not all men, or even most men, don't commit sexual violence, is it that they're better at controlling the urges we all have, or is that those that do, have urges the rest of us don't?

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I can only take responsibility for my own testicles.

I am a father of sons, and I have a responsibility for theirs.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that not all men [double neg fixed] commit sexual violence, is it that they're better at controlling the urges we all have, or is that those that do, have urges the rest of us don't?

Both, I'd guess. But what I'm sure of is that I should recognise and understand the tendency in myself to objectivise women sexually, recognise it in my sons, and try to influence myself and them in ways that lead to our controlling the urges that we all have because we have testicles. The urges that we don't tend to recognise and understand.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But what I'm sure of is that I should recognise and understand the tendency in myself to objectivise women sexually, recognise it in my sons, and try to influence myself and them in ways that lead to our controlling the urges that we all have because we have testicles. The urges that we don't tend to recognise and understand.

That's true, and fair point about responsibility for your sons. And in terms of influence, that can spread a lot further.

It doesn't follow, though, that you should feel guilt, shame and responsibility for the actions of rapists and murderers across the world, just because, like you, they have testicles.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

[XP]

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I shouldn't have to feel guilty for what someone else does. A lot of men have enough guilt and self-loathing based on their own actions. Adding to that shame and responsibility for what someone else has done (and therefore have had no control over) is futile and ultimately prohibitive to progression.

Perhaps. Maybe guilt is an obstructive term here, but personally, I feel ashamed about all kinds of stuff that isn't my fault- racism, sexism, all sorts of isms actually- but with which I associate myself because I belong to the groups that tend to exhibit those isms. That is, when white people hate blacks I feel ashamed that I am in that group, when homophobes hate gays I feel ashamed on behalf of those idiots, etc.

The group of people who gang-rape and hang Indian girls is male, and there is a causal correspondence there. I'm male, so I'm in that group, and I think this recognition and understanding is directly helpful in improving the gang-raped and murdered Indian girls type of problem.

[ 30. May 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It doesn't follow, though, that you should feel guilt, shame and responsibility for the actions of rapists and murderers across the world, just because, like you, they have testicles.

Well, of course. I appreciate that on an individual personal level. I know that I'm not a rapist and murderer, even though I have testicles, and that most men aren't either. What I'm getting at here is the value to womankind of all people with testicles appreciating that they are in the GROUP that rapes and murders them, and that it is our testicles that group us. All other grouping effects notwithstanding.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

On the other hand, guilt can actually block awareness in some people. So recommending that any group should feel corporate guilt could back-fire; better to recommend greater awareness, I would say.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Sure. SioniSais suggested above that 'awareness' is a better term, and I'm good with that. But whatever, guilt works for me, and so does shame.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Pyx_e, mothers are undoubtedly important to children of both sexes.

But when it comes to teaching sons, there is always going to be a certain point where mothers can model expectations but it is fathers and other male role models that will be modelling behaviour.

It's inevitable because we all model ourselves on those we identify with. That includes fans of a band imitating the band, kids who like Harry Potter running around with sticks and shouting 'Expelliamus!' (I've no idea if I've spelled that right), and small male humans imitating large male humans once they have a concept of maleness.

Any mother attempting to tell her son how to behave is going to face a comeback (either express or thought in the son's head) that a father isn't: "Mum, you don't know what it's like to be a guy". In fact there are parts of this thread that make that very point. We've got women explaining in various tones that men don't automatically understand the female experience, and men explaining in various tones the same thing to women.

I completely agree with you. My point is about emphasis. My emphasis is that inappropriate nurturing in early weeks and months causes a disproportionate amount of "damage" later. I absolutely agree that boys need good role models, I would go further and suggest that only males can provide "boundaried" areas for boys to explore and define adult boundaries for the darker sides of their nature.

Yorick, I meant "weak" as in the argument is weak. Sorry if you read it any other way. It was not meant as a personal slight. I consider any argument that consigns a whole section of society with one label, emotion, thought or spirituality to be ultimately unhelpful. I might be like that, we are all not like that.

Lastly and just for the fun of it...... the only thing that has been able to help me with my struggles in this area is a Christian community which is open, prayerful, calls to account and supports. I can not do this on my own. I need you & Him.

Pyx_e

[ 30. May 2014, 14:10: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Sure. SioniSais suggested above that 'awareness' is a better term, and I'm good with that. But whatever, guilt works for me, and so does shame.

Yorick, as long as it's only projected inwards, not outwards. I think there's a huge danger in judging by association just because someone belongs to a certain group (even if that person is yourself). Careful you don't take that reasoning and use it elsewhere. It's that kind of thinking that causes a lot of these problems in the first place ("Woman X rejected me, therefore all women should be punished", "Western governments have committed evils, therefore all westerners are legitimate targets", "Some muslims are extremists therefore all muslims are extremeists"). I'd rather we didn't add "some men are rapists therefore the guilt and shame is upon all men" to that list.

(edit: added quote, as this is the top of the page)

[ 30. May 2014, 14:14: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

That’s a very good point. I’m genuinely in two minds about this. One one hand, I feel that if all men took a sort of corporate responsibility towards not raping and murdering women because of our maleness, it would help, and that we are only likely to do so if we all include ourselves in the group of murdering rapists. On the other hand I see how feelings of guilt can backfire in a minority of cases. I wonder which you (and quetzy, perhaps) feel would be the lesser evil in terms of outcome in murder-rape, probability wise.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

My mother lived in Santa Barbara in the late 20th century. In the 1980s, my brother got two degrees from the university and lived in the Isla Vista neighbourhood. The mindless advocates of hand-held deadly weapons with access to all are to blame. These evil people have ruined this country and made it unsafe.

It makes me want to move to Canada, the UK or Ireland if only we could find jobs and housing there and learn to tolerate the snow!

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

From my point of view: corporate influence, awareness, modelling a different way... all that stuff, I'm up for. Responsibility, I'm not so sure. Guilt and shame are a big no-no.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Yorick, I meant "weak" as in the argument is weak.

Actually, that's how I took it, but thank you for your gracious apology for the possibility that I didn't.

Generalising like this has its weaknesses and strengths, but it's certainly easier to change general things if you look at the general principles.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
That’s a very good point. I’m genuinely in two minds about this. One one hand, I feel that if all men took a sort of corporate responsibility towards not raping and murdering women because of our maleness, it would help, and that we are only likely to do so if we all include ourselves in the group of murdering rapists. On the other hand I see how feelings of guilt can backfire in a minority of cases. I wonder which you (and quetzy, perhaps) feel would be the lesser evil in terms of outcome in murder-rape, probability wise.

I think it's telling other people that they are guilty, that can backfire, as you are in effect, blaming them. Blaming people tends to get their backs up, so there are other ways of describing responsibility and awareness.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My point (in reply to Pyxe's post about mums) is how especially fathers can and should influence their young sons not to objectify women sexually, and that the first step here is to recognise that natural and inevitable testicle-bound tendency (to objectivise women) in ourselves.

Educating against nature is like pissing into the wind...

As usual, I find the traditional approach much more sensible. I refer here to the traditional answer to wherein consists "adultery of the heart", which is condemned by Jesus as equivalent to actual adultery. That's a highly similar concern, if it is not simply a flowery and old-fashioned version of the same. I'll write the following from a man's perspective, but of course the same is true vice versa for women.

The basic idea there is that the initial look at a woman's breasts or ass or whatever body part you prefer, or indeed the initial thought of having sex with her, or the initial phantasy of an imaginary woman doing something erotic is not sinful. Rather, it is a challenge, a question asked of you. It is simply something bubbling up in your mind, a sexual impulse. At this point it is not something you as a person do, are responsible for, it is something happening to you. The moral question, as always, is what you do when things are happening to you, how you react. So if your gaze dwells on that breast or ass, if you think through how you would have sex with her, if you embellish the erotic phantasy, then you are committing adultery of the heart. Then you have taken over the sexual impulse and made it your own, so now it is your responsibility. But if you rather move your gaze, stop thinking about having sex or let go of the erotic phantasy, then no guilt whatever attaches to you. In fact, this will have been mildly meritorious, since you have virtuously dealt with a sinful challenge.

That of course is something one can try to teach children. But note the subtle difference. There is no intention there to suppress the initial objectification (to switch back to our modern version). There is also no statement that the person that is doing this initial objectification is particularly bad due to this act. (Traditionally one would say that this is part of disordered human nature after the fall, but that is a general comment which does not attach blame to the specific act.) There is a simple acceptance that this sort of thing will happen, and frequently at that. The focus is exclusively on what we do with this impulse. The focus is on what we do next.

I agree with this approach. Breast-beating and crying "woe onto me, objectifier of women" will get us men nowhere; and teaching our sons that they are bad people if they look at boobs, rather the person behind them, will just make them hate themselves. Because they sure as heck are going to do just that, and often. And hating yourself very easily flips over into hating what causes you to hate yourself, and then things can get dangerous. For women. No, I say with tradition: Fine, you have looked at the boobs. Notice that. Snap out of it. Move on. Perhaps chat to the owner of the boobs, there's an idea. If you do get on with your life, then no harm done. All clear. But if your eyes stay with the boobs, then you will have only boobs on your mind - and that quite generally leads to a worse world, and one in which boobs will typically elude you at that...

[ 30. May 2014, 16:56: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Yup, that's very much how I'd handle the approach to teaching my boys, though without the 'sin' and 'virtue' religious handles, obviously. But yes, nicely put.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My point (in reply to Pyxe's post about mums) is how especially fathers can and should influence their young sons not to objectify women sexually, and that the first step here is to recognise that natural and inevitable testicle-bound tendency (to objectivise women) in ourselves.
Educating against nature is like pissing into the wind...

As usual, I find the traditional approach much more sensible. I refer here to the traditional answer to wherein consists "adultery of the heart", which is condemned by Jesus as equivalent to actual adultery. That's a highly similar concern, if it is not simply a flowery and old-fashioned version of the same. I'll write the following from a man's perspective, but of course the same is true vice versa for women.

The basic idea there is that the initial look at a woman's breasts or ass or whatever body part you prefer, or indeed the initial thought of having sex with her, or the initial phantasy of an imaginary woman doing something erotic is not sinful. Rather, it is a challenge, a question asked of you. It is simply something bubbling up in your mind, a sexual impulse. At this point it is not something you as a person do, are responsible for, it is something happening to you. The moral question, as always, is what you do when things are happening to you, how you react. So if your gaze dwells on that breast or ass, if you think through how you would have sex with her, if you embellish the erotic phantasy, then you are committing adultery of the heart. Then you have taken over the sexual impulse and made it your own, so now it is your responsibility. But if you rather move your gaze, stop thinking about having sex or let go of the erotic phantasy, then no guilt whatever attaches to you. In fact, this will have been mildly meritorious, since you have virtuously dealt with a sinful challenge.

That of course is something one can try to teach children. But note the subtle difference. There is no intention there to suppress the initial objectification (to switch back to our modern version). There is also no statement that the person that is doing this initial objectification is particularly bad due to this act. (Traditionally one would say that this is part of disordered human nature after the fall, but that is a general comment which does not attach blame to the specific act.) There is a simple acceptance that this sort of thing will happen, and frequently at that. The focus is exclusively on what we do with this impulse. The focus is on what we do next.

I agree with this approach. Breast-beating and crying "woe onto me, objectifier of women" will get us men nowhere; and teaching our sons that they are bad people if they look at boobs, rather the person behind them, will just make them hate themselves. Because they sure as heck are going to do just that, and often. And hating yourself very easily flips over into hating what causes you to hate yourself, and then things can get dangerous. For women. No, I say with tradition: Fine, you have looked at the boobs. Notice that. Snap out of it. Move on. Perhaps chat to the owner of the boobs, there's an idea. If you do get on with your life, then no harm done. All clear. But if your eyes stay with the boobs, then you will have only boobs on your mind - and that quite generally leads to a worse world, and one in which boobs will typically elude you at that...

Gee, Bingo, you keep making my points for me.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

And I actually think I am getting that example of decent men struggling with the issue in a decent manner I was longing for earlier. [Smile]

Pyx-- I promise you I have some things to say about the role of early childcare in bolstering misogyny-- what women in childcare are doing to help it specifically-- and this will involve what IngoB said about men having to prove themselves through violence. It's just-- the connections I am making are so complex that I know it's gonna need to be a blog entry which I link. But I do have some specific observations of how a boy's ability to be successful socially in academically is eroded by how we treat early childhood education and early elementary education.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

( confession time) One piece of evidence for the presence of a huge animus in me is ... I totally do the boob- gaze. Large breasted women? Eyes straight to rack. Move them away? Back to rack. Not a thought crosses my head about the matter, the eyes just wind up there.

And then I sit there and go "Oh God, I hope she didn't notice that, I am acting like some frat boy." Eyes on face. My mind wanders. (About anything, usually nothing sexual, unless that is the subject under discussion.) I come back to the present. Eyes are on boobs. IT JUST HAPPENS.

Does this resonate?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

BTW welcome back Yorick. I agree strongly that it is incumbent upon fathers to teach their sons most emphatically that girls and women should be treated as 3D human persons and not objectified and treated like non-persons or sub-persons.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm so dismayed by the terrible sexual violence of men. I feel a strong sense of corporate shame, just for being a man.

please no.

I know the conversation has moved on somewhat but I have to address this. (forgive me, it's been a slow morning)

Yorick, my boys are older than yours. Also, I only have testicles in the metaphorical sense [Biased]

and can't directly relate. But I have some observations.

My 12 year old is dealing with massive amounts of guilt and shame, just for being male. The girls he played with happily a few months ago he now has sexual thoughts about, and it freaks him out. He is ashamed of his urges and has turned this into a form of self-hatred that scares the shit out of me. He will randomly say things about his being "disgusting" or "perverted" not because he has done anything wrong, but because of his blossoming libido. And it goes beyond that to his saying things along the line of all men being sick and twisted or dirty, and recently even apologized to me for misogyny.

He is TWELVE.

My older son was not quite as willing to turn this on himself, but that sense of corporate guilt is there for him, too. In his case, it has come out of his being friends with girls who are abused, and like you he feels somehow at fault for what his fellow males have done. This just kills me.

These are boys. their sexual urges are natural and hard-wired. As parents (and members of the community, generally) we need to teach them not to victimize others from the pressure of these urges, but do we need to teach them that there is something "perverted" or wrong about their own bodies? Because they can't win that fight.

And it's just swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. As girls, we end up getting taught a huge amount of shame for our bodies and it is so damaging. When I developed breasts, I felt disgusting. suddenly I had become a sexual person when I had no interest in being that. I had "boobies" and all of a sudden I went from being the wild child of the woods, running with huskies and playing in mud, to some sort of temptress. I felt evil.

I, as a mother, cannot stand to see this also happen to boys. particularly MY boys. Because they are wonderful awesome smart thoughtful kind young men who have so much to offer the world.

Life is full of bumps and bruises and mistakes, and we all fuck up. I try to teach these kids that if you screw up, you atone for it. you apologize and you do whatever is possible to fix what damage you've done.

But this concept of "corporate guilt" gives them a wrong that they cannot fix. When that happens, they turn the pain inward and hate themselves. And isn't self-hatred one of the core issues we're addressing here? Elliot Roger didn't go on a shooting spree because of a healthy sense of self-worth. His language might have sounded like that, but people talk like that when they're terrified and filled with self-loathing. look at any bully ever.

YES our boys need to be aware of the harm that can come. They need to feel empathy for those who've been wronged. They need to feel enough of a sense of responsibility for our global community to work to fix the harm however they can. But please let's not pile shame on them for something they have not done.

Awareness. Empathy. Restraint. but no shame.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( confession time) One piece of evidence for the presence of a huge animus in me is ... I totally do the boob- gaze. Large breasted women? Eyes straight to rack. Move them away? Back to rack. Not a thought crosses my head about the matter, the eyes just wind up there.

And then I sit there and go "Oh God, I hope she didn't notice that, I am acting like some frat boy." Eyes on face. My mind wanders. (About anything, usually nothing sexual, unless that is the subject under discussion.) I come back to the present. Eyes are on boobs. IT JUST HAPPENS.

Does this resonate?

Yes, except it's not just large breasted women, and it's not just breasts. There is a part of the male brain (or at least, I can only speak for mine) that is uncontrollable, that immediately objectifies pretty much every woman you meet and assesses them sexually. So you have to develop a massive amount of self control to just ignore that animal part of your psyche and behave like a grown up. But it is always there. It never goes away, or at least it hasn't for me yet.

Which is why Ingo's post is totally spot on, and why the stuff Jesus said is so helpful.

You can't stop that initial impulse, temptation, but you can choose what you do about it. And even when you struggle with that, you can still choose to relate to someone as a human being, rather than a piece of sexy flesh. But it's not easy, and every straight bloke I've ever talked about it honestly with has the same struggles. It's the hardest temptation of all. For example, in my corridor at work there is a lovely woman, who happens to have the finest ass I've ever seen. If she walks past, it takes a gargantuan effort of self control not to at least have a quick look at its beauty. And then, on top of all that there's the fact that our culture is swamped with images of beautiful women to sell products - which works because of all this. And the easy access porn. Temptation abounds. And if temptation was sin, then straight Catholic men would spend the vast majority of their lives in the confessional. But, as Ingo says, it's not, and the battle ground is how we handle our natural urges of objectification, it's not eliminating them altogether. That is honestly impossible.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

Not sure if I am ready to go too far down this road, but it's not just big breasts for me, too. It's nice breasts.

And yes-- Massive amount of self control.

(suddenly pictures every female shipmate I know sitting far across the room from me at a meet.)

And yeah, that's why Bingo's post hit me the way at did--on some level I know what he is talking about. It resonates.

[ 30. May 2014, 18:57: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But, as Ingo says, it's not, and the battle ground is how we handle our natural urges of objectification, it's not eliminating them altogether. That is honestly impossible.

And this.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Killing me]

I also don't want to have my son feeling guilt for simply being male, or for the natural results of his hormones (yes, he's freaking out too because he's suddenly started noticing boobs etc. on girls who are his friends). Really, I don't have a problem with that first instinctive male look. I DO have a problem with what the owner of those eyes chooses to do from then on, if it's not befitting a decent human being.

I was told a while ago that I have a terrific ass, by someone who was mildly intoxicated but who is also not, by any stretch of the imagination, intent on objectifying me. I found this information rather pleasant. Probably because I knew damn well that the speaker was never going to act on that observation in any way I didn't want, and because the speaker has always treated me like a real human being and not a chunk of meat.

Under those circs, feel free to have that first automatic appreciative look! But then let's get back to being rational, friendly adults.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I also don't want to have my son feeling guilt for simply being male, or for the natural results of his hormones (yes, he's freaking out too because he's suddenly started noticing boobs etc. on girls who are his friends). Really, I don't have a problem with that first instinctive male look. I DO have a problem with what the owner of those eyes chooses to do from then on, if it's not befitting a decent human being.

I was told a while ago that I have a terrific ass, by someone who was mildly intoxicated but who is also not, by any stretch of the imagination, intent on objectifying me. I found this information rather pleasant. Probably because I knew damn well that the speaker was never going to act on that observation in any way I didn't want, and because the speaker has always treated me like a real human being and not a chunk of meat.

Under those circs, feel free to have that first automatic appreciative look! But then let's get back to being rational, friendly adults.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh and GPR-- yes, the ass thing, too. [Hot and Hormonal]

Massive amounts of self control. Yes.

I guess the tipping point for me is two things. 1. The leering thing that LC talks about and 2. Even if none of my parts grabs your eye, I still expect to be treated like a human being. You do not have to fuck me, you do have to be civil. and since I am in fact not invisible, I am justified in being offended when I am treated like I am invisible.

I can speak to whether or not that impulse comes naturally for men, but IME most men seem to get this-- but the ones who have learned that "you only have to respect women for certain values of woman" can do a lot of damage. And (as I noted in y little backstory of misogynistic group experience) IME all it takes is one dildo with a mouth to loosen up compassion and instigate ugly talk against women who do not fall within "certain values."

Again, maybe that's the dude in me that was reacting, protectively, like those women were my sisters and I was their brother-- "Dudes, that's not how you talk about a woman!"

So, part of the work to get past objectification is to reinforce personification-- if that makes sense.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

So if I teach my niece that I think women have an obligation to dress relatively modestly most of the time in order to help Ingo and Kelly maintain custody of their eyes, are Shipmates going to have a problem with that?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Can't speak for others, but I'd say IngoB and Kelly can suck it up and deal with others' immodest dress.

Edit: Summer seems to be coming early here in southern California, and immodest dress is everywhere, including on yours truly.

[ 30. May 2014, 19:34: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

And that is just what I do. [Smile]

I myself got chided by a female friend for wearing a basic sleeveless tee in 101 degree, because I didn't have the arms for it (according to her). Are you shitting me? I should have to swelter because you can't put your eyes somewhere more pleasant for you? Like my boobs, briefly?

[ 30. May 2014, 19:38: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So if I teach my niece that I think women have an obligation to dress relatively modestly most of the time in order to help Ingo and Kelly maintain custody of their eyes, are Shipmates going to have a problem with that?

yes. Because Kelly and Ingo are responsible for their behavior. What you teach her is that sometimes, people are going to look. GOOD people will then wipe off the drool and say hello and have a conversation. shitheads will attempt to treat her like a giant set of walking tits. She is to treat those people with all the respect they deserve.

And I'm with Ruth. When it's hot and sunny out, I'm wearing the minimal to be legal. If men get to take their shirts off in the sun, I at least get to wear a halter top and short shorts. other people's temptations are no more my problem than my weaknesses should cause bakeries or bookstores to have to black out their store windows.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
What you teach her is that sometimes, people are going to look. GOOD people will then wipe off the drool and say hello and have a conversation. shitheads will attempt to treat her like a giant set of walking tits. She is to treat those people with all the respect they deserve.

And I'm with Ruth. When it's hot and sunny out, I'm wearing the minimal to be legal. If men get to take their shirts off in the sun, I at least get to wear a halter top and short shorts. other people's temptations are no more my problem than my weaknesses should cause bakeries or bookstores to have to black out their store windows.

Good analogy.

And I am ever the gentleman, ladies, for the record. [Biased]

And as I hinted above, I have gotten more scrutiny from women and opinions about what I should or should not be wearing from women than I have ever gotten squirm-inducing leers from men, so most of y'all gentlemen are probably managing it just fine.

[ 30. May 2014, 19:46: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

I'd expect no less, my dear.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There's some very sexy guys out there and it's my responsibility to keep my eyes where they belong rather than on their gorgeous bits. I'm an adult, i can handle it.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I confessed I have a rack problem. I also have a bulge problem.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

God created sculpture just for us, Lamby.

(psst
Undeniably beautiful, but possibly NSFW, like some more cute links downthread

Sioni Sais
Helpful Hellhost)

[ 30. May 2014, 20:38: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

...Bingo, pray for my deliverance, right now.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Shrug.

Appropriate to the occasion then?

Probably still a no.

Oh well.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Shrug.

Appropriate to the occasion then?

Hell of a lot more appropriate to say that "sweet thing X is in charge of me and Bingo's eyes."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Also, I think the guy in the towel in your link is showing an admirable respect for academic tradition by donning a form of toga, and I applaud his choice of scholastic attire.

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :

Bingo's excellent post reminded me of this zen koan.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

Undeniably beautiful, but possibly NSFW, like some more cute links downthread

Sioni Sais
Helpful Hellhost)

whoops. didn't even occur to me, since it's statuary. "eek naked rocks!"

sorry 'bout that.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Not sure if I am ready to go too far down this road, but it's not just big breasts for me, too. It's nice breasts.

Well, seeing as you stuck your head above the parapets - err, me too. It doesn't lead me to doubt that men are where it's at for me, but nice breast are just - nice. One sort of can't help appreciating them. And yeah - it just happens automatically...

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

Anger, that's where a lot of it starts I think. Anger can come from frustration but also sadness. We need to be kinder to one another. "A soft word turns away wrath."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yep. Hurt people hurt people.

Anoesis-- you think it's just a mammal instict that can be sexual or can be just... mammalian, depending on the situation?

I mean, baby girls love boobs, too.

[ 30. May 2014, 23:17: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

I mean, baby girls love boobs, too.

I could tell you any number of stories involving waitresses with low-cut tops and small children in high chairs thinking that the first course had just arrived...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Preschool teacher. Hands down blouse. Constantly.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Ok, story time :

I was working in a toddler room, sand we had a small boy at nap-time who was-- resisting nap-time. i'll spare you my lecture on the battle ground that is nap-time. Anyway, I was helping this kid return to his cot. Each time he burst loose and ran around the room. After the fifth trip, as I laid him back on the cot, he kicked me in the boob. Hard.

I reared back, gasping and clutching my tit, as my co teacher flew over to assist. The little boy then began to get up again. I reached over to put him down again and he lunged forward...

I collapsed in a shuddering heap by the bed.

"Are you all right?" My co teacher asked. She thought I was hysterically crying.

I was hysterically laughing. So hard that I couldn't answer for a minute. I finally managed it--"He kissed it better!"

[ETA: and I am sure he was wondering what the hell we found so damn funny when here he was just trying to be a Nice Guy.]

[ 30. May 2014, 23:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It just so happens that this week there was a repeat of the QI episode about eyes. Which talks about gaze detection. Apparently, men look at genital areas far more than women do whether they are conscious of this or not. The genital areas of women, the genital areas of other men, the genital areas of dogs, doesn't matter. Men's brains are programmed to check out the nether regions.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That's astonishing. How do they say that functions?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

( actually I have a guess) this goes back to when we walked on all fours and had more hair, and sexual characteristics were less obvious. You look for the genital region because that is what you sniff in greeting to establish the sex of the sniffee.
I've been hanging out a the zoo a lot lately.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That's astonishing. How do they say that functions?

They didn't. Being a quiz-comedy, they frequently get away with not delving into the details. Besides, maybe nobody knows for sure WHY, it's just the results of the studies. Women look at faces, and men look at both faces and genitals.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It just so happens that this week there was a repeat of the QI episode about eyes. Which talks about gaze detection. Apparently, men look at genital areas far more than women do whether they are conscious of this or not. The genital areas of women, the genital areas of other men, the genital areas of dogs, doesn't matter. Men's brains are programmed to check out the nether regions.

The problem with this kind of study is that it can't distinguish between behavior that differs between men and women because of the way we are socialized and innate differences in behavior. And it sometimes has trouble even identifying consistent differences in behavior between men and women. Differences that show up in one context will disappear in another.

Look for Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. It is important reading.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Sorry. I missed that this was from a quiz comedy show. The results will be even less valid than anything I was thinking of.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It just so happens that this week there was a repeat of the QI episode about eyes. Which talks about gaze detection. Apparently, men look at genital areas far more than women do whether they are conscious of this or not. The genital areas of women, the genital areas of other men, the genital areas of dogs, doesn't matter. Men's brains are programmed to check out the nether regions.
The problem with this kind of study is that it can't distinguish between behavior that differs between men and women because of the way we are socialized and innate differences in behavior. And it sometimes has trouble even identifying consistent differences in behavior between men and women. Differences that show up in one context will disappear in another.

Look for Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. It is important reading.

Well yes, isn't that what I just said? It's a finding of fact, not an announcement of causation. Which is how real science works. Get proper data first.

And the RESULTS are not from a quiz comedy show. The REPORT is. If you knew anything about QI, you'd understand that there is actually a lot of research behind the comedy. The factual basis of what is said on the show is checked quite carefully. They are NOT doing the scientific research, they are using the real scientific research as the basis of a show full of surprising and interesting facts.

[ 31. May 2014, 01:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I am pretty sure we had this discussion before, and the data offered then said that women will look at faces, then shoes. I'm assuming they collected this data by having some schlub sit and tick boxes as to the general angle of people's looks. My take on that was the ladies were demurely dropping their eyes so men would not catch them checking out their junk.

Either that or the researchers who looked at the schlubs' data muttered to themselves, "220 degrees?? 220 degrees ? What on earth could they be looking at at that ang-- naaah, gotta be shoes."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

What? No. The technology for tracking eye movements has been around for years. Seen it on television a number of times. It's all headsets and cameras.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

They still might be presuming things about where the focus of a camera angle falls. I know what you are talking about (despite my silly image), but it is still only going to give a general range-- not pinpoint their exact focus.

[ 31. May 2014, 03:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

And WHAT??-- I wasn't sure how old the study was, anyway.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
They still might be presuming things about where the focus of a camera angle falls. I know what you are talking about (despite my silly image), but it is still only going to give a general range-- not pinpoint their exact focus.

Um, no, pinpoint their exact focus is exactly what they do.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Um, ok, I was picturing a different set-up.

Then I go back to my original explanation that the women are reflexively dropping their gaze so the guy won't catch them looking. I was really just having fun with the premise, but um, I guess that was far out of line.

Um.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

My memory of this is also that when looking at pictures of naked people, men actually look a lot at women's faces, which is surprising. And again, going from memory, women looking at pictures of naked men look more at the genitals than with clothed men. I will have to check the publications.

It's interesting that men look at other men's crotches - competition?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
And I'm with Ruth. When it's hot and sunny out, I'm wearing the minimal to be legal. If men get to take their shirts off in the sun, I at least get to wear a halter top and short shorts. other people's temptations are no more my problem than my weaknesses should cause bakeries or bookstores to have to black out their store windows.

Bakeries and bookstores. Dear God. There used to be a used bookstore around the corner from me, and there is still a coffeeshop around the corner which sells some damn fine pastries. And I sometimes drive 40 minutes and go behind the Orange Curtain (i.e., enter Orange County, California, a suburban hell populated by Fox News watchers) because in the city of Orange there is a fantastic used bookstore and a fine bakery in the same little strip mall.

Back to men's and women's experience of male physical violence ...

Had another thought about this. When I made a foray into online dating last fall, I let a friend know when I was meeting someone in the flesh, and during the date she texted me a couple of times to make sure all was well. This is not something the man felt he had to do. IngoB seemed to kind of brush by this kind of thing by calling it "the sexual angle" or something like that, but it's extremely important. Straight men don't in general have to think about ways to distinguish the axe-murderers and rapists from the nice women they'd actually want to date. One comic put it this way -- on blind dates, men worry that the women they meet might be fatter than their profile pictures, but women worry that the men they meet might kill them.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And again, going from memory, women looking at pictures of naked men look more at the genitals than with clothed men.

Of course they do. Without clothing there is more to be seen.

Moo

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Had another thought about this. When I made a foray into online dating last fall, I let a friend know when I was meeting someone in the flesh, and during the date she texted me a couple of times to make sure all was well. This is not something the man felt he had to do. IngoB seemed to kind of brush by this kind of thing by calling it "the sexual angle" or something like that, but it's extremely important. Straight men don't in general have to think about ways to distinguish the axe-murderers and rapists from the nice women they'd actually want to date. One comic put it this way -- on blind dates, men worry that the women they meet might be fatter than their profile pictures, but women worry that the men they meet might kill them.

I simply pointed out that while male violence makes dating dangerous for women, male violence makes hanging out with their peers dangerous for men. This does not deny what is happening to women, it points out that it is not as unique as you think it is. Yes, that man didn't have to send text messages. But you probably never worried about running into a rival group of girls alone, because they would hunt you down and beat you up. You probably never watched carefully the angry, drunk woman at the bar, because it was clear that she was soon going to accost another woman to demonstrate her womanhood. You probably never had to wrestle down a girl to establish your position in your girl peer group. You probably never got invited to step outside by another woman, settling some perceived score in front of a cheering crowd of women. Etc.

My point is quite simply that men know male violence. Yes, not in the way you do. But still, if you want to engage men for your cause, then just maybe you could start more from where they are at, rather than demanding that they jump over this instance to where you are at?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Deep thread. Kudos.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Deep thread. Kudos.

Agreed. In several directions too.

IngoB -

quote:
But still, if you want to engage men for your cause, then just maybe you could start more from where they are at, rather than demanding that they jump over this instance to where you are at?

I was entirely with you up to this point. Surely if anything cries out for mutual comprehension, this is it? I don't think men need to wait to be engaged in this cause.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
One comic put it this way -- on blind dates, men worry that the women they meet might be fatter than their profile pictures, but women worry that the men they meet might kill them.

Was that the Louis C. K. Manifesto? That was spot--on.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I was entirely with you up to this point. Surely if anything cries out for mutual comprehension, this is it? I don't think men need to wait to be engaged in this cause.

The world rarely is as it ought to be, and this here is mostly the choir preaching to the choir. If you want to have your message heard by someone, then you need to target it at them. Waiting until they come to ask you is a losing proposition.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

The conversation's moved on, of course, but can I just reflect that when I originally posted the point was not "this is what it's like to be a man", it was "this is what it's like to be a geeky, possibly on the ASD, man when everyone else seems to be dating and you haven't a clue what you're doing wrong."

So, Josephine, the point is that comparing myself to other men wasn't a matter of confirmation bias. It was very simply that by my 25th birthday I had never had a single, solitary, date. Not even a failed one. Not even one where the girl disappeared to the bogs and escaped through the window. Never got that far. That was not normal. That is what can fuck a person up. That was my point. Not "this is what men have to put up with"; rather, "this is the confusing bewildering and depressing situation that a small group of men may find themselves in."

It's potentially fertile ground for misogynistic fuckwits to till.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoBBut you probably never worried about running into a rival group of girls alone, because they would hunt you down and beat you up. You probably never watched carefully the angry, drunk woman at the bar, because it was clear that she was soon going to accost another woman to demonstrate her womanhood. You probably never had to wrestle down a girl to establish your position in your girl peer group. You probably never got invited to step outside by another woman, settling some perceived score in front of a cheering crowd of women. Etc.

Except for the bar thing, and except for the fact that I was the one getting wrestled to the ground by some chick who needed to prove herself, I experienced these things, repeatedly, during adolescence. I also saw plenty of my female peers taking on violent behavior patterns-- gangs of girls roaming the school halls looking for the odd girl out to harass, girls priding themselves on provoking, maintaining, and escalating confict moving from verbal into physical, boys gathering around to cheer on a " catfight." Yes, women are socialized to channel that violence into more socially subversive attacks-- gossip, sexual competition, "coventry"-- but we get our share if having to endure violence from our peers.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The conversation's moved on, of course, but can I just reflect that when I originally posted the point was not "this is what it's like to be a man", it was "this is what it's like to be a geeky, possibly on the ASD, man when everyone else seems to be dating and you haven't a clue what you're doing wrong."

So, Josephine, the point is that comparing myself to other men wasn't a matter of confirmation bias. It was very simply that by my 25th birthday I had never had a single, solitary, date. Not even a failed one. Not even one where the girl disappeared to the bogs and escaped through the window. Never got that far. That was not normal. That is what can fuck a person up. That was my point. Not "this is what men have to put up with"; rather, "this is the confusing bewildering and depressing situation that a small group of men may find themselves in."

It's potentially fertile ground for misogynistic fuckwits to till.

. Not normal, maybe, but a lot more frequent for both men and women than people think. I didn't date a soul until I was 22.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I have never feared hanging with my friends. But I think one qualitative difference between women's fear of blind dates and men's fear of other men is that men's violence against men does not, in general, stem from men who hate the male sex, while men's violent women apparently does stem, at least in some cases and I'm betting it's many, from hatred of women.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Had another thought about this. When I made a foray into online dating last fall, I let a friend know when I was meeting someone in the flesh, and during the date she texted me a couple of times to make sure all was well. This is not something the man felt he had to do. IngoB seemed to kind of brush by this kind of thing by calling it "the sexual angle" or something like that, but it's extremely important. Straight men don't in general have to think about ways to distinguish the axe-murderers and rapists from the nice women they'd actually want to date. One comic put it this way -- on blind dates, men worry that the women they meet might be fatter than their profile pictures, but women worry that the men they meet might kill them.
I simply pointed out that while male violence makes dating dangerous for women, male violence makes hanging out with their peers dangerous for men. This does not deny what is happening to women, it points out that it is not as unique as you think it is. Yes, that man didn't have to send text messages. But you probably never worried about running into a rival group of girls alone, because they would hunt you down and beat you up. You probably never watched carefully the angry, drunk woman at the bar, because it was clear that she was soon going to accost another woman to demonstrate her womanhood. You probably never had to wrestle down a girl to establish your position in your girl peer group. You probably never got invited to step outside by another woman, settling some perceived score in front of a cheering crowd of women. Etc.

My point is quite simply that men know male violence. Yes, not in the way you do. But still, if you want to engage men for your cause, then just maybe you could start more from where they are at, rather than demanding that they jump over this instance to where you are at?

Women face all of that in many communities as well. A rival group shows up at a party looking to fight, another owns the bathroom on the second floor at school so you need to go to the first floor, they hold a grudge about something in the lunch room and you walk home terrified that a car full will catch you unaware, call you out at the club because they think you're looking at a guy that belongs to them (he was looking at you) and wait outside for you and your friends to leave, I have had an earring ripped completely through the lobe, had my nose broken on a bathroom sink, been bitten through the hand requiring stitches and a tetanus shot. Girls fight plenty whether they want to or not.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Humans are violent and terratorial and power- hungry. We teach girls they need to sublinste these traits, we teach boys they are vital to manhood.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

"Sublimate" , sorry. ( I' m trying to break myself of the habit if abusing my edit window. No more typo hiding. )

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Humans are violent and territorial and power-hungry. We teach girls they need to sublimate these traits; we teach boys they are vital to manhood.

This.

ETA: I, however, am not averse to covering my tracks.

[ 31. May 2014, 17:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

On violence. Yeah, males tend to violence more than females, but as has been illustrated, not as much more as often portrayed.
I've experienced altercations with both sexes, mostly in youth. I've had the joy of walking home with the fear of being followed and beaten. I've been punched full in the face by a man 6'+ and 16 stone. And I could add to the list.
I can tell you this: the fear and the aftermath of physical violence is not the same as sexual assault. Not even fearing for one's life is the same.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So, Josephine, the point is that comparing myself to other men wasn't a matter of confirmation bias. It was very simply that by my 25th birthday I had never had a single, solitary, date. Not even a failed one.

I understand that. But if you do a little bit of googling, you'll find a fair number of essays by people who had their first date at age 23, 24, 33 ... I couldn't find any stats on percentages of people who have their first date at what what ages, but I think that not having a date until you're well grown is not all that rare.

quote:
That was not normal. That is what can fuck a person up. That was my point.

Maybe what's fucking the person up is believing that their situation is a lot more abnormal than it really is.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But you probably never worried about running into a rival group of girls alone, because they would hunt you down and beat you up. You probably never watched carefully the angry, drunk woman at the bar, because it was clear that she was soon going to accost another woman to demonstrate her womanhood. You probably never had to wrestle down a girl to establish your position in your girl peer group. You probably never got invited to step outside by another woman, settling some perceived score in front of a cheering crowd of women. Etc.

it's not nearly as common as happens to men, but yes, I've been in these positions. With you guys, it's across most if not all socio-economic strata, and lasts well into your 20s (30s if you hang with the wrong crowd) where, in my experience, it's much more of an adolescence and/or economically downtrodden issue, but it's there. I once got punched so hard I blacked out for an unknown amount of time and woke up in the snow in the dark, cold as hell. and this was a group of girls who decided they hated my group of girls. Why? I've never been sure. I hung with a pretty tough little crowd, though. I was the smallest and the only white girl. my friends told me not to venture out alone, but I was a bit of a stubborn twit with a far too high opinion of her own abilities.

I have also been knocked down twice just because some girl's boyfriend thought I was cute.

All that being said, though - it's relatively rare compared to the violence boys and young men face. plus I have a ferocious mouth and can usually get myself out of harm's way with the proper roaring and belittling. Works fairly well on men, too, though I know better than to push my luck, there. I usually have some big strong dude standing behind me for insurance.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is quite simply that men know male violence. Yes, not in the way you do. But still, if you want to engage men for your cause, then just maybe you could start more from where they are at, rather than demanding that they jump over this instance to where you are at?

I agree with this, in that it makes a ton of sense to start the conversation on whatever shaky common ground we can find. screaming "you'll never understand!" pretty much guarantees no one will even try.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I simply pointed out that while male violence makes dating dangerous for women, male violence makes hanging out with their peers dangerous for men. This does not deny what is happening to women, it points out that it is not as unique as you think it is. Yes, that man didn't have to send text messages. But you probably never worried about running into a rival group of girls alone, because they would hunt you down and beat you up. You probably never watched carefully the angry, drunk woman at the bar, because it was clear that she was soon going to accost another woman to demonstrate her womanhood. You probably never had to wrestle down a girl to establish your position in your girl peer group. You probably never got invited to step outside by another woman, settling some perceived score in front of a cheering crowd of women. Etc.

My point is quite simply that men know male violence. Yes, not in the way you do. But still, if you want to engage men for your cause, then just maybe you could start more from where they are at, rather than demanding that they jump over this instance to where you are at?

I don't recall demanding anything. All I'm doing here is relating my experience. And I thank you for relating yours; it's interesting and even enlightening to hear about male violence from a male point of view. Why can't you just take a turn at sitting and listening and absorbing what women are saying? After all, it's not as if you are starting from where women are in talking about your experiences as a man.

No, I don't in general have to fear violence from my female peers, but that's a function of my socioeconomic class, my neighborhood, and the choices I'm able to make about who I associate with. A few years ago in broad daylight out front of the church where I work a drunk came up behind me and punched me at the base of the skull -- it was a woman. If I lived in that neighborhood, I'd be very careful about being near almost as many of the women there as the men. I've been catcalled, threatened and groped countless times by men, but only randomly assaulted that one time by a woman.

There is, I think, one unique thing about straight women's experience of male violence that is very important, which is why I keep going on and on about it: the fear of male violence is tied up with our process of choosing a mate, one of the most important things people do. This makes our lives very different from straight men's lives, and it colors our relationships with men in ways you'll probably only be able to imagine if you're willing to take the effort to do so instead of insisting that our experience isn't all that unique.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is quite simply that men know male violence.

I must admit I have been surprised at the proportion of male posters on this thread who have experienced reasonably significant violence. So yes, you are probably right about that. HOWEVER, this:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
maybe you could start more from where they are at, rather than demanding that they jump over this instance to where you are at?

The whole point of feminism is not starting from where men are at, which is otherwise known as the default, the status quo, the way we've always done it, the way nature ordered things. It's about utilising a different lens to view the world. That doesn't mean erecting a barricade and saying 'because you men have a different viewpoint to ours, you can never truly understand us or join with us' - it means saying 'you must acknowledge that there is another viewpoint*, and that this is not merely a deviation from or a subset of, the default viewpoint.' It's a bit wearisome to hear 'why don't you start from where the men are at?' Starting from where men are at is what we all do, all the time, unless we are specifically opting to do something else.

*Not of, course, that there is a unitary voice within feminism, any more than there is a unitary voice in the prevailing culture.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have never feared hanging with my friends. But I think one qualitative difference between women's fear of blind dates and men's fear of other men is that men's violence against men does not, in general, stem from men who hate the male sex, while men's violent women apparently does stem, at least in some cases and I'm betting it's many, from hatred of women.

Interesting point. While I don't think men's violence against men is fully individualised, the 'tribe' that might be targeted is inevitably smaller than the 'tribe' of 50% of the human race.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There is, I think, one unique thing about straight women's experience of male violence that is very important, which is why I keep going on and on about it: the fear of male violence is tied up with our process of choosing a mate, one of the most important things people do. This makes our lives very different from straight men's lives, and it colors our relationships with men in ways you'll probably only be able to imagine if you're willing to take the effort to do so instead of insisting that our experience isn't all that unique.

Well, halfway through that paragraph I think you realised that straight women aren't unique in this regard (fearing male violence in the mating process), but it is certainly different to the straight male experience. And as an overall package I still wouldn't say the gay male experience is the same as the straight female one.

Interestingly, straight males committing violence against women never seem to have come up with an 'ugly woman propositioned me' defence as an equivalent to 'gay panic'. They justify it in different ways.

[ 01. June 2014, 00:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, halfway through that paragraph I think you realised that straight women aren't unique in this regard (fearing male violence in the mating process),

Actually, I learned that a long time ago, not all that long after moving to the very gay-friendly city I still live in. But I can see how the way I wrote would make you think that.

quote:
but it is certainly different to the straight male experience. And as an overall package I still wouldn't say the gay male experience is the same as the straight female one.

Well, it couldn't be, could it? You can fill in details if you want to, but the aspect of men dating men that has always struck me as trying would be knowing from the inside what men were looking for (or told by the culture they should be looking for) and knowing whether or not you even came close to being that or looking like that.

quote:
Interestingly, straight males committing violence against women never seem to have come up with an 'ugly woman propositioned me' defence as an equivalent to 'gay panic'. They justify it in different ways.

Those ways are similar to the "gay panic" defense in that they posit men as being unable to control their reactions. It's the gay guy's fault for hitting on a straight guy when he gets beat up, and it's the straight woman's fault for, well, whatever - wearing a short skirt, turning the guy down, you name it - when she gets beat up.

But the straight guys beating up gay guys around here haven't invoked the "gay panic" defense - they've seen people leaving gay bars or the gay and lesbian center and beaten them up on general principle.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Interesting to hear of serious physical fights between girls/women. That was pretty much unheard of where I come from...

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why can't you just take a turn at sitting and listening and absorbing what women are saying? After all, it's not as if you are starting from where women are in talking about your experiences as a man.

For you to twist this around, there would have to be some serious injury women do to men, but also in a different way to other women, which many women are not keen to acknowledge as a female problem. At which point I indeed would want to hear how I could start from what women do to other women to make them aware of what they do to men.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
This makes our lives very different from straight men's lives, and it colors our relationships with men in ways you'll probably only be able to imagine if you're willing to take the effort to do so instead of insisting that our experience isn't all that unique.

As I've said from the start, how you experience male violence may be unique but not that you experience male violence. The latter could be used to your advantage, which has been my simple point.

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
The whole point of feminism is not starting from where men are at, which is otherwise known as the default, the status quo, the way we've always done it, the way nature ordered things. ... It's a bit wearisome to hear 'why don't you start from where the men are at?' Starting from where men are at is what we all do, all the time, unless we are specifically opting to do something else.

I've taken a problem, namely that you try to engage more men for your cause, and suggested a way forward, namely making men aware that this aligns with their own concerns. Perhaps this does not conform to some feminist ideal of what men ought to do. But I think it could contribute to actually changing the status quo.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

RuthW wrote:

quote:
Those ways are similar to the "gay panic" defense in that they posit men as being unable to control their reactions. It's the gay guy's fault for hitting on a straight guy when he gets beat up, and it's the straight woman's fault for, well, whatever - wearing a short skirt, turning the guy down, you name it - when she gets beat up.

But the straight guys beating up gay guys around here haven't invoked the "gay panic" defense - they've seen people leaving gay bars or the gay and lesbian center and beaten them up on general principle.

Until this exchange, I had never heard of "gay panic" or its use as a defence. I've now looked it up and am wiser.

My understanding of most homophobic violence is the same as yours, Ruth, as described in your final paragraph. I guess, by the law of averages, most straight males will receive a misjudged gay proposition or two in their lives. I'm now in my mid-60s, and in all that time it's only happened to me twice. I found it mildly amusing, and the pickup attempter seemed to find it mildly embarrassing, on both occasions.

But I have been assaulted on a late night train when I lived in London. In an otherwise empty carriage, a guy approached me and suddenly grabbed me by the genitals. Hard. I remember that it was only by a considerable act of willpower that I held myself back from landing one on him. I was very, very angry. He then let go, ran off down the carriage, and as the train had been approaching the station, the doors opened and he shot off like greased lightning.

My question is, though, if I had punched him and damaged him, would that have been gay panic? I don't think so, but maybe some might. What if it had been a woman of similar build/strength? What would I have done? I'd rather not think about that, though I'm pretty sure that if she had been smaller than me I would have tried to push her away with some force.

My point about regaling you with this true anecdote is to ask that if something happens within a short period of time, how are we - basically as Kelly said, a violent species - conditioned to react? I'm damn sure that if I had been a woman I would have also been livid and also probably terrified. But I have no recollection of any terror at all.

I should also say that I have never beaten anyone up in my life. My strategy is to try and be far away from such scenarios that might test my limits. And that works well in the other direction as violence has never otherwise been visited on me either. But equally I will have my limits and that probably came as close to them as I ever want to be.

This thread should really be about the threat of violence against women, not men. I'm aware of that. But I offer this in case it helps understand a bit about the male psyche, assuming I am even remotely typical in some way, which of course I may not be.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
My question is, though, if I had punched him and damaged him, would that have been gay panic?

Uh, no. IMO, that would have been you defending yourself against an assailant. If you had punched the guy who propositioned you, that would have been "gay panic".

BTW, I'm sorry you were assaulted. Horrible. [Frown]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

What she said. And a very thoughtful post, HRB.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Having said that, it's a matter of proportion, too. The guys who killed Matt Shepherd claimed he grabbed one of their crotches, too. Assuming that is true, if the guy in question had smacked him away or made him get out of their truck-- reasonable defensive reaction. They beat him into a coma and tied him to a fence in freezing weather, out of reach of help, and left him there to die. The defense invoked "gay panic" in this case.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Premeditated panic.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Mm- hm.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Although there is some question about how accurate the story we've been told is.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Although there is some question about how accurate the story we've been told is.

One, that does not make the defence of "gay panic" any more justified.
Two, regardless of what actually happened, that book appears more speculative than informative.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Although there is some question about how accurate the story we've been told is.

Oh! Well! In that case, tying another human being to a fence and leaving them to die is TOTALLY okay.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

saysay, I usually pride myself on trying to find the humanity in even the biggest assholes, but you sure make that difficult.

I don't care if the guy made a pass worthy of Steve Young. What those guys did to Shepherd made them subhuman.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

saysay: apologist for murder.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

This reaction to saysay is completely unwarranted by what s/he actually said. [Ultra confused]

(Except for lilBuddha, that was a reasonable enough reply.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This reaction to saysay is completely unwarranted by what s/he actually said.

(Except for lilBuddha, that was a reasonable enough reply.)

I rather think the point of the reaction is that what saysay said is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Suppose any of that stuff is true: does that one case alter the general point about gay panic? Nope. Not one iota. Was there any reason to raise it except to diminish the legitimacy of gay fears about treatment at the hands of straight men? Nope.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I rather think the point of the reaction is that what saysay said is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Suppose any of that stuff is true: does that one case alter the general point about gay panic? Nope. Not one iota. Was there any reason to raise it except to diminish the legitimacy of gay fears about treatment at the hands of straight men? Nope.

Now, that is a reply I can understand. I don't agree with this response (if one uses a specific case to make a point, but the case turns out to be doubtful, then that is worth mentioning), but such disagreement is normal for discussions. Pretending that saysay has just justified a gruesome murder however is not, and in my opinion that sort of serious calumny does not belong even into Hell.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Thank you, IngoB.

Matthew Sheppard was being brought up as an example of the gay panic defense. My point was that he is a bad example; even wikipedia says that the defense was not allowed and the defendants later recanted their claim that they attacked him because he propositioned them.

I certainly was not trying to diminish the legitimacy of gay (man) fears at the hands of straight men. But if we want to attempt to improve things, it would probably help to know what problems we're dealing with. As has been said a million times, the fact that most men aren't violent rapists doesn't mean that women aren't justified in being cautious of men, particularly men they don't know (as it's not like the violent ones wear signs, although they do frequently give them). I'm sure that goes for gay men as well.

I do question how widespread the acceptance of gay panic as a legitimate cause for assault really is, just as I question how widespread the belief that a woman's clothing justifies any non-consensual touching (rather than sexual looking) is. In my experience if you want to change people's minds you have to engage with what they actually think, rather than what you think they must think because somebody somewhere thought it once.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Ok, thanks for the explanation, and sorry for the overreaction-- the Shepard case was really galvanizing for the American public.

As to the rest of you said, --people aren't reacting to what they think people think, they are reacting to what they actually wrote, as far as I can see. Of course I don't think all men think the way one particular guy does, but why can't I address that guy?

[ 03. June 2014, 04:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

To return to Elliot Rodger, I found this article interesting. I have not read My Twisted World (and do not intend to) but, if this is accurate, it adds another dimension to his self-hatred.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

What strikes me is that Rodger murdered the three men he lived with in a far more brutal way than he murdered the three women. He stabbed the men repeatedly, while he shot the women. The first man to die might not have seen what was coming, but the other two must have.

All the talk about white men is interesting because all three of the male victims were Asian.

Moo

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What strikes me is that Rodger murdered the three men he lived with in a far more brutal way than he murdered the three women. He stabbed the men repeatedly, while he shot the women. The first man to die might not have seen what was coming, but the other two must have.

I'm not sure that I'd read too much in to that. The men were confined in the apartment, where using a knife was quieter and less distinctive than gunshots. The later victims were killed in the street, where a gun was the only practical choice of weapon.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What strikes me is that Rodger murdered the three men he lived with in a far more brutal way than he murdered the three women. He stabbed the men repeatedly, while he shot the women. The first man to die might not have seen what was coming, but the other two must have.

All the talk about white men is interesting because all three of the male victims were Asian.

Moo

There have even been suggestions that Rodger was concealing a homosexual tendency, so his attack on the men was much more physical and penetrative. That sounds improbable to me, but it's possible that his inner world was very complicated with regard to sex, gender and sexuality.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What strikes me is that Rodger murdered the three men he lived with in a far more brutal way than he murdered the three women. He stabbed the men repeatedly, while he shot the women. The first man to die might not have seen what was coming, but the other two must have.

Not by much, or they'd have run away.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quetzalcoatl wrote:

quote:
There have even been suggestions that Rodger was concealing a homosexual tendency, so his attack on the men was much more physical and penetrative. That sounds improbable to me, but it's possible that his inner world was very complicated with regard to sex, gender and sexuality.

To be honest, I think his inner world was very complicated in every way - just having read a summary of his previous life and times.

I guess I have the same reservations about some of the ideas in the article that JoannaP linked to as I do about generalizing from this case. It's an interesting article and worth a read. But I don't think all violence can be reduced to a mantra of fear leading to hate leading to violence. There are other ways of getting to hate whilst bypassing fear. And in any event this was one seriously troubled person, and that's in addition to him being somewhere on the spectrum.

I see there's been something of a twitstorm in the US about all this. I don't want to repeat that, but it seems to me that whatever his diagnosis was (and severe personality disorders do seem to be involved), then assuming that factors such as misogyny occupied the same part of his mental furnishings as they might to anyone here seems highly illogical.

That is emphatically NOT to say it played no part at all - I'm sure it did. It's more that it's impossible to know what valence it had.

For that reason, I think this is a poor case to draw too many conclusions from. It's a shame, as conclusions about the effects of misogyny can and should be made. The problem is that this is an iconic case and has grabbed the headlines. Whereas the sort of case that should be getting this amount of attention is probably going through a court much nearer to where you live. You'll be lucky if it even makes the pages of your local newspaper.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

HRB

Very good summary, Ron. I think 'iconic' cases like this often get inserted into various narratives, ideological, political, and so on. It's inevitable, but they tend to offer monolithic explanations, and with someone like Rodger, there probably isn't one, as you say.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
All the talk about white men is interesting because all three of the male victims were Asian.

By 'interesting' you mean 'not terribly consistent with what happened'.

Also, the bit about Japanese pop music and how gun control won't solve 'the problem' rather begs the question about what 'the problem' is.

I know damn well that gun control won't stop people going crazy. What it will do is reduce the effectiveness of the weapons most readily available to crazy people. As much as it is possible to stab several people with a knife or hack at several people with a chainsaw, it is still considerably more challenging to kill people that way than with a weapon that allows you to mow people down without getting within swinging distance.

[ 03. June 2014, 23:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I don't want to repeat that, but it seems to me that whatever his diagnosis was (and severe personality disorders do seem to be involved), then assuming that factors such as misogyny occupied the same part of his mental furnishings as they might to anyone here seems highly illogical.

You'll have to show me where anybody on this thread has made that claim; I missed it.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I don't want to repeat that, but it seems to me that whatever his diagnosis was (and severe personality disorders do seem to be involved), then assuming that factors such as misogyny occupied the same part of his mental furnishings as they might to anyone here seems highly illogical.
You'll have to show me where anybody on this thread has made that claim; I missed it.

Page 1, eleventh post (as example).

The point is that any such claim requires an understanding of how he thought about things, which is just not available to us. Any diagnostic manual will warn you that people with certain serious personality disorders simply cannot be relied upon for self-reporting. Everything is rearranged in service of Project Me.

[ 04. June 2014, 09:30: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Link for those who don't want to scroll and count.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I don't want to repeat that, but it seems to me that whatever his diagnosis was (and severe personality disorders do seem to be involved), then assuming that factors such as misogyny occupied the same part of his mental furnishings as they might to anyone here seems highly illogical.
You'll have to show me where anybody on this thread has made that claim; I missed it.
Page 1, eleventh post (as example).

The point is that any such claim requires an understanding of how he thought about things, which is just not available to us. Any diagnostic manual will warn you that people with certain serious personality disorders simply cannot be relied upon for self-reporting. Everything is rearranged in service of Project Me.

Okay so you think Rodger didn't really hate women, but pretended he did as a front?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I don't want to repeat that, but it seems to me that whatever his diagnosis was (and severe personality disorders do seem to be involved), then assuming that factors such as misogyny occupied the same part of his mental furnishings as they might to anyone here seems highly illogical.
You'll have to show me where anybody on this thread has made that claim; I missed it.
Page 1, eleventh post (as example).

The point is that any such claim requires an understanding of how he thought about things, which is just not available to us. Any diagnostic manual will warn you that people with certain serious personality disorders simply cannot be relied upon for self-reporting. Everything is rearranged in service of Project Me.
Okay so you think Rodger didn't really hate women, but pretended he did as a front?

No I don't think that. In fact I said so in my earlier post, where I said I was sure misogyny did play a part -

quote:
That is emphatically NOT to say it played no part at all - I'm sure it did. It's more that it's impossible to know what valence it had.

Did you miss my point about valence? That it is impossible to determine the emotional value associated with this as a stimulus?

Valence.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
[qb] Okay so you think Rodger didn't really hate women, but pretended he did as a front?
No I don't think that. In fact I said so in my earlier post, where I said I was sure misogyny did play a part...

Okay so I'm confused. What exactly is the point of your discussion of his feeling one thing and wanting to project another? How does that tie in to the misogyny aspect?

quote:
That is emphatically NOT to say it played no part at all - I'm sure it did. It's more that it's impossible to know what valence it had.
<snip>
Did you miss my point about valence? That it is impossible to determine the emotional value associated with this as a stimulus?

Valence.

Now I'm confuseder. Are you saying you don't know whether his feelings about women had a negative or positive valence for him?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Mousethief wrote:

quote:
Okay so I'm confused. What exactly is the point of your discussion of his feeling one thing and wanting to project another? How does that tie in to the misogyny aspect?

Well - I've got a range of things that may count as points.

1. The need to understand the sources of this misogyny

2. The need to understand what needs to be done to tackle it with the aim of eliminating it

3. The more scientific urge not to draw unwarranted conclusions from one single case, which I believe is anomalous in various ways.

Tackling 1 & 2 are key. Running around like headless chickens (which we have largely avoided here) is what tends to happen after every such outrage. "Something must be done". I've no idea what it is that has been done, but whatever it is, it isn't working. So more heavy lifting is needed. OK - I'm only trying to be clear why I'm engaging at the more general level here.

At the more detailed level, my point isn't really about projection (though I'll bet it's in there somewhere). It's more about the factors that led to his mental state and that in turn caused him to flip. What follows is what I think.

I'm sort-of assuming that his reported feelings may identify some of these factors. But to be honest I'd have to acknowledge that even parts of that may be a pose. He clearly had an ego a mile wide, and that's the personality dysfunction that warns us to take nothing literally without testing.

If you take a look at his videos, there's a dreary similarity to them. "Here I am, all alone, despite being God's gift to humanity. I like to come here in the evenings where I can get away from vile humankind. Oh no, look at that couple over there kissing. That's really spoilt my day". Endless obsessing about his failure to get a girl, endless disgust at the creeps who succeeded, culminating in the blame on the entire female sex for being so disgusting as to make these choices.

And as for his heroic attempts to woo the opposite sex? Apparently they consisted of dressing well and sitting around, awaiting the next passing female to swoon and fall into his arms.

And then there's his online obsessions which seem to have fed his misogyny. This Grauniad article seems to sum up the main points. But quite a bit of the problem seems to come from PUAhate - a sour, inward-looking collection of males who are dominated by "incels" venting their spleen against women who won't have anything to do with them.

In a way, he hates all humanity. His hatred has many of the contradictions of PUAhate - a hatred of men who succeed in bedding women, and a hatred of the women who choose them.

His final manifesto is toe-curlingly misogynistic. But if you have the stomach for it, try stripping out that, and you'll find the basic framework, which is hatred of the whole man + woman thing. He has a plan to cleanse all that...

Clearly deranged. But my tentative conclusion is that he was locked in an unresolvable problem. Misogyny provided him with the key to unlock it - violently, and (in his eyes) heroically. Goodness knows if I'm right though - I'd give it 30-40% probability.

That's not going to be the case with most people. We don't have a lock which that key fits. Misogyny does other kinds of damage elsewhere. Even so, if he is typical of a certain subset of men that form a high-risk group, that could be very helpful information in deciding how and where to tackle the problem. So we need to sort out point 3. from my list before tackling 1 & 2.

The point is not whether you agree with me over the narrative above. We can discuss that, possibly elsewhere. It's simply to show how understanding the roots of this violence is always a project that could pay dividends.

Sorry about the length, but I thought your questions were genuinely meant. It's late now, but I'll try to get back to you tomorrow about your second question.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, I think we're not all that far apart; it was a communication problem more than a disagreement about basic principles.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

A day later than anticipated, but back to address your second point, mt. Though first, I've just realised that possibly the source of misunderstanding was my use of the phrase "Project Me" - I meant the great project of everything being about me, rather than anything to do with projection. Apologies for that.

quote:
Are you saying you don't know whether his feelings about women had a negative or positive valence for him?

I was thinking about the relative magnitude in fact, though as we can't know what other things earlier in his life may have contributed something, it's an impossible task. Which was my point really.

But you raise an interesting separate point about whether it had positive or negative valence. I'm sure at the end misogyny had a positive valence to him - it provided him with an explanation why he was so unhappy. You might think that any sane person would spot that sitting around looking cool is no way to develop a relationship with a woman. But a) he was severely disordered, and b) apparently the denizens of PUAhate seemed to think that was what cool dudes did.

Whether misogyny occupied any part of his thinking before the PUAhate stage I don't know. He appears to have been active on other internet fora which were not overtly misogynistic as well, though for all I know he may have been a long-time imbiber of this sort of stuff from other sources. He does seem to have had access either directly or indirectly to some MRA thinking, judging by some of the tropes in his "manifesto".

There's always the option he might have been originally ambivalent of course - the are plenty of things most of us are ambivalent about. But either hanging out around sites that feed your obsession(s), or just the glittering allure of the transgressive might have provided the impetus if that was the case. But at this point I'd need to remind myself again that these speculations are all very well, but we have a seriously disturbed person whose thought processes may be completely different to anything I can dream up.

So positive to him, I think, but unclear on its value. But judging by its external impacts, we surely have to say it was a major source of the situation that unravelled.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Since I brought it up here first...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Now, if you want to ask me how a real man behaves...

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

For anyone in the UK, Channel 4 is planning to air a documentary about Elliott Rodger this coming Sunday (15th June) at 2205, right after Fargo.

Not sure whether their streaming service works outside the UK (unless of course you have some sort of virtual tunnel).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0