Michael Maiello's picture

    The Bitter Turn of the White Male Killer

    I was interested in Brittney Cooper's take on the Santa Barbara Killer because I think she's definitely on to something about the white male snapping.  It's an old story that goes back to the age of "Going Postal."  It's happened enough that it should be addressed.

    But Cooper's take is all privilege without nuance and so it leads her down this road:

    "Elliot Rodger was a late bloomer, which while socially inconvenient and embarrassing, is neither uncommon nor a problem. But because we don’t have a fundamentally honest societal conversation happening about white male privilege, rooted as it is in sexism and racism, we can’t even observe one of the most basic truths here: What Rodger perceived as a denial was at the very worst a delay. Our society is fundamentally premised on making sure that straight, middle-class (upper class in Rodger’s case) white men have access to power, money and women."

    What?  His problem, she says, is that he's a late (presumably social) bloomer but that is not, she also says, actually a problem.  She might want to consider that people having their actual problems dismissed in an airy "first world problem" way does not do much to help them.

    Then there's her bland belief that this guy was going to succeed if he could only hold his fragile mind together and be patient.  The society is "fundamentally premised," she says, on this guy getting his heart's desire.

    That's more than a little condescending, I think.  It certainly makes a mockery of any sense of struggle in the life of a white dude.  I suspect this is because the "privilege" argument expects too little out of life.  What I mean by that is pretty well explained by Cooper's account of the police visit for a "welfare check" that the parents requested, shortly before the murders:

    "But “officers concluded that he was ‘polite, courteous,’” and downplayed any difficulties.

    In the manifesto he released he said he was relieved that officers did not push the matter further because they would have found his weapons.

    Can I go ahead and scream yet? A black or brown man would have been violently hauled into a jail and locked up at the first sign of such machinations. His property rights would have been thoroughly violated, and no matter how “polite” and “courteous” he might have been with officers, no reports would have reflected such language."

    Cooper seems to have forgotten that what she says would have happened to a black guy in those circumstances is a complete travesty that should not happen to anybody.  That it happens to young black men indicts our whole system. It is not made right, however, by having the same thing happen to young white men. It's like Stop and Frisk -- it is wrong that it happens more to minorities than to white people but you don't make it right by doing it to everybody.

    You see the problem here, I hope... Cooper is setting the bar of human dignity too low and she's doing it almost reflexively.

     

    Topics: 

    Comments

    I can't wait until we move on from this particular tragedy cum media fixation. It's not enough that Elliot Rodger has become the poster child for male aggression. Now he's the personification white privilege to boot (despite being half-Asian).

    Try these on for size:

    Another indigent black man has decided that his disillusionment with his life should become somebody else’s problem.

    Another jealous woman has decided that her disillusionment with her life should become somebody else’s problem.

    Another disturbed transsexual has decided that his disillusionment with his life should become somebody else’s problem.

    See any problem here? Stereotyping an entire race/class/gender based on the actions of a psychotic individual is logically fallacious and morally repugnant, which is obvious when you replace the villain.

    Yet because Rodger is a (half) white guy who hated women, all such compunctions go away. Instead of being an exceptional psychopath, he now represents every sexist male and, apparently, upper middle class white kid in America.

    I'm all for airing social injustices. I'm just nauseated by the way so many have exploited this tragedy to do so.


    The article occurs against the backdrop of the Affluenza defense. Privilege was her focus. Rodger was mentally ill and allowed to openly express his misogyny and murderous intent on a website. He could also legally purchase guns. That is the scary part of the story. How do you address those issues without compromising someone's rights?

    The media frenzy also includes Joe the Plumber who tells the grieving parents that their children's' deaths don't trump his right to own a gun. Joe is making sure we keep things in perspective.


    WaPo film critic Ann Hornaday reviews the final video and sparks a much needed conversation on the way Hollywood's adolescent male fantasy fixation is misshaping culture.

    In a final videotaped message, a sad reflection of the sexist stories we so often see on screen. 

    As deranged manifestos go, the final YouTube video made by suspected Isla Vista, Calif., mass murderer Elliot Rodger was remarkably well-made. Filmed by Rodger in his black BMW, with palm trees in the background and his face bathed in magic-hour key light, the six-minute diatribe — during which he vows revenge on all the women who rejected him and men who were enjoying fun and sex while he was “rotting in loneliness” — might easily have been mistaken for a scene from one of the movies Rodger’s father, Peter Rodger, worked on as a director and cinematographer.

    Indeed, as important as it is to understand Rodger’s actions within the context of the mental illness he clearly suffered, it’s just as clear that his delusions were inflated, if not created, by the entertainment industry he grew up in. With his florid rhetoric of self-pity, aggression and awkwardly forced “evil laugh,” Rodger resembled a noxious cross between Christian Bale’s slick sociopath in “American Psycho,” the thwarted womanizer in James Toback’s “The Pick-Up Artist” and every Bond villain in the canon. 

    [...] How many students watch outsized frat-boy fantasies like “Neighbors” and feel, as Rodger did, unjustly shut out of college life that should be full of “sex and fun and pleasure”? How many men, raised on a steady diet of Judd Apatow comedies in which the shlubby arrested adolescent always gets the girl, find that those happy endings constantly elude them and conclude, “It’s not fair”?

     
    Movies may not reflect reality, but they powerfully condition what we desire, expect and feel we deserve from it. The myths that movies have been selling us become even more palpable at a time when spectators become their own auteurs and stars on YouTube, Instagram and Vine. If our cinematic grammar is one of violence, sexual conquest and macho swagger — thanks to male studio executives who green-light projects according to their own pathetic predilections — no one should be surprised when those impulses take luridly literal form in the culture at large.
    In fairness to Hollywood, it should be noted that they will go where the money is and so long as the most prized marketing demographic is the 18-49 year old males we will continue to get adolescent male fantasies. Those and Disney fantasies to babysit for young parents.
     
     

    I think blaming failure to launch male romcoms is a stretch.


    Now here's a shallow comment for you...

    When I first saw ER, I thought, "He's a pretty good looking guy. He couldn't get a date? Being mentally unstable never stopped a bunch of good-looking guys from bedding a lot of women."


    My impression was that despite displaying all the right fashion accessories, his mien screamed "dweeb" -- socially awkward and painfully self-conscious, certainly not the Alpha male of his pretensions.

    Being somewhat of a dweeb myself I would not have a problem dating a dweeb like him if our ages were closer but from what he said and wrote it is easy to tell that he would have a problem dating me. The women he desired were of the trophy wife variety, just another accessory.

     


    It is the gun manufactures, their supply chain, the 1% that is invested in it and the salesmen that is the problem.  They pay for the lobbies and the NRA that own congress.  It is their fear of job loss, the loss of investments and the loss of their business that pushes back on gun legislation. This is what trumps the loss of lives because of easy access to weapons.  It was OK as long as it was in poor urban neighborhoods but now it has spilled into upper classes people are beginning to relate to the tragedies. It will continue as long as we allow politicians to cater to that lobby and allow the status quo to go on. I see no changes in the horizon because of the conservatives has the country over a barrel with gerrymandering. It is going to be a long hot summer and there will be more tragedies.  Talking about how nutty this guy was is useless.  The blame lies with the manufactures and the congress they own...Not the crazies or the criminals or the gun owners. 

    Our forefathers would have never allowed the mass murder of our citizens to be the price of freedom to own weapons of war.

    When are we going to push back on the miss information that permeates through our society by the Conservatives and gun lobby? 


    As I mentioned on Orion's blog, three of those who lost their lives, as opposed to being injured, we stabbed to death, not shot.  So this isn't just about guns, although the issue of guns and access to guns is an important topic. 

    Our society has done an awful job in creating a mental health system that is truly effective, one that is getting worse partly due to governmental budget cuts, and partly due to insurance companies looking at mental health issues as something that can be cured in some kind of 10 week of sessions.  But it is also partly due to our cultural views on and approach to mental health and those who suffer from the multitude of ailments.


    It sounded, at least, that he'd had a lot of mental health care. People knew he was a very troubled guy. Not a Loughner who lived at the end of a dirt road in a forgotten subdivision. Dunno. Something didn't kick in, though. In general, I think it's hard to do something until the person does something, and then it's too late.


    Even if someone is receiving mental health care, doesn't mean it is of a high quality.  Too often there is pressure to find the quick fix, the easy answer, the right pill*.  Sometimes, I believe those who server the affluent consider the parents footing the bill as much as the client.  But, yes, sometimes it is hard to do something until the person does something of a dramatic nature before people take it serious. 

    *as someone who is one two kinds of pharmaceutical medications for mental issues, I am not against pills as one method to help deal with the issues surrounding mental health.


    True, nor is it even clear what "high quality" means. Also, as you allude to elsewhere, mental health care doesn't really work--aside from the pharmacological methods--unless the person voluntarily participates or comes around to participating after some resistance (which is always part of the process anyway).

    And high-quality care, at least in my book, is pretty close to a one-on-one method. If the high rate of violence, and gun violence, is, like conservatives like to say, a mental health issue, how do we launch that kind of massive, labor-intensive effort? Even if we were all behind it and willing to pay the freight?

    Looked at in this light, the easier solution would be to keep guns out of the hands of a wider range of people, not just those who've adjudicated as "mentally ill." Yes, they could still stab people, but frankly, it's harder to do damage that way, despite cases in which knife wielders have caused quite a bit of damage.

    I could support making gun licensing closer to car licensing and registration, despite all the usual arguments against it. If the ubiquity of cars is any indication, no one who felt the need to have a gun for self defense or sport would go wanting. But it would be a lot easier, I think, to ban someone from owning a gun and aid law enforcement. An insurance requirement might also raise the cost of owning and the penalty for misuse and might have a beneficial effect.

    I'm extremely discouraged at the likelihood of any of this happening, but I would support policies like these if for no other reason than to see what good they might do.


    Our forefathers would have never allowed the mass murder of our citizens to be the price of freedom to own weapons of war.

    Just a thought...

    In the beginning, we were too busy fending off outside threats to turn on each other.

    Then, for a long time, simple survival didn't leave a lot of energy, time or resources to do a lot of damage to neighbors and the like.



    Never take dating advice from a dog.

     


    No time to go into this now, but I've always "accepted" the presence of misogyny without giving it a lot of thought. Yes, there are men who hate women (and probably women who hate women).

    But lately, the deep-rootedness of misogyny and its accompanying ubiquity has been weighing on me. It seems that it goes beyond a "social problem," but reaches down into what one might call the psycho-social-spiritual-mythological fabric of our society.

    It's easy to dismiss Berkowitz's and ER's comments about "women being at fault" and "girls wouldn't go out with me" of the rantings of someone who belongs in a mental hospital or a Hitchcock film. But I think what they say is an expression of something that's very true--not what they think they're saying, but an expression unconciously provoked by an important truth.

     


    "life as a guy", a Bitter Film

    When I first saw this video commentary, I wondered how many guys thought it reflected their experiences with girls, metaphorically, of course.  I could see more than a grain of truth in it. Watch for the girl he skips.

     

     

    Someone should do one about the "life as a girl" making  innocent statements or just being friendly to guys who almost all take them as invitations for sexual advances.

     


    I think that was the stupidest video I've ever seen. Not that you shouldn't have posted it  And it was telling that he skipped the "fat" women. But it doesn't in any way reflect my experiences.

    I'm 5' 4". I was considered a nerd in school to the point that I was mocked in elementary school by kids calling me Poindexter after the Felix the cat cartoon. I'm very introverted and socially awkward. I've been poor most of my life. On top of all that my male pattern baldness started at about 21 and I was bald by 25.

    Yet somehow I was able to get married, live with two women for several years each, and have some casual sexual encounters. Yes, I've been turned down for dates and women have let me know they didn't want to talk to me or dance with me. Perhaps I'm lucky but no women ever rejected me in a mean and angry way.  In fact mostly women have turned me down in a kind way. Rejection hurts any way,  but probably everyone experiences it sometimes.

    To repost, the things in that video never happened to ER because he never asked a women out for a date. When he says "women rejected me" he means, paraphrasing from his manifesto:

    I sat at Starbucks for a few hours and no women approached me and started a conversation. They all rejected me.

     


    I was watching a TV show last night where a guy had marital problems, sat down in a lounge, a beautiful thin blonde comes up and insists he come with her, he loudly refuses and then finally submits to her will. Had me almost laughing out loud.

    Needless to say, doesn't parallel my life at all.

    Perhaps it would be useful to find more ways help growing kids deal with rejection and find better ways of presenting themselves and mixing than we do now. Where I am now, there are a lot more activities where kids can get to know each other than I had - so it's not like you have to ask someone/be asked for a date just to talk to them a bit - or that relationships have to be some instant attraction rather than built on a number of different feelings & compatabilities.

    The whole driving culture in America mixed with 21-year-old drinking makes the ease of hopping a tram to go get a shake into an organized event involving parents or siblings, if there's even a place where a 12- or 15- or 19-year-old could feel comfortable (we had exactly 1 in a medium-size town, and that's only because a friend of mine decided to open a place so her kids would have somewhere to go - otherwise, no alcohol, not worth doing as a business - which as the age-limit went from 18 to 21 crushed most of the teen outlets).


    We had a grange building and church meeting halls which still didn't prevent us from turning out badly.


    I sat at Starbucks for a few hours and no women approached me and started a conversation. They all rejected me.

    OK, I'd kill to get the action you get. (Sorry, poor choice of words.)

    Know how many women reject me daily as I walk down the street at lunchtime? Plus, even when they're walking in my direction, they all walk faster than I do which adds sports prowess humiliation to my long list of psychological vulnerabilities. Plus, with all the make-up, no one can even tell who they are up behind those mascaraed eyes. Me? What you see is what you get. I might as well be wearing my telephone number on my sleeve right next to my average annual income.


    Street walking was another of ER's brilliant seduction technics. Oddly enough, like you, no women picked him up and took him home for sex. But he did give women a last chance. Dressed in his most expensive clothing he waited outside his college classroom until everyone was inside and seated. He made his grand entrance but no women fell at his feet panting for sex. They all rejected him.

    I have this pick up routine. It doesn't work all the time but it works often enough. I look for women that are interested in some of the same things I'm interested in. Then I try to talk to them. If they seem to like talking to me about those things we are both interested in I ask them out on a date doing something we're both interested in doing. If they say no I try the exact same seduction technic with a different woman.

    I think this sophisticated pick up routine would have worked even for ER.

    Yes he was a misogynist. But its hard for me to see him as a poster boy for anything when he was so painfully shy he never even approached women to ask for a date.


    Latest Comments