Lovely Salsa
Banned
Half of his victims were asian. hmm
Just on this note, he had actually been seeing people at thirteen (and presumably had since then, but he only focuses on the various life coaches and passes over his experience with psychiatric services) so "not receiving help..." is probably a little too extreme, and "receiving inadequate help..." probably a little closer to the situation. I'm probably just being pedantic here though, and this could have been what you meant.
*snip*
Half of his victims were asian. hmm
One thing in society you can directly point to is the idea that it's shameful to have not lost your virginity by a certain age. Would it have been such a big deal to him if that wasn't the case? He could accept certain personal failings like being terrible at social interactions in general but this particular failing was unacceptable to him because of what it meant for his status. Also the way that people talk about sex like it's the be all and end all must have influenced the huge importance he attached to it.
I believe his views were exacerbated by the common idea, but it seemed to have been created by hearing his friends and acquaintances actually talk about having sexual experiences while he wasn't.
But of course his friends could have been making it up, and the cause of that would be because of this widespread idea that you shouldn't be a virgin in college.
IMO if he wasn't lamenting his virginity, he'd be dangerously obsessive about something else, whether it's money, fame, or anything else he lacks. The way he felt that he couldn't start doing anything with his life until he won the lottery said as much to me.
This is severe oversimplification, and an overly rapid rush to judgment. Rodgers hatred of both men and women seemed tied instead to narcissism, jealousy, feelings of privilege and the world owing him. His mental disturbance seems as much about class as gender warfare.
I hate to do that thing where you compare groups of oppressed people but if he was writing about how blacks, jews, gays would we really see so much bullshit trying to minimize his hatred?
However, on this thread, one group of posters had stated, on various posts, that he hated EVERYONE, thereby downplaying his focus against women. For whatever reasons, these posts kept cropping up!
But, nooooooooooooo, the most important thing is to establish that he was INSANE and that he was probably born that way and his misogyny is just one of the numerous, various, many, many other factors. Many other factors, OKAY.
Also, as far as I am aware, the other side has never, ever, ever denied that he was mentally unstable.
Just on this note, he had actually been seeing people at thirteen (and presumably had since then, but he only focuses on the various life coaches and passes over his experience with psychiatric services) so "not receiving help..." is probably a little too extreme, and "receiving inadequate help..." probably a little closer to the situation. I'm probably just being pedantic here though, and this could have been what you meant.
But we didnt evolve that way, at least not yet. Unless we work very hard at it, well inevitably believe what were taught so incessantly, as sexism is taught to all of us. Yet we are all capable of rational thought if we work at it, which is why I hold Rodger and all other men who believe in their conditioning and subject women to violence fully accountable for their actions.
A very good therapist could have helped Rodger with this process. Maybe. But when mass shootings happen and everyone bemoans the fact that the shooter didnt go to (or wasnt helped by) therapy, they never seem to ask themselves what this therapy would entail. You dont go to therapy or go on medication and suddenly become happy. What you have to do is unlearn the maladaptive and harmful ways in which youve learned (or been taught to) think. For someone like me, this means learning not to be so afraid and not to treat every minor setback as the end of the world. In Rodgers case, this mightve meant learning how to be okay with not having sex with women for a while, learning the social skills to eventually find and keep a partner, and, most importantly, learning that women do not owe him a single damn thing. With that realization mightve come freedom.
In other words, the way to help Rodger would have been to help him unlearn what he never should have learned in the first place. And theres no guarantee that even the best of therapists could succeed at this; everyone in the field knows that sometimes clients are just beyond help (at least by a given therapist) and that its tragic and sad and dont we wish we couldve caught them earlier?
What if our culture had never taught Rodger these horrible beliefs?
What if our culture didnt still treat women as possessions?
What if our culture didnt emphasize hypermasculinity and getting laid at all costs?
What if, what if, what if.
In the wake of a disaster like this, we naturally ask: how did this happen? Why did this happen?
From there, people can springboard into what they want to focus on. It might be gun control, mental health, misogyny or something else.
Some people really want to talk about misogyny. That's fair play, but I think that in this case, its sort of putting the cart before the horse. Simply put: the man was insane. At a core, base level, he was completely out of his mind. His hatred of women...and there is no doubt that his hatred of women was a overwhelming factor in his thinking...was a manifestation of his mental illness. I am not minimizing the effects of misogyny is this case (or in general society) , but I do see it in the context of the overriding issue: we're talking about someone that is completely batshit crazy.
I'm a simpleton. I don't spend a lot of energy trying to decipher the motives of the insane, because they are insane. A reasonable examination of common societal factors doesn't really apply when you're talking about someone that is beyond reasoning. Everything that he wrote, felt, said and did, demonstrates that he was an unreasonable actor.
While it does seem like he didn't particularly care for the therapeutic process (his only really comment on it being here and unequivocally pessimistic), even were he to be 'an active and engaged participant' it would still require, "him [to] unlearn what he never should have learned in the first place". One of his biggest insecurities, or so the manifesto suggests, is that he hated his inability to conform to societal expectations. With this in mind (that is, focusing solely on this and ignoring the later extremely misogyny), it seems to me that it is drastically underselling the situation to try and state that the misogyny which formed is something which can easily be removed from the situation. As the article concludes, "by the time someone is in their early twenties and spewing hatred and bitterness, it may very well be too late. Its never too late, however, to work harder at unlearning the lies we are taught about gender." If it's simply believed that he is 'crazy', 'mentally ill' or 'insane', he still could have had the misogynistic views he held eradicated, the best that could have been hoped for with 'adequate help'. Whether or not it would lead him to target somebody else is merely (again as Miri writes) "what if, what if, what if"; the fact of the matter is that he viewed women as objects, felt a sense of entitlement to them, and vowed revenge upon them. He can be simultaneously mentally ill, mysogynistic, and fully culpable all at the exact same time, you can't just take the mentally ill aspect and choose to go down hypothetical tangents to justify ignoring the misogyny.On that note, I wanted to point out this passage from Masculinity, Violence, and Bandaid Solutions:
This is the problem with the argument that he was just "crazy" and that he needed "therapy" (never mind the fact that he was receiving therapy, though how much of an active and engaged participant in the therapeutic process he actually was is something I don't know): You can't separate that from his misogynist beliefs, or pretend that therapy would have been about something other than addressing those issues.
This will be my last post now I think.
I am speaking about me personally. You know, I posted a lot in this thread, and I just looked back on my posts. Not once did I ever argue that people shouldn't speak about the misogynistic part. There were a few posts I read about misogyny, I didn't agree them entirely, but never quoted them.
I have a particular view, and I have presented evidence and examples of why I believe that. It was not simply me 'shutting down' talk of it, I was expressing my opinion, and giving valid reasons for them. A lot of my posts are me actually responding to people's criticisms of my view, (which I would address), discussing my view, or reaffirming exactly what my position is because they're misrepresenting my position. Not once did I ever say that people shouldn't discuss the misogyny part of this or try to force them to stop posting about it,
What I did contest, however, from the "other side" was people claiming we're in denial for having the audacity to speak about the mental issue side of things in expense to the the real discussion we should be having which is misogyny. This is said with the same breath about how we're trying to shut down talk about misogyny, without irony,
where did I say about anyone forbidding discussion on misogyny? I said, discussions were made in the tone to downplay misogyny. Zuh?
I only was pointing out how people were all about his hatred against EVERYONE, which comes across to me as a bit disingenuous.
The whole concept of "virgin shaming" is so bizarre to me. Less than a hundred years ago, unmarried men were expected to be virgins (how many actually were is obviously open to debate).
I've read quite a few great articles linked from this thread on "toxic masculinity" and virgin shaming. I think some great work could be done on the connection between the slow demise of female repression and these phenomena. I don't think it can possibly be a coincidence that they arose at the same time. Anyone have any good reading material on that?
This is the problem with the argument that he was just "crazy" and that he needed "therapy" (never mind the fact that he was receiving therapy, though how much of an active and engaged participant in the therapeutic process he actually was is something I don't know): You can't separate that from his misogynist beliefs, or pretend that therapy would have been about something other than addressing those issues.
No, because it's a strawman. You're not understanding what people are saying. We see posts like: "Some people really want to talk about misogyny. That's fair play, but I think that in this case, its sort of putting the cart before the horse. Simply put: the man was insane," and we say, it's weird to use "insanity" as a catch-all to handwave away what's a culturally / socially -generated idea. In fact, it's downright bizarre that so many people seem to have this need to explicitly minimize the reality of his misogyny, rather than simply discuss his mental illness as they claim to want to. Further, it's odd that when the reality of his misogyny is brought up, so much of the resultant conversation is about what we should be discussing (meta discussion), rather than just discussing it. When people argue that "insanity" is not the end of the discussion on motivation, they're not downplaying mental illness. They're saying that it is not a sufficient explanation for culturally-generated ideas.Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?
Michael Friedman from HuffPo said:Those who call for addressing the mental health issue in criminal violence have disparate and often unclear views of what can be done to help. But, despite their differences, they appear to share three highly questionable assumptions.
lol
I did say that would be my last post, but I will respond to you. I did actually extend my other post to explain what my position actually is. That gives a little more context.
Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?
Just forget it anyway because I don't really want to carry on posting in this thread, I've posted far too much.
Extrapolating people talking only about this specific instance into people talking about the broader problem is making assumptions about their intent that lead to talking past each other. Instead of assuming that those things are being stated implicitly and attacking views that they may not hold, leading to a blow-up, asking for clarification and opening a dialogue is likely to lead to a much better end result.Here's the difference I think: Those who are preferring to talk about the mental illness aspect are claiming that his mental illness was the cause of his misogyny. Whether or not this is true, the implicit corollary to this is that he would not have been misogynistic without being mentally ill in the first place. But there's no reason to think that given that, you know, there are plenty of actually misogynistic people in the world who (as we're unfortunately finding out) hold many of the same beliefs as and sympathize with the killer, and yet who would not be classified as mentally ill.
No one is trying to "shut down" discussion of mental illness. However, claiming that his misogyny was just a part of his mental illness is to implicitly claim that if we solve the issue of mental illness, we would also solve the included problem of misogyny. And that's simply not true and in fact just overlooks the real cultural and social problems of misogyny that (I am assured no one disputes) exacerbated and played some role in shaping the killer's attitudes into what they were.
lol
I did say that would be my last post, but I will respond to you. I did actually extend my other post to explain what my position actually is. That gives a little more context.
Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?
Just forget it anyway because I don't really want to carry on posting in this thread, I've posted far too much.
I agree with most of your post, but the bold part isn't quite correct. Schizophrenia's pathogenesis is currently unknown. Diagnosis is not simple, it's almost completely clinical (there are no biological/chemical signs/markers that are pathognomonic) and is often made by exclusion. Also, there's evidence suggesting schizophrenia's not a single "entity", but a "component" in a spectrum of psychotic disorders (alongside bipolar and depressive behaviors). And "effective" wouldn't be the best way to describe treatment; antipsychotic medications (dopaminergic D2 receptor blockers) are first-line treatment for Schizophrenia, but are not specific for the disease and have significant side effects.The thing about the "mental illness" or "insanity" assessment is: what do people even mean by these words? What criteria does he fulfill?
There are some forms of mental illness which are absolute; say schizophrenia, which is a mechanically well understood abnormality in a person's brain chemistry. We can diagnose such with a quite high level of confidence because there are biological signals and effective treatments we can administer.
There is no evidence to suggest this guy was afflicted by such a disease as rendered him incapable of rational thought. And in any case we can't diagnose him with the same now. All we have to go on are behaviors. The "mentally ill" conversation only really matters if his behaviors are symptoms.
It's like Mumei raised: if he was "ill", what would treatment look like? Relearning and refuting his attitudes and developing techniques for controlling his emotions. Somehow in his experience of society, he missed these lessons or took the wrong lessons and went uncorrected. This is not a model of illness.
I fear that when people call him "insane", what they've done is looked at his behaviors and attitudes and decided "I would not make these decisions or hold these attitudes". It's a post hoc assignment, a label people affix on behavior
Somehow we've built a society and a culture with enough cracks that he fell through. We exposed him to reprehensible ideas without helping him to develop the tools to process them in an acceptable way. Once he'd taken up these attitudes, we failed to help him reject them after the fact.
I find the "mental health" and "it's not misogyny he would've killed someone" narratives cowardly. As far as we can say, he was not incapable of participating in society, we can only say that he didn't. He's far from the first person to develop in a way inimical to participation in our society and I'm sure he wont he the last. It's not biology's fault, it's his fault and it's our fault. We failed him and we failed his victims.
It doesn't have to be this way.
I agree with most of your post, but the bold part isn't quite correct. Schizophrenia's pathogenesis is currently unknown. Diagnosis is not simple, it's almost completely clinical (there are no biological/chemical signs/markers that are pathognomonic) and is often made by exclusion. Also, there's evidence suggesting schizophrenia's not a single "entity", but a "component" in a spectrum of psychotic disorders (alongside bipolar and depressive behaviors). And "effective" wouldn't be the best way to describe treatment; antipsychotic medications (dopaminergic D2 receptor blockers) are first-line treatment for Schizophrenia, but are not specific for the disease and have significant side effects.
But I digress.
lol
I did say that would be my last post, but I will respond to you. I did actually extend my other post to explain what my position actually is. That gives a little more context.
Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?
Just forget it anyway because I don't really want to carry on posting in this thread, I've posted far too much.
No, because it's a strawman. You're not understanding what people are saying. We see posts like: "Some people really want to talk about misogyny. That's fair play, but I think that in this case, its sort of putting the cart before the horse. Simply put: the man was insane," and we say, it's weird to use "insanity" as a catch-all to handwave away what's a culturally / socially -generated idea. In fact, it's downright bizarre that so many people seem to have this need to explicitly minimize the reality of his misogyny, rather than simply discuss his mental illness as they claim to want to. Further, it's odd that when the reality of his misogyny is brought up, so much of the resultant conversation is about what we should be discussing (meta discussion), rather than just discussing it. When people argue that "insanity" is not the end of the discussion on motivation, they're not downplaying mental illness. They're saying that it is not a sufficient explanation for culturally-generated ideas.
They're saying that it is not a sufficient explanation for culturally-generated ideas
After about a billion posts you've made, I still don't know your overall goal and point, man.
Interesting thing is, I don't have a 'goal' I just have an opinion. It's just that I tend to respond to every person that quotes me. A lot of my posts, are just me reaffirming what my position is.
My point I think is kind of clear though. I said it enough times, after repeating myself for the reason I made above. I even said it in that post.
After reading through his manifesto and looking at his videos, I don't think he fits the narrative that some are trying to fit him in. It may seem there is a goal I am trying to achieve, but I wouldn't post half as much if people didn't keep quoting me.
And it is the reason I keep saying I am going to stop posting in here.
leadbelly: I have no idea what you're trying to say, your posts read like jumbles of vaguely-related words with no real thesis to me.
I don't intend to minimize or overlook the societal/cultural impacts on Rodgers. I do, however put those impacts into context. I'm convinced by the evidence of what he wrote and did that Rodgers was in a terrible mental state; that he was a misogynist, fueled and reinforced by outside forces, but the starting point of Rodgers as an individual was his extreme mental illness.I very much disagree here. Yes, as you say he had a huge variety of problems, but the impact culture had upon him cannot be overlooked or minimised. One of the most significant moments in the manifesto is when he directly states that he acquired validation of his ideals
He formed them through 'educating' himself, took pleasure in their presence in entertainment (I've not seen this movie so don't know how distorted his views are, but I very much doubt it's meant to be read in that manner), and helped to reinforce his views in these manners (that's ignoring what he saw through games [the industry also quite misogynistic in how it portrays women] and other online forums where people with extremist views can seek validation by existing within an echo-chamber). Perhaps if we lived in a society where 'acquiring' women isn't seen as an achievement, where women are not portrayed primarily as being weak and needing a 'tall, blonde, muscular male' to 'defend' them, where women aren't shamed as 'sluts' for expressing their sexuality while men are regarded as 'players', where men don't brag about their ventures with women (which he makes note of numerous times, even if his idea of 'bragging' is most likely inaccurate with regard to the extremity), and where hatred for women cannot be reinforced and left to fester he would have been disuaded from carrying out the act, and would have abandoned such clearly misogynistic and radical views. Would he have focused his hatred elsewhere? It's likely, as you say he was very far gone, but all we know for certain is that his personal experiences, his mental illness, and the society in which we live led to him developing an intense, seering hatred for women, which he viewed as objects. I think you're placing too little emphasis upon the societal impact that existed in focusing his hatred.
Blackwell makes an excellent point, when Prop 8 was still in effect Elliott Rodgers killed nobody that we know of.Family Research Council senior fellow Ken Blackwell yesterday linked the Isla Vista mass killings to marriage equality laws, which he claimed are destroying the culture. Speaking with FRC president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch, Blackwell blamed the shooting on the crumbling of the moral foundation of the country and the attack on natural marriage and the family.
When these fundamental institutions are attacked and destroyed and weakened and abandoned, you get what we are now seeing, Blackwell said, arguing that people who are blaming the Second Amendment are avoiding talking about what is at the root cause of the problem.
I can't say much more before getting to the point where I'm just repeating myself. But theres a couple of things I want to comment on:
I don't intend to minimize or overlook the societal/cultural impacts on Rodgers. I do, however put those impacts into context. I'm convinced by the evidence of what he wrote and did that Rodgers was in a terrible mental state; that he was a misogynist, fueled and reinforced by outside forces, but the starting point of Rodgers as an individual was his extreme mental illness.
What I don't know is whether or not Rodgers could have been rehabilitated. I don't believe so, honestly. I think he was unwilling to be empathetic or to develop insight. He did not want to be dissuaded. He might have been one of those few, extraordinary cases of incorrigible dysfunction.
I could be wrong about that. Its possible that with the right supports and interventions, that he could've been turned away from this disaster. In a world like the kind you described above, perhaps he would've been a totally different person. Possibly. But I really don't know.....and I doubt it.
If someone has such a specific target then chalking it up as just "they're insane" does absolutely nothing but skip any discussion and changes that come from dissecting why his views and attitude were the way they are. It's also an easy way out of people taking responsibility.
Up to that last sentence, I'd have to say you're correct.
Concluding that Rodgers was insane is indeed a simple, un-nuanced perspective. I agree that it doesn't leave much room for conversation, its sort of a dead-end. But, in this specific case of this specific individual, based on the evidence we've seen, I think its a valid conclusion. Sometimes a simple answer is an appropriate answer.
That isn't a satisfying conclusion though, if you'd like to discuss other, larger issues. This case can open the door to discussing any number of topics. We can now slide into a discussion of gun violence, misogyny, mental health...anywhere that theres information to be shared and knowledge received. Lets have it!