hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 02:31 pm
interesting to wonder what Elliot Rodger might have become if he had made in through the forging. Here is a guy who seems much like Elliot



He is a high wattage intellectual and superstar professor who grew up not admiring anyone, most certainly not his parents, whos only fond youth memory is going to the movies everyday, never had a childhood friend , who now says stuff like

Quote:
The only thing worse than having to actually teach classes, Žižek insists, is the indignity of holding office hours. “Here in the United States, students tend to be so open that sooner or later, if you are kind to them, they even start to ask you personal questions, [share their] private problems; could you help them, and so on. And what should I tell them? I don’t care. Kill yourself. It’s not my problem.”


http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/06/02/slavoj_zizek_calls_students_stupid_and_boring_stop_worshiping_this_man_video.html

EDIT: I dont know of Rodger was not smart enough, or if it was rather that he had no interest (like did not consider it a worthy pursuit), but academics could have been his escape. He could have gotten lost in his head and instead of from being rich as he dreamed it gotten what he wanted from the collective by being brilliant.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 03:06 pm
Last weekend’s horror in Santa Barbara, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people and wounded more than a dozen before shooting himself, unexpectedly sparked a feminist moment. With revelations that Rodger’s killing spree was fueled by anger over rejection by women and that he had posted on what some described as a “men’s rights” forum (actually, a forum for bitter “involuntarily celibate” men), many rushed to frame the shooting as a stark example of the violent misogyny said to be pervasive in our culture. The Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen sprung up as an expression of solidarity and a reminder of the ubiquity of male terrorism and abuse in women’s lives. Most of the posters in the hashtag were certainly motivated by the best of intentions. But in the end, this response not only appropriated a human tragedy for an ideological agenda but turned it into toxic gender warfare.

For one thing, “misogyny” is a very incomplete explanation of Rodger’s mindset, perhaps best described as malignant narcissism with a psychopathic dimension. His “manifesto” makes it clear that his hatred of women (the obverse side of his craving for validation by female attention, which he describes as so intense that a hug from a girl was infinitely more thrilling than an expression of friendship from a boy) was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success. At the end of the document, he chillingly envisions an ideal society in which women will be exterminated except for a small number of artificial-insemination breeders and sexuality will be abolished. But in an Internet posting a year ago, he also fantasized about inventing a virus that would wipe out all males except for himself: “You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.” His original plans for his grand exit included not only a sorority massacre he explicitly called his “War on Women,” but luring victims whom he repeatedly mentions in gender-neutral terms to his apartment for extended torture and murder (and killing his own younger brother, whom he hated for managing to lose his virginity).

Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don’t is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma.

Of course, four of the six people Rodger actually killed were men: his three housemates, whom he stabbed to death in their beds before embarking on his fatal journey, and a randomly chosen young man in a deli. Assertions that all men share responsibility for the misogyny and male violence toward women that Rodger’s actions are said to represent essentially place his male victims on the same moral level as the murderer—which, if you think about it, is rather obscene. And the deaths of all the victims, female and male, are trivialized when they are commemorated with a catalogue of often petty sexist or sexual slights, from the assertion that every single woman in the world has been sexually harassed to the complaint that a woman’s “no” is often met with an attempt to negotiate a “yes.”

A common theme of #YesAllWomen is that our culture promotes the notion that women owe men sex and encourages male violence in response to female rejection. (It does? One could much more plausibly argue that our culture promotes the notion that men must “earn” sex from women and treats the rejected male as a pathetic figure of fun.) Comic-book writer Gail Simone tweeted that she doesn’t know “a single woman who has never encountered with that rejection rage the killer shows in the video,” though of course to a lesser degree.

Actually, I do know women who have never encountered it. I also know men who have, and a couple of women who have encountered it from other women. I myself have experienced it twice: once from an ex-boyfriend, and once from a gay woman on an Internet forum who misinterpreted friendliness on my part as romantic interest. There was a common thread in both these cases: mental illness aggravated by substance abuse.

Yes, virtually all spree killers are male, though there are notable exceptions such as Illinois mass shooter Laurie Dann and Alabama biology professor Amy Bishop; but the number of such killers is so vanishingly small that a man’s chance of being one is only slightly higher than a woman’s. As for the more frequent kind of homicide feminists often describe as expressions of murderous misogyny—such as killings of women by intimate partners or ex-partners—the gender dynamics of such violence are far more complex. If patriarchal rage and misogynist hatred are the underlying cause, how does one explain intimate homicide in same-sex relationships without resorting to tortuous, ideology-driven pseudo-logic? How does one explain the fact that some 30 percent of victims in such slayings are men (excluding cases in which a woman kills in clear self-defense)? What feminist paradigm explains the actions of Clara Harris, the Houston dentist who repeatedly ran over her unfaithful husband with a car (and got a good deal of public sympathy)? Or the actions of Susan Eubanks, the California woman who shot and killed her four sons to punish their fathers, apparently because she was angry about being “screwed by men” after her latest boyfriend walked out?

Defenders of #YesAllWomen say that the posts in the hashtag do not target all men. Maybe not; but they push the idea that all women—including women in advanced liberal democracies in the 21st Century—are victims of pervasive and relentless male terrorism, and that any man who does not denounce it on feminist terms is complicit. They wrongly frame virtually all interpersonal violence (and lesser injuries) as male-on-female, ignoring both male victims and female perpetrators, and express sympathy for boys only insofar as boys are supposedly “raised around the drumbeat mantra that women are not human beings.” And sometimes, they almost literally dehumanize men. A tweet observing that “the odds of being attacked by a shark are 1 in 3,748,067, while a woman’s odds of being raped are 1 in 6 … yet fear of sharks is seen as rational while being cautious of men is seen as misandry” was retweeted almost 1,000 times.

One can argue endlessly about the real lessons of the Elliot Rodger shooting, including the complex dilemma of responding to danger signs from mentally ill people without trampling on civil liberties. Perhaps, as Canadian columnist Matt Gurney writes, the most painful lesson is that no matter what we do, we cannot always prevent “a deranged individual … determined to do harm to others” from wreaking such harm—if not with guns, then with knives or with a car. But the worst possible answer is a toxic version of feminism that encourages women to see themselves as victims while imposing collective guilt on men.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/29/from_toxic_misogyny_to_toxic_feminism_122786.html
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 03:27 pm
As far as I can see he was never rejected by any women, because he never tried to woo any.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 03:30 pm
@nononono,
convincing the current batch of American young women that they are victims would be quite a trick considering that they are the most advantaged, pandered too, empowered women to ever walk the earth, and are much better off than the men of their age. Thing is in spite of what you see on the internet and in the media young women dont generally feel oppressed. This is why the percentage of young women who self identify as feminists keeps falling. Feminism is not an answer to any of their problems, because what feminism is going on and on about is not a problem for them....they have never been abused, they enjoy men, they were advantaged over the boys in primary school, they are beating the pants off of boys at university, and they are getting the jobs they want no problem.

The chatter comes from a vocal minority.
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 03:36 pm
http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2013/02/domestic-violence-feminism-and-setting.html#ixzz33WFunKgL
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 03:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I am getting a very bad feeling about these parents. I think we are going to find out that after months of years of visits one or more doctors recommended putting this kid in the hospital, and then the parents would cart him off to another doctor. That they did not know how bad off he was because they did not want to know, the professed ignorance level of the parents is too great to be believed.

You persist in drawing all the wrong conclusions, that you base on no evidence.

Of course his parents knew "how bad off he was", they knew they had an extremely fearful, withdrawn child, who could not cope adequately in social situations, or deal adequately with emotional stress. And, when he was younger, his mother, in particular, tried to structure some sort of social life for him, as some means of compensation, and of reducing his frustrations.

But, as he moved into adolescence, his unhappiness about his lack of social skills, and his anger and frustration and envy of more competent peers, particularly the males, resulted in strong disruptive emotions that affected his thinking in increasingly pathological and maladaptive ways. This was an internal psychological process, going on inside of Elliot, that was only minimally apparent to anyone, because all others could be aware of was his external displays of emotion--crying, anxiety, anger, avoidance behavior, etc., most of which had been present all of his life.

But, what no one could see, until it was too late, was the increasingly paranoid and pathological nature of his internal thought processes, and the profoundly conflicted, and psychologically disruptive effect, of his internal struggle with self-identity and sexual identity, that was contributing to a final almost exclusively paranoid and nihilistic perception of reality. A severe personality disorder had likely become super-imposed on an autism spectrum disorder.

You are failing to see that Elliot Rodger probably suffered from an autism spectrum disorder--a disabling disorder for which there is no known psychiatric cure or treatment. Nor would anyone have recommended hospitalization for him, as you assert, because, until near the end, he displayed no symptomology that required hospitalization to address--he presented no evidence he was a threat to self or others as he developed and went through high school. Anger management was never an issue.

And the twisted thought processes going on inside his head, for the last several years of his life, very likely weren't fully apparent to anyone until his manifesto was read--and then it was too late. His ability to express himself in writing far exceeded his ability to express himself in any face-to-face- situation, and, when he wrote that manifesto, he knew he would kill himself, so there was no longer a need for him to conceal his twisted thoughts and fantasies from others, as he had been doing. Only in his manifesto, did he reveal the depths of his paranoid and pathological thinking.

Psychiatric treatment would have had nothing to offer him for most of his life, beyond medication for some symptom relief--and Elliot rejected that--and therapy could give him some emotional support, and an additional social contact-- but autism spectrum disorders are not regarded as being reversible, or even substantially ameliorated, by psychiatric or psychological treatment. Offering social supports, and trying to manage the environment for him, is really the most parents, or schools, can do for someone like Elliot--and his parents did try to do those things. I don't think they deserve any blame.

There is no significant reason to doubt that Elliot Rodger did suffer from Asperger Syndrome, as his mother contended in her divorce petition--his behavior patterns, and social difficulties appear to have been fully consistent with such a diagnosis, including by the time he got to high school. And, by the time he was an adolescent, its effect on his functioning was so clearly disabling, it was doubtful he'd ever be able to manage a fully independent adult life. That fact was a major concern to his parents.

And his parents tried to help manage the effects of that socially disabling autistic disorder as best they could...
Quote:
For as long as anyone close to them can remember, the parents had faced concerns about the boy’s mental health — a shadow that hung over this Los Angeles family nearly every day of Elliot’s life. Confronted with a lonely and introverted child, they tried to set him up on play dates, ferried him from counselor to therapist, urged him to take antipsychotic medication and moved him from school to school. ...

Peter Rodger told a friend the other day that his son had been an enigma to the family — distant, remote, unknowable....

“He wasn’t just a little withdrawn,” Mr. Astaire said. “He was as withdrawn as any person I ever met in my life.”...

Cathleen Bloeser, whose son knew Elliot from elementary school, described him as an “emotionally troubled” boy who would come over to their house and just hide.

He fled two high schools after begging his parents, in tears, to rescue him from what he described as a bullying environment. When he was a sophomore, a school administrator said, he suffered a panic attack — standing immobilized in the hallway — until a teacher went outside to ask his mother, waiting in a car, to come get him. He apparently never returned to the school.

The older he got, the more his parents worried about his future.

“They were concerned: Could he be easily taken advantage of? Could he be an easy target for some kind of a scam or whatever?” said Deborah Smith, a Los Angeles high school principal who encountered Mr. Rodger at two of the schools he attended. “Would he be able to navigate the world on his own?”...

Ms. Smith, who became the principal of Independence the year Mr. Rodger was a junior, said he had displayed classic symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome: He was socially awkward, had trouble making eye contact and was very withdrawn, if very smart. “Sometimes at lunch, kids would encourage him to join their tables,” she said. “Sometimes he would. But even when he did, he would just kind of be present.”

His longest conversations seemed to be with one of the special-education assistants, with whom he would discuss World of Warcraft.

“He had this push and pull between his desire to engage socially and his fear of rejection,” Ms. Smith said...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/elliot-rodger-killings-in-california-followed-years-of-withdrawal.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Felliot%2520rodger%2F&_r=0

After being unable to adequately function at two colleges, while living at home, when his parents allowed him to live at a third college in Santa Barbara, he decompensated even more. He could not function independently, on his own, he simply could not cope, at all, outside of a more protected environment with constant parental support. His thinking became more pathological, and he was likely self-medicating with alcohol.
Quote:
Rugg described Rodger as a recluse who stayed in his room mostly and would have angry phone conversations with his father. Rugg told ABC. "They got angrier and louder and he was drunk for a lot of the later ones...there was a lot of frustration for how he’s not having a good time at school. He'd see all these girls hanging out with these guys. He’d try to do the same and it never seemed to work out

Quote:
He seemed to have grown only more withdrawn after he left home for college. After Mr. Rodger returned to his apartment one night after being beaten up at a party — he had, by his account, tried to shove a girl off a ledge — Chris Pollard, a neighbor, sought to calm him.

“He started saying: ‘I’m going to kill them. I’m going to kill them. I’m going to kill myself,’ ” Mr. Pollard recalled.

Eleven months later, Mr. Rodger acted on that pledge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/elliot-rodger-killings-in-california-followed-years-of-withdrawal.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Felliot%2520rodger%2F&_r=0


You really can't fully understand Elliot Rodgers, or what his parents had to cope with, without understanding that he very likely suffered from an autism spectrum disorder for all of his life. And, when pathological thought processes became super-imposed on top of that, during adolescence, he managed to conceal the depths of that internal psychopathology from others.

His parents are not to blame--they did all they could.

nononono
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 03:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
convincing the current batch of American young women that they are victims would be quite a trick considering that they are the most advantaged, pandered too, empowered women to ever walk the earth, and are much better off than the men of their age.


That's exactly the hypocrisy inherent in feminism. They proclaim their autonomy, yet play the victim at the same time!
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 05:12 pm
@nononono,
Quote:
Last weekend’s horror in Santa Barbara, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people and wounded more than a dozen before shooting himself, unexpectedly sparked a feminist moment. With revelations that Rodger’s killing spree was fueled by anger over rejection by women and that he had posted on what some described as a “men’s rights” forum (actually, a forum for bitter “involuntarily celibate” men), many rushed to frame the shooting as a stark example of the violent misogyny said to be pervasive in our culture. The Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen sprung up as an expression of solidarity and a reminder of the ubiquity of male terrorism and abuse in women’s lives

It didn't spark a "feminist moment"--it provoked a response from women--all sorts of women, in all parts of the globe.

Elliot Rodger's written misogynist rant, and his murder spree, which included targeting a sorority house, occurred the same week a well publicized news item appeared about a pregnant Pakistani woman who was stoned to death, in broad daylight, and whose sister had also been murdered by her family, and whose husband had killed his first wife to be with her. And that story provoked outrage all over the world. Unfortunately, there is an ubiquity of abuse of women, on a global level, and it is beyond foolish to assume that other women won't react to that.

And domestically, issues of sexual assault on our campuses, as well as in our military, and how inadequately these have been dealt with, have also been very much in the news of late--highlighting those types of criminal abuse that are also primarily directed at female victims. Women still struggle to hold onto their reproductive rights, which some political men in power constantly threaten to snatch away from them. Is it any wonder that many women would wonder about an "anti-female" climate in our culture?

Women are capable of identifying with, and empathizing with, other women, without the help of "feminism" or any "ism", and that's what they were doing this week. Rodger's misogynist rant, and his targeting of a sorority house, provoked many women to speak out--in some instances, talking about their own experiences of abuse and violence. It simply hit a nerve, not just with self-identified feminists, but with a broad spectrum of women. It didn't hit a feminist nerve, it hit a humanist nerve, with women.

Personally, I don't impose a collective guilt on all men, nor would I suggest that any woman do that. But many male writers this week have imposed that collective guilt on all men, simply because they may be so accepting of the many varied expressions of culturally ingrained misogyny, even in its less dramatically violent forms, that they are aware of going on around them all the time. I think that provides men with interesting food for thought. Many aspects of this discussion may be productive in positive ways, and that is all to the good.



Buttermilk
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 05:37 pm
I will say that at the end of the day, Rodger's actions were that of a mentally distraught man and any elements of misogyny are the result of such.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 05:39 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Found Soul, have you considered how racial factors played a part in Rodger's make-up and his murderous motivations?

It's not insignificant that it was only his Asian roommates he chose to murder in a very up-close and personal way--without the distance afforded by a gun--and they were the only specific individuals he planned on killing in Isla Vista. It is very possible that, in his very twisted mind, he was also symbolically murdering that part of his own identity that was Asian, and that's he did that in a more grisly fashion than his other killings.

Rodger was very racist in his thinking. He referred to one black male as "a vile piece of filth" simply on the basis of skin his color. He both desired, and wanted to kill, only beautiful blond white girls. He went into a particularly intense rage when he saw non-white men, or bi-racial men, with those beautiful white girls, and he thought his own bi-racial make-up might be putting him at a disadvantage in his competition with white men for white women.

Race played a definite part in his thinking.
Quote:
Elliot Rodger and the Effeminization of Asian Men
by Julia Meszaros
05/30/2014

The shocking mass murders in Isla Vista near UC Santa Barbara have received a great deal of media attention. Many commentators have pointed to the inherent misogyny and entitlement within Elliot Rodger's manifesto. Michael Kimmel and Cliff Leek discuss the importance of race in their analysis of the shooting, and Jeff Yang discusses the important intersections of class and race in Rodger's life. I agree with both articles' points regarding the importance of race and class in Rodger's feelings of entitlement. However, I would like to argue that Rodger's rampage might also be a statement about the way in which our society often effeminizes Asian men.

Within American society, Asian women are considered the most desirable women in online dating forums, while Asian men are less popular in online dating markets than black or Latino men. Asian men's low ratings on dating websites points to how influential ideas of the effeminate Asian are. As one researcher on dating preferences points out, "Asian men are often depicted as geeky nerds with high intelligence but low charisma." Many people have discussed the fact that most Asian leading men in films, like Jackie Chan, are never paid with a romantic interest. Instead, Asian men are typecast as nerds, villains, or martial arts heroes, rarely ever as a romantic lead. (An important exception is Jet Li in Romeo Must Die.)

In popular culture, Asian men are considered "skinny," "petite," and "hairless" -- all things pointing to a lack of masculinity within our culture. The most effeminizing popular assumption made about Asian men is concerning their penis size. Since Asian men are considered petite, the same word is used to describe their "manhood." In fact, the feminization of Asian men and their genitalia is the exact opposite of African-American men, who are portrayed as overly sexual and hypermasculine, with extra-large genitalia. While Asian men's sexuality is invisibilized in our society, African-American sexuality is portrayed as dangerously attractive. In addition, Latino men are associated with sensuality and the stereotype of the Latin Lover. Thus, it is not surprising that Asian men are considered less desirable than their white, black, and Latino counterparts in online dating statistics.

The stereotypes of effeminate Asian men and hypersexual black men can be traced back to the racist legacies of colonialism. In order to "prove" to the world that colonialism was indeed a "civilizing" mission, Western theorists utilized discussions of others' aberrant sexualities to justify their interventions abroad. As white Europeans colonized large swaths of Asia, white masculinity was posited as the apex that men could potentially reach. Asian men were placed on the opposite side of the spectrum and constantly portrayed as feminine and weak in the face of European conquerors. The colonial stereotypes regarding Asian men's femininity continue to inform our current racial stereotypes. It would be hard to imagine that the history of feminization that most Asian men have endured did not influence Rodger's own feelings of undesirability.

Rodger's manifesto includes tirades against black men and full Asian men that he would see dating beautiful white women, the only women he claimed to find sexually appealing. Ironically enough, Rodger wanted the stereotypical beautiful blonde white woman to look past his Asian heritage, but he himself was not willingly to compromise his own ideals of racialized desirability. The racial loathing he expressed regarding his Asian heritage ultimately may have played a role in the murders of his roommates, who are barely mentioned in the media in comparison to his random female victims. Not to downplay the severe misogyny and entitlement that fueled Rodger's attacks, but the fact that he targeted his full Asian roommates may have represented an attempt to wipe out his own dissatisfaction and self-loathing with being identified as effeminate. Unfortunately, he attempted to reclaim his masculinity through violence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-meszaros/elliot-rodger-and-the-effeminization-of-asian-men_b_5401516.html
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 05:54 pm
@firefly,
You and I are different in that I call myself a feminist. I take it by recent talk I am a long time softie.

Your takes reflect mine, maybe harder, but you get to not be a feminist, as that is a freak female word, some promulgated man hating shrews club.

Please. Get over fear of the word feminist.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 06:23 pm
This article discusses the intersection of race and class in relation to Rodger.

Quote:
What a close read of the Isla Vista shooter’s horrific manifesto, “My Twisted World,” says about his values—and ours
By Jeff Yang
May 27, 2014

I truly didn’t want to read Elliot Rodger’s “manifesto,” in which he told the story of his life and rationalized the horrific acts with which he allegedly ended it in excruciating detail. I certainly didn’t want to write about it. It’s exactly what he wanted, after all: A chance to be noticed, to be recognized—perhaps even to be empathized with.

But after seeing him consistently described as fitting the “typical mass shooter profile” of a young, mentally disturbed white loner, I realized that both the conventional news and much of social media were making a profound and possibly important error. Because if you’re Asian, a single look at his picture is all you need to realize that Rodger was not white.

A little research exposed what should be obvious: Rodger is biracial—the son of British-born filmmaker, Peter Rodger, best known for assistant directing The Hunger Games, and Lichin “Chin” Rodger, a Malaysian Chinese nurse for film productions who met and befriended Hollywood royalty like Stephen Spielberg, George Lucas (whom she briefly dated), and, of course, Rodger’s father. And reading the 141-page screed shows that this identity played a deeper and darker role in Rodger’s pathology than anyone has been discussing.

In fact, based on the memoir-cum-confession that he left behind, Rodger’s murderous rage was rooted in an obsessive self-hatred, born from his belief that he was entitled to, and thwarted from obtaining, a trifecta of privileges: Race, class, and gender. He saw himself as not quite white enough. Not quite rich enough. Not quite “masculine” enough, in the toxic, testosterone-saturated way that that term is defined in our society.

Rodger grew up as a child of prosperity, if not extreme affluence. He’d traveled to four countries before his fourth birthday. He attended good private schools (though not the finishing academies of the elite; his school Pinecrest had as its motto “Where excellence is fundamental…and affordable.”) He was always just a receiving line and handshake away from wealth and celebrity. But as he grew older, he found himself staring with ever-growing resentment and rage at the things he could see, but not have.

Women in particular became his fixation. No one can ever know for sure what seeded the seething hatred that led Rodger to declare that he would “wage a war against all women and the men they are attracted to [and] slaughter them like the animals they are.” But the first disturbing signs of Rodger’s deeply misogynistic worldview emerge in his description of how his father left his mother when he was just seven, and a few months later moved into his home the woman who would eventually become his stepmother, French-Moroccan actress Soumaya Akaaboune.

According to Rodger, this is what underscored to him the degree to which women were markers of status:

“Because of my father’s acquisition of a new girlfriend, my little mind got the impression that my father was a man that women found attractive, as he was able to find a new girlfriend in such a short period of time from divorcing my mother. I subconsciously held him in higher regard because of this. It is very interesting how this phenomenon works…that males who can easily find female mates garner more respect from their fellow men.”

Rodger grew up in the shadow of Hollywood, a place where terms like “trophy wife” and “arm candy” and “casting couch” are thrown around with glib abandon. It’s a culture that has mainstreamed the notion that women are accessories, party favors, tools for sexual release, not just behind the scenes, but in front of it, particularly within the genres most likely to shape the worldview of young males.

How many “coming of age” movies have supported the idea of loss of virginity as a rite of passage, and used lack of sexual experience as code for subnormal masculinity? How many have underscored the status divide between sexually active jocks, bros and studs and socially invalidated, sexually frustrated nerds, freaks and geeks? I’ve admittedly watched—and enjoyed—many of them myself, from vintage entries like Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Revenge of the Nerds to more recent ones like American Pie and Superbad.

There are stretches of Rodger’s memoir feature monologues that could have easily come from films like these. Here’s Rodger sharing his envy of a popular boy from his childhood, whom he’d accidentally seen making out with a pretty girl when both were just 12 years old:

“I kept thinking about Leo Bubenheim, and how he kissed that girl Nicole at the Sagebrush Cantina when he was only 12. Twelve! He was able to have an intimate experience with a girl when he was only 12; and there I was at 18, still a kissless virgin.”

Here’s Rodger channeling Sixteen Candles:

“My 19th birthday passed by sullenly, and it caused me to feel even more defeated. Nineteen and still a virgin, I miserably proclaimed on that day. My father didn’t even deign to give me a phone call. Instead, he sent me a letter wishing me happy birthday and telling me that he wanted me to apologize to [my stepmom], which of course I refused to do.”

But Rodger’s pathetic sexual pining and whining takes on a more insidious cast when it intersects with race and class. As a child of just nine years old, Rodger has a “revelation”:

“At school, there were always the ‘cool kids’ who seemed to be more admirable than everyone else [and] I realized, with some horror, that I wasn’t ‘cool’ at all. I had a dorky hairstyle, I wore plain and uncool clothing, and I was shy and unpopular.”

All of these things, Rodger realizes, can be altered. What can’t be changed is that the kids that he’s dubbed “cool” are white, and Rodger is not:

“I was different because I am of mixed race. I am half White, half Asian, and this made me different from the normal fully-white kids that I was trying to fit in with.”

Rodger’s fixation on whiteness as the ultimate prize leads him to try to remake himself, asking his parents for permission to bleach his hair:
“I always envied and admired blonde-haired people, they always seemed so much more beautiful. My parents agreed to let me do it, and father took me to a hair salon on Mulholland Drive in Woodland Hills….Trevor was the first one to notice it, and he came up to me and patted my head, saying that it was very ‘cool.’ Well, that was exactly what I wanted. My new hair turned out to be quite a spectacle, and for a few days I got a hint of the attention and admiration I so craved.”

But his bleached hair soon loses its novelty, and Rodger once again finds himself on the outside looking in. He realizes that while he can never be—in his own words—a “normal fully-white” person, he can prove himself equal to or even superior than those who were born to that birthright, if only he “acquires” the right girlfriend: someone whiter, blonder, more beautiful than the girlfriends of his peers.

He sees wealth as one sure way of making him more attractive to the white, blonde women who would validate his identity. But his father is not rich, and after an unsuccessful attempt to produce a movie of his own leaves him bankrupt, cuts child support payments to Rodger’s mother. Rodger pushes his mother to remarry someone with money:

“She dated [men] of high class. She had a special way of charming them. I continued to pester her to get married so that I can be part of an upper class family and enjoy all the benefits that would come with that, but she always refused, claiming that she never wants to get married due to her unpleasant experiences with my father. I told her that she should suffer through any negative aspects of marriage just for my sake, because it would completely save my life.”

Her understandable refusal to wed a rich man just to provide her son with the ability to impress sexy, white blonde women leads Rodger to decide there’s only one option remaining for him—not studying and getting a high-paying job, not launching a business of his own, but winning the lottery:

“[The] older I grew, the more I realized how important money was, and the more obsessed I would become about getting rich. This obsession, which was barely taking root at the time, sparked a long relationship [with] the lottery that would only end in disappointment and despair.”

“It would be possible for me to get a tall, blonde, sexy girlfriend if I was a multi-millionaire! Oh yes, it would be very possible. Becoming a multi- millionaire is the ONLY way I could have such an experience, and winning the lottery was the ONLY way I could become a multi-millionaire at my age. As I stared at the Powerball jackpot that was over $500 million, I knew that I HAD to win it.”


He doesn’t, of course—and once again, the instant gratification of what he sees as his due remains out of reach. Failure to win the lottery, failure to be embraced by the white “cool kids,” failure to have white, blonde women at his side at the snap of a finger, Fonzie-style—all of these grievances fester, curdling his self-hatred and turning it into a venomous spew aimed at those around him.

While some of his anger and vitriol is saved for the athletes and frat boys who attract women with seeming ease, despite being less intelligent, genteel and handsome than Rodger himself, the bulk of his hate is aimed at two targets: the women whom he sees as having rejected him and men of color who are able to succeed, socially and sexually, despite their race. These men are offensive both for taking what Rodger feels is rightfully his, and also for giving the lie to Rodger’s belief that it is his nonwhiteness that is to blame for being unaccepted and unattractive. They are the subjects of some of the most stomach-turning outbursts in Rodger’s document, such as this one:

“My two housemates were nice, but they kept inviting over this friend of theirs named Chance. He was black boy who came over all the time, and I hated his cocksure attitude….This black boy named Chance said that he lost his virginity when he was only thirteen! In addition, he said that the girl he lost his virginity to was a blonde white girl! I was so enraged that I almost splashed him with my orange juice. I indignantly told him that I did not believe him, and then I went to my room to cry. I cried and cried and cried, and then I called my mother and cried to her on the phone.

“How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more.… If this is actually true, if this ugly black filth was able to have sex with a blonde white girl at the age of thirteen while I’ve had to suffer virginity all my life, then this just proves how ridiculous the female gender is. They would give themselves to this filthy scum, but they reject ME? The injustice!”


And this:

“I saw a young couple sitting a few tables down the row. The sight of them enraged me to no end, especially because it was a dark-skinned Mexican guy dating a hot blonde white girl. I regarded it as a great insult to my dignity. How could an inferior Mexican guy be able to date a white blonde girl, while I was still suffering as a lonely virgin? I was ashamed to be in such an inferior position in front my father. When I saw the two of them kissing, I could barely contain my rage. I stood up in anger, and I was about to walk up to them and pour my glass of soda all over their heads….I was seething with envious rage, and my father was there to watch it all. It was so humiliating. I wasn’t the son I wanted to present to my father. I should be the one with the hot blonde girl, making my father proud. Instead, my father had to watch me suffer in a pathetic position.”

And this:

“I came across this Asian guy who was talking to a white girl. The sight of that filled me with rage. I always felt as if white girls thought less of me because I was half-Asian, but then I see this white girl at the party talking to a full-blooded Asian. I never had that kind of attention from a white girl!

“And white girls are the only girls I’m attracted to, especially the blondes. How could an ugly Asian attract the attention of a white girl, while a beautiful Eurasian like myself never had any attention from them? I thought with rage. I glared at them for a bit, and then decided I had been insulted enough. I angrily walked toward them and bumped the Asian guy aside, trying to act cocky and arrogant to both the boy and the girl.”


By the time the end of the “manifesto” arrives, with Rodger describing his real-world decision to enact a Day of Retribution against those whom he sees as having sinned against him, it does not come as a surprise that of the seven who would die in the terrible, deadly assault Rodger committed according to authorities, two were tall, blonde white women—sorority sisters Veronika Weiss and Katie Cooper—and five were men of color, including Rodger’s three housemates, George Chen, Cheng Yuan Hong, and Weihan Wong, all Chinese-Americans, Mexican-American Christopher Michael-Martinez…and Rodger himself.

Nothing can excuse Rodger’s repulsive beliefs and actions, but digging deeper to understand them exposes the ways in which we, too, are complicit in them—as enablers of a culture where material wealth is a marker for success, whiteness is a badge of prestige, and sexual “conquest” a measure of masculinity.

And the ugly truth is that these are not rare phenomena in our American society—or in rapidly rising societies elsewhere in the world: After all, Chinese consumers now purchase 30% of the world’s luxury goods. Skin-whitening products make up 30% of China’s cosmetics sales. And despite it being officially illegal within its boundaries, China now has the biggest pornography market in the world, with over $27 billion a year in sales (more than double that of the United States, where porn is legal.)

So it’s easy to dismiss Rodger, this alleged murderer and child of privilege, as a product of derelict parenting, of negligent gun laws, of untreated mental illness. It’s harder to explore the degree to which he represents a terrible, twisted mirror of our global culture.

But maybe that’s what makes it so essential that we do just that.
http://qz.com/213553/what-isla-vista-shooter-horrific-manifesto-my-twisted-world-says-about-values/

ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 06:34 pm
@firefly,
This was a tough read for me but I plogged along and learned a lot.

It is not unrelated to this thread, just seems so. Quite a bit re class, and probably news to some of us, not least me.

INHERITANCEHow Edward St. Aubyn made literature out of a poisoned legacy.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/02/140602fa_fact_parker
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 06:51 pm
@ossobuco,
Maybe twenty years ago, a boston older cousin visited me in Los Angeles. At some point she was talking about the male lineage and its importance. That may have been when I took her to the coffee shop at Malibu Colony. Not a place I ever frequented but I knew they had good coffee and a parking lot and I was driving her to see the coast. I'm not of male lineage to her import, such as it was.

That was part of the hard part of reading the St. Auden's article, the class business, but I recommend reading it.

I'm not used to all that.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 07:01 pm
@firefly,
Hawkeye wrote:
I am getting a very bad feeling about these parents. I think we are going to find out that after months of years of visits one or more doctors recommended putting this kid in the hospital, and then the parents would cart him off to another doctor. That they did not know how bad off he was because they did not want to know, the professed ignorance level of the parents is too great to be believed.
firefly wrote:
You persist in drawing all the wrong conclusions, that you base on no evidence.

Of course his parents knew "how bad off he was", they knew they had an extremely fearful, withdrawn child, who could not cope adequately in social situations, or deal adequately with emotional stress.
With all respect, Firefly, I deem it un-likely that thay knew
the full extent of it; (hardly likely that Peter knew his son, Jazz, was on the hit list).
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 07:15 pm
@ossobuco,
Osso, in response to your question regarding Elliot Rodger's height sometime back, today I read in the NYT, by his own account, he was "5 feet 9 inches tall" and "135 pounds."

Conceivably by now you've most likely have gotten this info and if so I apologize for the reposting. Before my marriage I dated men who were 9 inches tall and even shorter. I'm 5 feet tall,a petite, and there are many females my height, so it's difficult to see why Elliot's height should have posed *one* of his myriad problems, but then again, Elliot Rodger wasn't living in a world of realty.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 07:34 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
Osso, in response to your question regarding Elliot Rodger's height sometime back, today I read in the NYT, by his own account, he was "5 feet 9 inches tall" and "135 pounds."

Conceivably by now you've most likely have gotten this info and if so I apologize for the reposting. Before my marriage I dated men who were 9 inches tall and even shorter. I'm 5 feet tall, a petite, and there are many females my height, so it's difficult to see why Elliot's height should have posed *one* of his myriad problems, but then again, Elliot Rodger wasn't living in a world of realty.
His autobiografy covered his entire childhood.
Maybe he got a growth spurt in or near adulthood.

9 inches is kinda short, but "even shorter"??? I hope that thay had good personalities.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 08:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
With all respect, Firefly, I deem it un-likely that thay knew
the full extent of it; (hardly likely that Peter knew his son, Jazz, was on the hit list).

I don't think they knew the full extent of it for the last chapter of his life--during the time he was living away from home and going to college in Isla Vista--and that's when he bought guns, plotted his revenge, and made up his hit list with his half-brother Jazz on it. They worried about his potential for suicide, during that last period, and he was reportedly in treatment with two therapists during that last period, but, until near the end, he gave off few signs he might be a danger to others.

But Hawkeye inferred that his parents were ignoring the recommendations of psychiatrists, including recommendations to hospitalize him, for years, and that they didn't know how bad off he was for years, and there is absolutely nothing to support that assumption.

From all indications, they were well aware of his serious difficulties--they are mentioned in the parents' divorce papers when he was about 7, because his special needs were a child support issue. And I think both his parents, and his schools, tried to address those special needs, and special vulnerabilities. These weren't cold uncaring parents, they knew their child had serious, and life-long problems functioning, they knew he was suffering because of those problems, and they did try to address those problems as best they could.

So I think Hawkeye is being unfair and misguided in how he is choosing to view the parents--what he's saying doesn't jive with what Elliot said in his manifesto, and Hawkeye seems to be unaware of the difficulties, and concerns, for parents who are trying to cope with a child who suffers from an autism spectrum disorder.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 09:11 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
I'm 5'3, and I dated many men who were under 5'9, and shorter men with both muscular and slender builds, height and build were never an over-riding issue for me, in terms of what made a man attractive to me, other factors, like personality and intelligence, and facial features, were always far more important. But I was always somewhat uncomfortable with very tall men, those well over 6' tall, because I'd always find myself staring into their lower torso if I wrapped my arms around them in a hug Laughing--and I couldn't even give them a kiss unless they bent over considerably--the height disparity was just too great with a very tall man. Smile

But Elliot Rodger only wanted a tall female--a tall beautiful blond girl. And some tall women may have hesitancies about dating shorter men, for all sorts of reasons. Maybe they feel awkward with a shorter male, particularly if they want to wear very high heels and platform shoes. I've never been tall, so I don't know about that, and most of my friends haven't been really tall either, so its not an issue we talked about.

But I'm sure we can both think of reasons females might have ignored Rodger beside his height.

Quote:
I dated men who were 9 inches tall and even shorter

Ah, you dated those rare pocket-sized men. Laughing Aren't they adorable? Laughing

That was a funny typo, M-I-T, it gave me a good laugh. Smile
nononono
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 09:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It didn't spark a "feminist moment"--it provoked a response from women--all sorts of women, in all parts of the globe.


And the response was "We are all victims, and big bad men are the ones abusing us. We're all martyrs and we're going to feel sorry for ourselves because we collectively have a persecution complex."

This terrible incident was used to propagate hysteria. Plain and simple.

firefly, you need to try to clear your head of whatever biases you have and look at things from a logical perspective.

And if you've read some of the things that were hash tagged with #YesAllWomen, you would've noticed how ridiculous some of the comparisons being drawn were, and if not how hateful some were to men (which some definitely were), that the vast majority of them implied that violence ONLY affects women.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Elliot Rodger
  3. » Page 38
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 06:01:16