The murderer posted a long sexist rant telling us he was going to kill “blond sluts,” but he ended up killing several men as well as women. Three of the men he killed were his roomates and their male friend. We don’t know what really motivated him, but we do know who he killed. He knew about 1/2 the victims. He stabbed them with a knife. Stabbing somebody with a knife is about as up close and personal as murder can get. Nothing indiscriminate about those murders. I have a theory but don’t have sufficient information to speculate. Now, do we really know what happened or why? Do we know well enough for sure to place the blame on “sexism” or “misogyny.”
One mention of misandry and the thread dives into a spirited defense of feminism? Apparently there are women commenting on this site who have serious issues with men. Talk about writing with an agenda.
I suppose the most charitable interpretation of your remarks that “he is not wrong to feel entitled to sex” is that you lack an understanding of what the term “entitled” means. We (human beings) are entitled to very few things in life. If we are Americans for instance, we are entitled to free speech and a fair trial but not, for instance, a place to live or a car to drive. Arguably. we are not even entitled to food. So I really have no idea where you have gotten into your head that we are entitled to sex. Who and how is this right meant to be enforced in your mind? But as I say, the generous interpretation of your remarks is that you don’t understand the definition of the term entitlement.
This however:
casts some doubt on that generous interpretation. The conditions under which anyone should be a virgin at any age after the age of consent are, as you point out, one’s choice but also, it would seem tremendously obvious, under the condition that no one wants to have sex with the person in question. As it turns out, other people have a choice about who they will have sex with, completely irrespective of some other person’s advanced virginity and under any definition of a sane society, that is exactly the way it should be. Arguing otherwise is profoundly absurd.
Sometimes it’s all of the above. The guy had serious, deeply entrenched emotional issues that were so profound that he probably would have found an excuse to hurt someone. The “someones” who are targeted for a certain kind of mass violence are the someones that currently or historically inhabit the bottom of the food chain: minorities, gays, women. However, there are also the mass shooters who explicitly aim for the top of the food chain – the cool kids (Columbine). And then, there are the true psychopaths who see anyone’s happiness as the enemy (Virginia Tech – although he had also stalked female students specifically as well). We live in a society where we have so many mass killings we can actually classify them!
But the author makes a serious and valid point: these guys hold views about people that find common currency in many quarters, even if those views are twisted to an extreme degree that is, fortunately, rare.
I like to think of what we should do about this as the “drunk driving” paradigm, that is, approaching things from the perspective that they were much more significant problems for us precisely because our cultural backdrop made them acceptable to a lesser or greater degree – but then society changed its mind, and took them more seriously and they declined. Taking on the culture of rape is a much bigger project than the culture of drunk driving.
“No one should be a virgin at 22 unless that is his choice.” And no one should lose their virginity or otherwise have sex with someone at any age unless that is his or her choice. This wasn’t about his virginity because dude had a lot of money and I am guessing even Isla Vista has prostitutes. This was about his inability to connect with peers on any level and his inability to cope with the reason for why he was unable to connect, which was himself. There was no real logic to his own understanding of his distress.
Yes, and California has a very liberal involuntary commitment law as opposed to other states. He could have easily been committed on a 5150 for a minimum of 72 hours, which would have been extended. His parents could have then requested (and would have received) guardianship over him, and he could have gotten the help he needed.
If the reports about what the Sheriffs did (or didn’t do) are true, then they are largely responsible for this incident.
It’s important to remember that Rodger’s worldview was distorted by Asperger syndrome which is “characterized by qualitative impairment in social interaction…” as well as a lack of cognitive empathy. (Not that there’s a link between Asperger’s and violent/criminal behavior).
To put it bluntly, the deputy sheriffs discounted the mother’s report of clear and present intent to commit harm because Rodger did not meet their expectations of what a crazy guy looks or acts like. I don’t blame them, however, because they should not be the front line for this kind of determination. If there is one thing that could come of this, it would be that a rant or a threat would be given more importance than the ability of a guy to maintain a charming and polite demeanor for five minutes. Even Jeffrey Dahmer could manage that. Plus, as it happens, this guy had actually engaged in aggressive (if non-deadly) assaults against women – throwing drinks at them and trying to push one woman off of a ledge.
There’s no way to avoid law enforcement making those calls. Behavior that necessitates police action is inextricably linked to mental illness. How will the two elements be separated? If you advocate LE detaining a citizen and calling out a specialist to make the call, LE has similar involvement. Crazy people come with the territory.
LE’s job is to make a call regarding short-term custody for a 72-hour period. If a specialist (i.e., psychologist) makes a different call while the individual’s in custody, then s/he is released. California IMO protects patient rights. All a 5150 does is get a patient in to be evaluated. It doesn’t guarantee a 72-hour hold.
If, after an immediate evaluation, the patient is determined to not be a threat to himself or others, he would be released. There are additional protections after the 72-hour period has elapsed. The patient can actually have a hearing over the hold if it is extended, and he would be assigned a representative.
Sorry – this is all on the LE that handled the case. They should have absolutely taken him in for an eval.
FWIW – I have a 14-year-old with Asperger’s. I can definitely see some characteristics in Rodgers; however, the Asperger’s population doesn’t have any more actual crazy people than the general population. The one thing I see is the relationship with Rodgers is seeing things as an all-or-nothing thing. There is no grey area – it’s all black and white. There is no such thing as a mitigating circumstance.
Also, Asperger’s persons have limited self-insight. They can’t really be introspective. So, it’s hard for them to see themselves and how their actions, deficits, or whatever may impact their ability to relate with others. That means they don’t know how to improve without help. They find it hard to make inferences, so they can’t ‘read between the lines.’ They don’t have high-level discrimination skills. They tend to need explicit language.
I’m sure Rodgers easily alienated women, but he probably didn’t have the understanding that it the responsibility rested with him and not others. Look at it his way: He’s rich, good looking, has a nice car. Isn’t that what every woman wants? What was he to think when women didn’t jump at the chance to be with him? He might have gotten that message from the media and believed it – even from commercials or youtube.
So, there are some things that are familiar, but it took severe mental illness to want to hurt people. Some Asperger’s folks with behavioral issues might lash out in frustration, but that’s immediate. I don’t see that they have a long-term plan to hurt people. That’s not my experience.
I posted downthread that I have a 14-year-old son with Asperger’s. It’s much more than the cognitive empathy thing. They lack self-insight, so Rodgers likely couldn’t see why he wasn’t accepted by women. Not didn’t want to, but couldn’t. He probably needed someone to explain where the connection was lost between him and women. They lack pragmatic language skills and need explicit language. They have difficulty understanding satire or jokes, difficulty ‘reading between the lines,’ understanding context, reading facial cues and body language.
They don’t see any grey area, it’s all black and white. My kid doesn’t see mitigating circumstances.
Yes, they lack empathy, but that’s only one component. I find the other stuff to be equally as challenging. And, my son is probably at the highest level of high-functioning autism.
If Rodgers had Asperger’s it would have been hard for him. However, I haven’t seen anything in my kid that would make me fear he would hurt anyone. I think that’s where the mental illness comes into play here.
Fine, that’s Johnson’s opinion, and obviously you concur. In the context it seems clear to me that he is writing about culture, not individuals.
Please note that I agree that misandry is not a cultural problem, but misogyny is a cultural problem. That something is not a cultural problem does not mean it is not a personal problem for some people (like misogyny, both men and women can show misandry, by the way).
The myths feminists tell each other, misandry isn’t real, and it’s never our fault, it’s always “them”. This ranks right up there with the idea that “people of color” can’t be racist. Rationalizations always sound better hidden in academic-sounding language.
Well, I believe we are entitled to food and a place to live too. To the extent society fails to allow for everyone to have food, shelter, and sex, society ought to change, because those are things all human beings need to live a healthy life. Society ought to promote health.
There are a lot of commentators currently arguing that fat girls are entitled to attention from men, shaming men for failing to see past shallow characteristics to see the real person inside. If that is appropriate commentary, it is similarly appropriate to call out when women are being superficial. Because geeky guys are entitled to romantic experiences too.
I suppose statistically there are some people who make it to 22 unintentionally a virgin but unless we’re talking about Elephant Man or the mentally ill, they’re probably just lacking in guidance or potential mates are being shallow. Either circumstance should be recognized as a problem that society should seek to solve.
All the social and moral issues people are talking about here are valid and important but to me this is a glaring example of the need for expanded mental health care. What I see here is that a young person in the late teens/early twenties age range went crazy. This is the age when schizophrenia sets in. There has to be a way to screen young people for this. We have to give parents and mental health workers the tools they need to prevent this kind of horror. This is the age when the sutures in the human skull fuse together. Could this cause a restriction of blood flow to the brain? Don’t know but something has to be done.
Rich, white, male privilege—and make no mistake, that is what Rodger was invoking—is not a mental disorder. It is the product of a society that promotes and abides it. That’s what makes his father’s finger-pointing so disgusting. If, at any point, Rodger’s parents had imposed upon him that his favorable circumstances were something to be appreciated, not his manifest destiny, perhaps he would have developed something approaching empathy. Like Klebold and Harris before him, the media are trying to portray Rodger as damaged goods, the product of low self-esteem and self-loathng. Like the Columbine shooters who later were discovered to have not a dearth but a SURPLUS of self-esteem, Rodger felt that the world should be his oyster and was enraged that the rest of the world did not seem to agree. If you don’t believe me or feel that I am being too harsh, watch this little shit’s videos.
LOL. Well what you believe is, of course irrelevant. In a world where our entitlements, our rights, in other words, are quite well codified, the entitlement to sex either exists or it doesn’t and, of course, as all of us in the real world knows, it doesn’t.
Now you go on to clarify in a rather awkward way that what you really mean is what we “ought” to or should be entitled to. You are also wrong on whether we are entitled to food and shelter but lets assume, arguendo, that such rights do exist. We can, at least theoretically, imagine a context in which the universal right to food and shelter are satisfied without significantly imposing upon the rights of others, But how do you imagine that we can impose the right of one person to have sex without diminishing the right of someone else to refuse to provide that sex.
As others have pointed out, Rodger’s issue wasn’t really an inability to have sex. I am 100% sure that he could have availed himself of a prostitute if that is all that he wanted. But no, what he really wanted was to have someone who wanted to have sex with him, And that is not a right that anyone or any society can guarantee. In any context where we are not being raped, we all get to choose who we have sex with and that is not a right that can be abrogated.
Your contention that “there are a lot of commentators currently arguing that fat girls are entitled to attention from men” is of course, just some crap that you just completely fabricated but even if true wouldn’t make you any closer to correct. Again, no one is entitled to the attention they want. to suggest otherwise really just means that you have no idea what the word entitlement means. I suggest investing in a dictionary.
Trying to analyze the mind of a mass murderer is like trying to analyze the mind of a toddler. We speak of “motive,” but motive in a murder has meaning only when the perpetrator is relatively rational. For ex, as in a murder for profit.
Certainly this young man was angry with his female classmates who spurned him, but he was clearly angry with his male roommates, too. But it takes a lot to go from anger to murder on this scale.
If I’m right, then all this intellectualizing and ascribing of motive to this murderer is of little value.
We all want see structure in something without structure.
It ain’t there. We’ve seen madness in action.
