Orion's picture

    The Killer Profile Part Three: Sexual Alienation And The Insane Young Man

    Here we go again. Another mass shooting. Society watches again as another mass shooting occurs as if an insane person, who many people warned was insane, being able to obtain deadly weapons and use them on bystanders was something we could no more stop from happening than a hurricane or tsunami.

    If this happening in an elementary school wasn't enough for us to act, I doubt it happening at a sorority will be - but maybe not. There are "no guns" signs throughout my city of Seattle and people are pushing legislation, change doesn't happen fast - especially in a country with such a history of gun rights.

    If not weapons control, another element looms: this kid couldn't be committed. His father was a director of a hugely successful film. (Again - I refuse to name this guy by name or make him famous.)There is not a lack of precedent of well to do parents with troubled children putting their children in a comfortable place for the mentally disturbed. Mental institutions exist in much of the world and did exist here until we got rid of them during the Reagan era. Now the insane are left to the street, social services or prisons to deal with.

    With people like this freak, that seems like the most logical step. I am not a fan of guns and don't want to ever be around them. Nevertheless there's many different items one could use to kill - having no means to put away someone who is clearly a threat to others is as dangerous to us as allowing them to obtain weapons.

    As for the videos this freak made, I don't really want to tarnish this article with that sick shit (read it for yourself) but I've read some of it and thought that what this guy talks about in the video is common enough to address.

    Unfortunately the whole sexual entitlement and alienation mentality that this asshole at UCSB exhibited is pervasive. I had a little bit of it years ago and there's all sorts of causes for it. Many men do grow up alienated from women and postmodern feminism has acted to put up new sorts of walls between the genders as opposed to taking them all down. It was easy in those years to think that, as a man, you've really got nothing to offer anymore.

    I am not saying that it was intentional of feminism - no, not at all. However, gender roles centered around family existed for hundreds of years. Postmodern feminism came to a head with mantras such as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." It is unclear as hell what men are expected to do and if we are expected to do anything.

    For most men, that turns in to frustration. For a mentally ill freak, it may turn in to this. Then again, this psychopath may have done something like this sixty years ago and my idealizing of past gender roles has nothing at all to do with it. That entitlement does show up in men that don't do something like this and so I'm really explaining where it may come from for then - a person like Rodger seems both to mystify sex and objectify women as a vessel for sex. Many men maintain a long period of loneliness as they do this and fail to realize that sex is the fruition of a productive relationship among equals. There's already worthy reading on the subject.

    Also, when you are a virgin, it's easy as hell to idealize and mystify sex as something beyond what it is - exacerbating your own anxiety and perpetuating the social alienation felt. Having a spouse is a whole other enchilada - something Psycho Boy couldn't possibly know how to deal with. It means thinking about the needs of others almost constantly to the point that you begin to confuse your own needs with that of the person you love. There is little separation between you and those you love. A sociopath can't and won't do that.

    There also is the psychiatric drug element - which seems very likely to have played a role but is a topic I'm a bit tired of writing about. There's alot of speculation on this individual's psychiatric treatment that is worth looking into.

    As I said in my post "Why I Still Believe In People," even with these sick sick tragedies occurring seemingly every half a year or so, we are still a country of 300 million and a world of nearly 8 billion. The overwhelming majority do not do things like this and have productive relationships with others based on mutual understanding and not just intimidation. We should take steps to protect ourselves and the most vulnerable of us but we should never guilt ourselves in to thinking everyone is bad.

    Comments

    I read ER's biography of his life and I don't think it can tell us anything about changing gender roles or feminism. No women ever rejected him as a sexual partner. No women even turned him down for a date. His mental illness was so severe that he never asked a women out for a date.

    He seemed to believe that if he walked around town, or sat at a coffee shop, or went to class in college wearing expensive trendy clothes women would or should go up to him and initiate a conversation or relationship.

    If anything his life before changing gender roles would have been even worse since the likelihood of a female approaching a man and initiating conversation pre 60's was considerably less than it is today.


    "No women ever rejected him as a sexual partner"

    I didn't read his manifesto but I was surprised to see this pointed out -- it's not getting enough attention. He was severely alienated and this is about something other than a failure to have a girlfriend.  I mean, that's part of it, sure, but there's something bigger going on here, too.


    I do not disagree with Ocean Kat at all. Nevertheless, I think that elements of the sexual entitlement mentality and the sense of alienation are pervasive enough in alot of men that they need to be addressed. Grade A sociopaths usually take bad beliefs to the worst possible conclusion.

    Please please pleeeeease do not view anything I've written as an endorsement of this sociopath. I have purposefully not named him or put up a picture of him in this post.


    Of course not, nobody thinks you even came close that.


    I know - you just have to make sure when you are talking about issues of extreme emotional significance for people. People are more likely to come to extreme conclusions when their blood pressure is all the way up.

    I wanted to add: One of my best friends is a student at UCSB. Not going to name her in order to protect her. I called her up and made sure she was all right. She's from another country and said that she didn't believe anything like this would ever happen where she was from. Gun violence was usually only between criminals there. I told her that it was unusual for something like this to happen only a few years ago. Something will be done but I'm not sure what - a return to involuntary commitment might be the step that most people will agree upon.


    I think it is important to remember that he stabbed his roommates to death.  He didn't use a gun. In this therapy sessions he talked about flaying people.  In people such as this, guns merely make the number of people involved in the carnage and the lethality of a rampage greater. In regards to those who lost their life, three of the six were by stabbing, not a gun.

    Some time ago there was outrage in Seattle when a mentally ill man stabbed a man to death as he walked from one of the sporting events (Seahawks or Mariners, can't remember which).  Had he had a gun, it is highly likely more people would have been injured and killed. But focusing just on guns and gun control doesn't address the mental health system in this country, or our attitudes toward mental health services.

     


    I agree. I think bringing back involuntary commitment would be very appropriate - it would also be a way of demonstrably saying that society does not tolerate this.


    Although there are plenty of stories of parents who committed their children to mental hospitals just because they were being normal difficult teenagers.  Even when there is a reason to commit them involuntarily, a lot of times they come out worse off than when they went in, partly due to the issue of their parents putting them into such a place against their will, and partly due to the incompetence and abuse suffered while in these institutions. 

    Involuntarily commitment is a tricky subject.  When I was working in the mental health field in Washington State in the early 1990s, the budget cuts were getting worse and to ensure fewer people were involuntarily committed by the Mental Health Professionals (the MHPs), they tightened the rules of what could let the MHPs to commit involuntarily so that they had to be a danger to themselves or others at the moment they were speaking to the MHPs.  An hour earlier they could physically attacking a counselor at the half-way house, but by the time the MHPs talked to them they were calm and not seemingly a threat, there was nothing that could be done.

    One has to keep in mind that once one is involuntarily committed, one loses all one's civil liberties.  The doctors pumped you full of drugs to "stabilize" the individual, what was referred by some in the field as "snowing."  And keep you against your will for a 60 or 90 day observation.  Basically incarceration without recourse to the legal system.  (Even during my time, the MHPs could without a warrant kick down your door and come into your house, send you to the hospital for a 90 day hold.).


    Even during my time, the MHPs could without a warrant kick down your door and come into your house, send you to the hospital for a 90 day hold.

    A cherished tool for totalitarians; one prominent example. All depends on what the definition of mentally ill is and who has the power to define it.

    The thing that amazes me along these lines: I don't get it when civil libertarian NRA types call for this kind of thing in order to protect guns from licensing. It's utterly contradictory. Thought the idea was to have guns to protect freedom of thought from authorities.

    That said, I totally agree with you and have said so on this forum since Sandy Hook days that liberals fixation on guns as regards these kind of mass attacks is totally irrational and hurts the cause of gun licensing. Licensing would reduce the run of the mill crimes-of-passion violence, it would have virtually no effect on this kind of thing and it makes liberals look bad to equate the two. It's a knee jerk emotional reaction--a mass attack with a gun could just as easily be one with a bomb or knives. Guns have nothing to do with the problem. They have to do with death and maiming as regards domestic violence, gangs, hothead disputes, blind or prejudiced idiots "standing their ground," etc. "Going postal" is not even the same thing, it is momentary insanity due to passion, not these planned mass attacks (not to mention a little bit similar to letting your emotions get carried away about guns when a bunch of school kids are murdered in a planned mass attack.)

    To be clear: I'm not pro gun, I'm anti stupid arguments about guns, blaming guns where they are not the problem. It doesn't get you anywhere. No guy "going postal" ever got his job back or respect from his boss or his pension or whatever he was upset about, either. wink


    I don't get it when civil libertarian NRA types call for this kind of thing in order to protect guns from licensing. It's utterly contradictory. Thought the idea was to have guns to protect freedom of thought from authorities.

    Shows the lengths to which they'll go to protect guns.

    The only thing I can think of to explain this.

    They assume they'll never be the one getting locked up. Just as they'll always be "law abiding" gun owners.


    ...it would have virtually no effect on this kind of thing and it makes liberals look bad to equate the two. It's a knee jerk emotional reaction--a mass attack with a gun could just as easily be one with a bomb or knives.

    I don't see why this follows...

    A mass attack is much more easily performed with a gun for obvious reasons. And bombs are just harder to come by.

    Can mass attacks occur with knives? Sure, as we've seen. But it's easier to kill a lot of people with a gun quickly than with a knife.

    Knives can also be used in domestic violence.

    So I'm unclear why you draw such a clear-cut distinction.

    Murders of any type are hard to prevent, because the murderer always is one or two steps ahead of his victims and the authorities.


    Latest Comments