General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis killer that went on a rampage shooting
is a sign of male suffering that we often don't fully understand in the Western world.
He learned all the wrong lessons and what he was taught growing up he found out was a lie. As a result he lashed out in a violent manner unable to deal with reality as a mature adult. He was stuck in a fantasy world where he was told lies. Had he swallowed the truth from older experienced men he would have been taught that men and women have preferences (it doesn't mean one is shallow) in picking their partners regardless of sexual orientation. And it is better to move on in a mature manner than dwell on being rejected. This young man was unhinged to the max because he had no proper male role model in his life to guide him as most parents these days have kids for social status without trying to raise them to be good citizens to our society.
We teach young men all the wrong lessons in our society. More specifically, young straight men have approached me many times asking me as to why do young women like bad boys versus "gentlemen" for example? I try to explain to these young men that young woman in their 20's have not yet cultivated healthy boundaries yet for relationship dynamics. I try to rationally explain to them why do you want validation from a woman that: 1. Do not make you a priority 2. If you were to hypothetically have a child with this woman resentment would be stronger because she would strongly feel she is wasting her time with you 3. Time is a valuable resource for any human being and move on as there are other woman that do make you a priority but you must be open minded in seeking such awesome people 4. If she is making bad decisions in her life why would you want to make your life more stressful?
But what a lot of these young men are taught is that being nice is the best way to be attractive to males and females. In reality anyone can be nice, but if there is a string attached then in reality you are not genuinely nice, but selfish and not real. Most men and women find partners attractive that are not door mats and have strong mental character where they do not seek validation about the adult choices they make and take responsibility for the choices they make.
This young man never was taught to be a real man and it is a shame he took the worst lessons from MRA extremists. I personally don't loathe MRA's like feminists do, but I do realize that the goal of some MRA's (more specifically traditionalist conservatives) is to try to revert relationship dynamics back to what they were before the 1970's. I am from the school of thought that you can't put the genie back in the bottle and that the tradcon MRA's trying to change the world back to a time forgotten is futile.
Looking back as a 21 year old man versus now at 31, women openly approach me while 10 years ago I would understand the frustration of this young man as I was invisible. But the biggest reason why women approach me now is that i am mature and financially secure and most importantly confident in myself. Some women have openly told me they would never date me because I am a few inches shy of the ideal 6 feet that they crave. I don't hate these women as I concede we are not compatible and I just move on with grace and dignity. What this young man did was disgusting and very sad.
Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thought about that myself.....
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I guess i'll just have to bear it in silence.
It will up my lifetime grand total to 2.
I will probably deserve this one, but i'm done with this thread anyway.
Response to Post removed (Reply #1)
Post removed
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)I don't seek female validation as I am a grass eater. He was seeking validation and couldn't accept reality and did a disgusting act of violence. Most people that personally know me have said I am the most peaceful person they have ever met.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)arguing a mass murderer had legitimate grievances.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)the goal is of understanding.
Just like the woman that killed her kids with a knife recently Dr. Drew and his panel tried to find an understanding of the horrific acts of violence. We as humans being should always be compassionate and try to ask questions even in the face of horrible tragedies.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I don't need to empathize with her psychotic delusions to say she should have gotten treatment. You are validating the shooter's psychotic delusions.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)questions.
Mrdrboi
(110 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)How come male suffering often results in female bodies on the floor?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I am out of words right now but MY GOD.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)he was taught a fairy tale and what he discovered were lies. He wasn't a mature adult to handle it and he selfishly decided he had to lash out instead of being rational.
Love can be irrational which is why Star Wars movies portrayed love as a double edge sword for example.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Men who hate or kill women because they feel threatened by them are bigots. This was a hate crime.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)which is why he was very unhinged IMO.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Like the Green River Killer, some men just hate and kill women.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)his laugh was super creepy. In fact, he might have exhibited that behavior of sorts is why he was rejected so much to begin with. Maybe he was just creepy and people picked up on it.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Exactly. Yet the OP validates that male suffering.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)the goal is to understand why he went down such a terrible path.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)like he suggested, in order to keep nut jobs from going over the edge? I have to involve myself with pychopaths so I rather than others on the street suffer the consequences of his hatred and violence? That entire MRA ideology you endorse is hate. There is nothing worth understanding about hatred for half the human race.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)which was in my opening post.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)which is part of the broader Men's Right's Movement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024995511#post5
Paul Elam of a Voice for Men, a leading MRA site, signs the virtues of grass eaters here. He clearly considers them to be associated with his movement.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/the-zeta-contract/
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Grass eaters are not even part of the MRA movement.
Pick up artists probably are not even part off the MRA depending on which person you ask. PUA don't believe in traditional relationships all that much compared to MRA's in general.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)what's a "grasseater"?
My first take was slang for a vegan, but given the context I have the feeling that's not it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It comes from a trend in Japan. Young men who decide to do without relationships with women, and are celibate too.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)I know that Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, and various spiritual types. Gandhi, for instance, took a vow of celibacy.
Something tells me we're talking now about something else. I will consult the all-knowing Google to learn more about this.
Anyway, thanks for steering me in the right direction.
Best wishes.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)He thought women didn't have a right to say no to him. And he had a gun.
You need to read this thread, and maybe watch the video he made where he explains it. He's still a virgin. Women aren't attracted to him. How dare they choose who they want to have sex with and go against his wishes?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024995267
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)that people are entitled to have their own preference and that he has to accept people not approving him will happen throughout life.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)not to shoot people because they can't make women become sexually attracted to them. That isn't normal. What this guy did was not understandable or just because he's misunderstood.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)until their mid 20's. We as human beings undergo a long stage of ontogeny which is why we are not as primitive as other apes and chimps. That is why chimps often resemble children despite being mature adults because of their accelerated ontogeny.
Young men and women in their 20's are considered legal adults but they are still learning, and still growing. And require guidance and help from older and wiser men and women. In this shooters case maybe he was crazy and no help would have made a difference. but we don't know.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)He killed people becuase he felt sexually entitled and was pissed off that the women he was attracted to weren't attracted to him and didn't give him sex.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)On the other hand, we should be careful to stress that neither his actions nor the psychological motive(s) behind them are in any way "understandable" or acceptable. And the OP does tread a little too close to that for my taste.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)this is somehow "society's" fault, or the fault of the men who didn't teach him right, or the people who "lied" to him or the women who didn't have sex with him even though he was "nice."
It blames everyone but creepy little monster himself.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I don't recall anyone offering similar rationalizations RE: Adam Lanza or James Holmes.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)they felt rejected by women. I didn't follow Holmes closely, but from what I read I never got a sense of his motivation. I think with Lanza, it seemed like he felt rejected by everyone, men and women.
Once we bring in the idea that the guy felt rejected by women, specifically, well then suddenly his motivations seem understandable, and it can't possibly be the guy's fault. At least according to some among us.
Really, this is so disturbing.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)In this case, it happens to fall along lines of gender.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)matter, but in exercising those choices they are being "unfair."
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)basic rights. None of us are entitled to force others to do as we wish. Basic human consideration is more important than skewed notions of "fairness."
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)That's been exactly what I've been thinking when I've been reading through some of these threads today
Squinch
(50,954 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)gee, he really wasn't bad looking at all -- I've far homlier men get
girlfriends, and even "hot" ones, certainly "hotter" than THEY were.
The guy apparently had Asperbergers, but even that doesn't explain it
all. Aspies get partners too. He was messed up and, like many men, he
seemed to feel "entitled", blaming his situation on everyone else but himself.
Mojo Electro
(362 posts)Young people growing up *do* need some guidance in dealing with rejection, and in coping when things do not go your way.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)That is not normal or understandable.
Mojo Electro
(362 posts)But being unable to deal with rejection was clearly a contributing factor here.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)been having problems associated with normal socialization skills starting around adolescence, as my own son did. Thankfully, I was able to help my son to realize that his problems in making friends were *his* problems, not the other kids. With the help of a good therapist, he was able to adjust his attitudes and expectations within a few years, and he's now a very well-adjusted adult.
I think what the OP is saying is that this shooter didn't have a healthy childhood, with adult role models available to guide and correct him. His parents were obviously wealthy and spoiled the hell out of him. Any 21 year-old who is driving a $50,000 BMW that was just handed to him without an iota of effort on his part is going to have entitlement issues. Add in a large dose of hate teachings from the internet, stir in a gun and you have the recipe for a disaster.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)his entire life. He had issues with personal relationships his entire life he, he was incapable of participating in regular activities with children his age from very early on. He had major issues with the relationships with his parents, he was unable to maintain his emotions.
As he got older he began to notice people in personal relationships & began to fixate on why he couldn't have one. He began to loathe the people in these relationships & acting out was an escalation. Prior to the shooting he had thrown coffee on two separate couples & shot orange juice over women at a park with a water gun because he was enraged at how they were acting.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, there was a lot of issues with this guy & I think a lot of warning bells went off ahead of time.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)malfunction or another, but it's usually a perfect storm of broken bits and pieces, coupled with easy access to a firearm, although he seems to have stabbed his first few victims.
And I'd like to respectfully disagree with those posters who are dismissing attempts at 'understanding' this guy as somehow commisurating with him. Nonsense. People will be studying this fellow for years to come.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)help a long time ago. I think this incident is how his nontreated issues grew & exploded. However, I'm not a psychologist but like I said there were so many warning signs from an early age & he reached out to his parents repeatedly.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)he was entitled to sex with hot women and if he didn't get any it was the women's fault. That is VERY clear.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)to explain the facts of life? Was he a friend of yours? Are you personally acquainted with the family?
How can you possibly reach such a conclusion?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If your understanding starts off with a clear idea where to go (i.e. those evil feminist wimmin) you are not sicnere, and do not even try to play sincere.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Women can get a lots of rejection, but somehow, they manage to
avoid going on Mass Shooting Rampages as "retribution".
Might this thing called "male entitlement" be at least somewhat
responsible?....Just a thought.
The old saying "Hell hath no Fury like a Woman Scorned" is a joke..The truth
is, Hell hath no fury like a MAN scorned, because beyond Mass Shootings,
men take "revenge" on individual women for leaving them All The Time!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)only men want the "hot" one?
oh wait. no. it ONLY MATTERS for men.
they are the only one to be considered, or to count.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)our status as Second Class people has the effect of (among other things)
making it all about THEM.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Good point.
treestar
(82,383 posts)When I was young I ran into that "attitude" from men I didn't want to go out with. I was often required to have a good reason! It seemed unless I already had a boyfriend, I had no right to turn down the date. I'm sure a lot of women know what that is like.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)To some random asshole on the street. Almost got into a fight with a guy who demanded that I smile. A guy asked to smile recently, and I just glared at him.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)and it can hurt like hell too. But the thought of going on a murder rampage because of it never once crossed my mind. I've had my share of revenge fantasies too--just not because of rejection by a man.
Re The old saying "Hell hath no Fury like a Woman Scorned" is a joke..The truth
is, Hell hath no fury like a MAN scorned, because beyond Mass Shootings,
men take "revenge" on individual women for leaving them All The Time!!
You'd think someone would have noticed this a long time ago.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)What woman or man doesn't get rejected in life at some time?
and yes, one would think that someone would have noticed the comparative
absurdity of the "woman scorned" thing awhile ago, but then again, maybe not
in man's world
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I've almost always been the one to do the approaching and rejection is simply not that big of a deal. Fucking hell, the coddling has to stop.
is, Hell hath no fury like a MAN scorned, because beyond Mass Shootings,
men take "revenge" on individual women for leaving them All The Time!!
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)"Am I reading what I think I'm reading?" Holy cow!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That may be a partial reason at least.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)This is not Western male suffering. It's aberrant lunacy. It is not healthy that you are seeing it the way you are.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)in my opinion. But we have to ask why did he have this deluded fantasy of his. Maybe he indeed was insane or this was an explicit hate crime.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)that this guy's actions are just an extreme example of an understandable impulse, that someone needs professional help.
That isn't snark. I'm dead serious. I think if you PM some friends who generally agree with you about gender issues, they will tell you the same thing.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)None of us likes to be rejected. That seems quite natural to me.
-Laelth
Squinch
(50,954 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Do I think that many scientists have observed (as did the murderer in question) that straight women tend to prefer males with higher testosterone as sexual partners, then yes. I did say that. That was the "point" to which I alluded.
None of that implies that anything the murderer did was just or right or good in any way, nor did I say so. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and that particular clock was, tragically, broken.
I will say, however, that we'd be better off trying to understand him if we want to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
-Laelth
Squinch
(50,954 posts)angst and suffering that is the result of "learning all the wrong lessons" and having been "told lies." The OP infers that it is somewhat understandable that this man slaughtered all these people because, after all, he had to come to terms with the horrible fact that "being nice" does not entitle a man to sex.
What utter, disgusting crap.
This has nothing to do with what women prefer or with testosterone. This is not "society's" fault, and it certainly isn't women's fault, nor is it the result of how women make their sexual choices. This has to do with monstrous entitlement that has been fed and nurtured by other monstrously entitled psychopaths.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)He seems to have led a life of luxury. That said, I don't envy him, nor do I think his "entitlement" fully explains his actions. Most spoiled, rich brats don't go on killing sprees. I am looking for a better answer. I do appreciate, however, that you offered one.
Personally, I am inclined to look for clues to his behavior in his own words (as offensive as they are). He had a problem with his own sexuality and with his relationships with people. I don't think his privileged life explains those issues fully. As such, I'll keep looking for better explanations. I am not as concerned as you are about discovering who or what is "at fault" here. That frame doesn't seem useful to me. Primarily, the shooter, himself, was at fault, and now he's dead. No more justice can be meted out against him, so why worry about who's at fault?
Wouldn't we be better off trying to understand so that we can do whatever can be done to prevent such tragedies in the future? I have to resist what I see as lazy attempts to shut down this important conversation with simple answers. I don't think we spend nearly enough energy trying to understand human sexual/gender dynamics. The topic is just too important to ignore, yet men are regularly told that their feelings are not to be discussed. Big boys don't cry. Perhaps we should listen better when men do, in fact, despite the social pressure to hide their feelings, cry. It seems to me that this murderer was crying as loudly as he could (through YouTube videos and to various therapists). Evidently, nobody was listening.
-Laelth
Squinch
(50,954 posts)"at fault." You don't seem to be seeing that the OP that you are defending is the one that pointed fingers in absurd directions. At least we can agree on the fact that the fault lies with no one other than the shooter.
But once again you are going off into crazy town when you say that this has anything to do with understanding sexual dynamics.
First of all, the only one telling men that their feelings are not to be discussed are other men. So if you don't like that, then stop it.
Second of all, this slaughter has nothing to do with men being told that their feelings are not to be discussed. The idea that "big boys don't cry" is not the cause of this slaughter. This has nothing to do with listening to men when they cry.
Honestly, your position of "Oh, ye poor weeping and unheard men! If only we listened to you none of this would have happened!" is bizarre. In taking that position, you also DO lay the fault for the slaughter at the feet of everyone but the shooter himself.
And yes, yes, I get it. You are above it all and just want to understand this poor misguided soul.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)OP is offensive nonsense.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but I sure as hell am now.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)there are those that hold on tight. this young man that murdered cause he did not get what he felt entitled to buys into this crap too. it is literally killing our girls.... and this young man.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I have found that sociobiology or "evo psych" (as you call it) explains certain human behaviors better than any other branch of human knowledge of which I am aware, so, yes. I "hold on tight," and I will continue to do so until better explanations come along. I do try to keep an open mind, but I won't reject a theory that my gut tells me is pretty accurate just because said theory has allegedly been "debunked."
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Got it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I think it could go either way, honestly...
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Personally, I don't believe that we can ever try "too hard" to understand anything. Given the choice between understanding and ignorance, I'll choose understanding any day.
(I admit that many do not share my preference for understanding.)
-Laelth
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)to "condoning" - I'm certainly not suggesting anyone here actually feels that way about Rodger's monstrous actions, but the reason the OP creeped me out is because it seems to almost paint him (however unintentionally) as a sympathetic figure or victim of sorts. Which, in the case of someone who slaughters innocent people, is a big no-no.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I don't feel the need to hop on that bandwagon, nor do I think that it's useful to do so.
I have been condemned in this thread for failing to condemn (and then promptly dismiss) this murderer and his motivations. Usually, I bow to that enormous social pressure and just keep quiet. DU is a particularly hostile environment for discussing issues of sexuality and gender relations. For various reasons, however, I have chosen to risk the condemnation I knew I would get in this thread in order to educate some people and to further this important discussion. Thanks for engaging me on this topic.
-Laelth
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)This can't be a coincidence, and the people who are doing the conflating are far too intelligent to not understand the difference.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But I also take into account the history of somewhat creepy MRA-ish posts on this board, and in that context, anything that (even unintentionally) presents Rodger as some sort of victim or sympathetic figure, makes me a little uncomfortable.
Obviously, I understand that no one here is crazy enough to even remotely condone what he did. But some of the posts I've seen have a bit of "Yeah it was terrible, but..." going on, and there should be no "but" there at all - it only serves to diminish the horror of Rodger's actions.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Ask some women. Each one will have different views. If women were all the same, only a few men would ever get laid. People are individuals.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)In my experience, most men don't tell women what they want, but they desperately desire to "know" what women want, primarily so that they can then give it to them, and, thus, be considered as a potential mate.
Science has answered some of these questions for us, but it remains a perpetual line of inquiry.
Just an example: http://www.livescience.com/9487-women-pick-mates-flings.html
-Laelth
treestar
(82,383 posts)Is it so tough to accept the fact that we are individuals? There is no formula. You have to relate to the actual person in front of you.
We aren't a product, one you learn how to handle. We are people. Just like you, we have our own thoughts, not "women's instincts."
Men attempt to control this and they can't. I also see men writing articles telling women what to do to attract men and what not to do to scare them off. Then I realize that advice is only good for the guy who wrote the article.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Thanks for saying what I was fumbling around trying to.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to his extreme. the entitlement. it is evo spych after all. innate. but maybe... just maybe... if men try really really hard to control and over ride how they were borned... grit their teeth, muster thru....
damn tough life not what? killing cause you do not get the hot girl?
Squinch
(50,954 posts)here is blaming the women who rejected him? I am wondering if that is their intent or if they are ignorant of the fact they are doing it.
PS: Good to see you around again!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)just the same old garbage. and with the other site, seems to be the only intent is to be misogynist, racist and rant about hof? i have very little interest in this place.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)And I agree about Discussionist. It's not my cup of tea.
oneofthe99
(712 posts)Wouldn't surprise me if he has killed a woman before or at least tortured animals to death.
Sometimes you can try to analyze but in the end evil is just evil
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)and we are left with many questions.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)And be very surprised if he turns out to have harmed animals.
Folks need to learn to read evidence, and listen to the voices of perpetrators - they are often surprisingly honest. He's a monster, he's just not your pet monster.
Nay
(12,051 posts)was obviously deranged, and it looks like his problems were compounded and magnified by his Asperger's/autism.
It seems like his parents were sending him to a shrink, so they seem to be aware and on top of his illness. How he got any guns in his mental state, I have no idea.
pamela
(3,469 posts)He reminds me a lot of Andrew Cunanan. Intelligent but twisted with a HUGE sense of entitlement.
Throd
(7,208 posts)This guy had issues and is undeserving of any sympathy.
I went through high school as an awkward and sexually frustrated teen with a dick so hard it could etch glass. It never occurred to me to do anything violent about it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Iggo
(47,558 posts)He killed because he's a fucking killer.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)YES INDEED
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I think men and women, in our twenties, often make poor long-term choices in dating and marriage. However, the 99.9999999% of us who are reasonably mentally healthy learn what we can, soldier on and eventually meet someone suitable. Or not. We don't kill anyone. This guy was very disturbed and for whatever reason, didn't accept proper mental health care.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)And the only rebuttal to the op that is needed. Sometimes it takes a man to tell the truth that needs to be told.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Denial that there is a problem simply makes the problem worse. This murderer is dead. Nobody is demanding that we have sympathy for a dead person. What good would that do?
On the other hand, we might want to understand this murderer and his motivations if we want to prevent such tragedies in the future. The OP merely seeks to understand, and I see that as a noble and useful goal.
-Laelth
Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)
Laelth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Jesus Christ on a cracker...
Laelth
(32,017 posts)There are some subjects that can not be discussed here rationally.
That's too bad, I think.
-Laelth
Response to Laelth (Reply #39)
Post removed
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Are we more guided by instinct than we'd like to admit? Probably. But we're not slaves to it either - we do have a degree of higher cognition which other animals, even other primates, mostly lack.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)We are, however, slaves to most of our instincts ... eating, breathing, etc. Certainly we can (unless forced) make sexual choices, but that doesn't mean that our instincts are irrelevant when it comes to our sexual choices. I think our instincts are highly relevant.
As I noted above, humans are apes ... very smart apes, of course, but apes all the same, and I think we err when we pretend we are not apes. We have much more in common with "lower" forms of life than we usually want to admit. I just want to understand people, and that means examining them with complete and uncomfortable honesty.
ymmv.
-Laelth
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Anecdotal evidence may not be the best guidepost, but from my own experiences and observations as a still-young (30 this year) man, I can tell you that people choose all sorts of "mates" and for all sorts of reasons. And sure I've had the sour-grapes "women like assholes" sort of reactions myself, but again, I realize that the world isn't really that black and white.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I think it very unwise of us to dismiss those feelings and pretend they don't exist. If somebody had just listened to the shooter and tried to understand him, this tragedy could have, perhaps, been avoided.
Very few people, here on DU, seek to understand this murderer. Instead, most are content to condemn him, label him (with a lazy catch-all like "psychopath" , distance themselves from him (like most wise men on this board), or just celebrate his passing from the world. I don't think that any of those reactions (while natural) do any good. We need to hear him and understand him if we hope to prevent similar tragedies in the future, and this is especially true if we admit that many men have had similar feelings.
Of course, people are quite complicated, as you rightly note, but I don't see how that observation helps us understand this tragedy either.
-Laelth
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)than I. Seems to me he was already so far round the bend, that intervening months or even years in advance may not have done much good.
And of course I realize that parsing someone's motive is not the same thing as "defending" them - I've argued as much myself. But my fear is that by trying to "understand" someone who murdered half a dozen innocent people, we may unintentionally lend validity and even justification to the sort of murderous rage and hatred that drove him to it. Frankly, we need to condemn the guy on some level, lest others think that psychotic woman-hating - and the atrocities it leads to - is somehow acceptable.
Frustration, anger, envy/jealousy, are all perfectly natural human feelings. What is not natural, nor acceptable, is the sociopathic level of entitlement which - at the extreme - leads to mass murder, but also in less extreme cases, leads to things like rape/murder threats directed at women who dare express an opinion.
The feelings of frustration etc. which I describe, and which I've admitted to experiencing myself, do not in any way justify mistreating - or expressing violent hatred for - other human beings. We need to make that absolutely clear above all else.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)As far as I know, nobody on DU has said the killer was "justified" in acting out his rage, but we're in bad shape when we can't even express our feelings. Human emotions are not subject to rational control. Our actions are subject to rational control, certainly, but emotions are not, and repressed emotions have a way of coming back to bite us (and sometimes those around us). People who can talk about their emotions--honestly addressing them and processing them--have a much better chance of not acting upon them, I think.
"my fear is that by trying to "understand" someone who murdered half a dozen innocent people, we may unintentionally lend validity and even justification to the sort of murderous rage and hatred that drove him to it"
Um ... I see no lack of condemnation, neither here nor elsewhere. I don't think you have to worry about that. Condemnation of a murderer is seldom hard to find. What I do not see is a desire to understand. Only once we understand a problem are we equipped to design a reasonable solution to said problem. Just lazily condemning and then lazily labeling (psychopath) does little to address the underlying issues and causes of this tragedy.
Regardless, I think this is a worthy topic of discussion, and I appreciate your civil responses.
-Laelth
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I have expressed my own feelings, and been very honest about my flaws, in this thread. What really disturbs me is that Rodger, in a lot of ways, simply seems like a more extreme version of guys I've encountered online - and perhaps, at times, even IRL.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)You can see those feelings as flaws, if you like, or you can assume that those kinds of feelings are quite human and quite natural. I think it's very unwise to ignore human emotions and human instincts (as if we were solely rational animals). This murderer, I think, demonstrates what can happen when we collectively ignore and dismiss very real and very human emotions. Presumably, the murderer's therapists failed to respond in a useful way. How many more must die before we can have an honest discussion about what it means to be a sexual animal?
-Laelth
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Seems to me that desire, and expectation (or entitlement), are two different things.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Please be specific.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Most men I know have experienced frustration, anxiety, and anger over not being able to consummate a relationship with a person to whom they are sexually attracted. I suspect the same goes for women, but I am not qualified to speak upon that subject.
That is the "angst" expressed by the murderer in the case at bar, and understanding that "angst" is the goal of my posting in this thread. As I have said, here and elsewhere, my hope is to understand this dynamic and then to act in such a way that will allow us to avoid similar tragedies in the future.
Regards,
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ONLY for men?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But abusive treatment of other human beings - verbally, physically, in any way - crosses the line, no matter what.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to being pissed they didnt get the hot girl.
THAT is what needs to be addressed.
men going around talking about the audacity they have been sexually frustrated in life. you know. every one has had times of sexual frustration. so the fuck what.
why.... do men feel so all that with sexuality. not even a consideration it is a human issue, cause really women are not a fact in all this, except use.
THAT is where the issue is. that is what we talk about. that is why we hit it from all kinds of angles.
this young man did what he did, living in a culture that insists his sexuality is an innate right... women do not matter, in the least.
we hear it on the board all the time. the mentality of privilege and right. not to this level or degreee. but the same shit. r egularly. and often. from men. that is what needs to be address. the safety and literal life of girls and women
so in the scheme of things? what really should have priority? all of a mans masuclinity wrapped up in his all awesome sexuality? or a little fuggin common sense and a bit of reality.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)we need to stress that they are not in any way entitled to mistreat others. A lot of things obviously went very wrong in this young man's psyche, but his sociopathic level of entitlement is one of them.
I guess what I was trying to say, in my clumsy fashion, is that my individual feelings about... whatever... aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. I've never used that as an excuse to abuse others, whereas many men sadly can't seem to manage the same level of basic decency.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this mentality of privilege and right to a woman, and she really matters not but for use.
it is in our face every friggin second of every friggin day.
the confirmation and reinforcement is all over the net.
and whole areas of entertainment denigrating women to such an extent it is clear their use.... for men.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)to justify all sorts of atrocities, from everyday harassment/threats and domestic abuse, all the way up to mass murder. The failure to see other human beings as truly human, with the same rights, and the same range of emotions and desires, as oneself.
Like how so many white people callously stereotype other races as lazy or unintelligent or criminal, to the point that some don't even seem to regard killing a black person as murder. Same idea, minimizing or dismissing the basic humanity of others.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)for always bringing society into these discussions? Because you are SO right.
I'm taking a social psychology course and one thing that I found absolutely fascinating is how studies show that society has a much larger effect on our behavior than our upbringing or genetics. So yeah, this guy could be a sociopath who was raised by rich, entitled parents...but it's society's message that it's okay to EXPECT sex from women, and that somehow when you don't get it, then it's those women's fault for not giving you what you are entitled to that is what is the overriding cause for this tragedy.
Also, society reinforces the belief that if only you are persistent, and a 'nice guy' you are somehow 'owed'. How many movies have guys who are downright creepy stalkers that finally 'get the girl' and live happily ever after? How many young men believe that if they are persistent, then the woman owes it to them? I've even seen snippets on the news of couples celebrating their 75th anniversaries where the woman is like, "I didn't pay him any mind, but he kept asking and kept asking, so finally I said yes and we've been together ever since." Women are to be 'won over' and if they refuse to be 'won over' then something is wrong with THEM, clearly (sarcasm, obviously).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"bad" girl that wont treat him right?
we need to get away from "won over". having sex is "giving", is a "gift" or any of that shit.
and i will take a hug from you anytime...
i couldnt agree more. and we see it every step of the way.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Sometimes it's just what people do, and it's not always restricted to one gender like you claim it is.
treestar
(82,383 posts)"setting her cap at him" and "being forward" and those other memes - they still existed in the 70s. My mother told us we should not "chase boys." Because they should get to do the chasing.
dawg
(10,624 posts)This guy was ashamed of being a virgin. Having sex was a status symbol to him, and women were shutting him out. He felt like a loser. And that is partly the fault of our sex-obsessed, woman-objectifying society.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is even a status symbol for girls. I remember feeling inferior for not having a boyfriend or dates. Finally I realized it was just not something I wanted to do and it didn't make me less of a person. But women definitely get status out of that, and since the 70s, it means sex for the most part. I wonder if he thought about the period of boyfriend/girlfriend before sex, or without it for a while. Seems he demanded it immediately and wasn't interested in the rest of the relationship.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)because, in her words, it gives men the idea that sex with a woman was
a man's monetary right, if not his Divine Right.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)in a less sexist society, too. Are there people who just want to pay for it and be done with it and some of those could be woman. But for a woman it might be too embarrassing - imagine being a woman and having to pay.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)although, traditionally at least, they seem to do better in Europe.
treestar
(82,383 posts)then they prefer younger men who are good looking. Take Cher and her boy toys. When women get the power, they act like men. Since men had the better end of the deal the traditional way. That proves it is not all "biological," "instinctual" or in other words, unchangeable.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and the same things with these supposed gender roles, that are innate, so evo psych says. and when so often i take it to self, and i see no difference from my thinking and a mans, pretty clear evidence it is not an evo psych, man thing.
when women started having freedom and ability to cheat, we are equal to man. young hot dude? damn straight and why not.
another point at the fail of evo psych.
they tell us we are biologically incapable of taking care of self. got the financial freedom and independence, adn a mere four decades later, we are nothing like the evo psych of the 50's demand we are.
we do not evolve quite that fast, in a mere four decades.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I do think, however, that women dislike rejection by desired sexual partners just as much as men do. Not sure that really answers your question, however.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)We have reflexes and drives. A reflex is breathing or sneezing - it is "an unlearned, biologically determined involuntary response to a physical stimulus." A drive is a unlearned, biologically determined impulse common to all members of a species that satisfy needs (like sleep, eat, reproduce etc). The difference is that, unlike an instinct which makes a spider spin a web given certain environmental circumstances, a drive means you WANT to fill your needs, but that you can come up with many, many different ways to satisfy your drive - there is nothing in us humans that says we have to do things a certain way to satisfy our 'needs'. We have free will to determine how we fill our needs. In fact, we have so much free will to determine our own behavior, that we even have certain societal rules regarding our reflexes, like covering your mouth when you sneeze.
Anyway. Thought I'd throw that in there.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Sun May 25, 2014, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Are often used as supports. From men who want to tell women what it is we are attracted to. Usually conservatives, telling us we want the best provider. Or cave men telling us we want the strongest man we can get. All to protect us from the threats out there and take care of us, and the babies.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)sure of what they are meaning. Usually and in this case.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Or did you mean something else?
treestar
(82,383 posts)that the women carry the child and the man contribute the sperm and that they have to have sex to do it.
Reading more into it is trying to use it to support male dominance. Biology means we have the babies. It says nothing about which men we find attractive. That's an individual thing. And the reason there are always exceptions which you can't explain away, since "biology" was supposed to make sure the woman did the thing the woman is supposed to do.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I am astounded by the belief being expressed here that humans are somehow distinct from other primates and other mammals and other animals by not having instinctual behaviors.
Seriously?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)of what an instinct is, vs a reflex.
I know wiki is not a good resource, but they write it well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors. Sea turtles, newly hatched on a beach, will automatically move toward the ocean. A joey climbs into its mother's pouch upon being born. Honeybees communicate by dancing in the direction of a food source without formal instruction. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, internal escape functions, and the building of nests. All of these are examples of complex behaviors and are thus substantially different from simple reflex behaviors.
An instinct should be distinguished from a reflex, which is a simple response of an organism to a specific stimulus, such as the contraction of the pupil in response to bright light or the spasmodic movement of the lower leg when the knee is tapped. Instincts, in contrast, are inborn complex patterns of behavior that exist in most members of the species. However, the absence of volitional capacity must not be confused with an inability to modify fixed action patterns. For example, people may be able to modify a stimulated fixed action pattern by consciously recognizing the point of its activation and simply stop doing it, whereas animals without a sufficiently strong volitional capacity may not be able to disengage from their fixed action patterns, once activated.[1]
(clip)
Reflexes and instinct[edit]
Examples of behaviors that do not require conscious will include many reflexes. The stimulus in a reflex may not require brain activity but instead may travel to the spinal cord as a message that is then transmitted back through the body, tracing a path called the reflex arc. Reflexes are similar to fixed action patterns in that most reflexes meet the criteria of a FAP. However, a fixed action pattern can be processed in the brain as well; a male stickleback's instinctive aggression towards anything red during his mating season is such an example. Examples of instinctive behaviors in humans include many of the primitive reflexes, such as rooting and suckling, behaviors which are present in mammals.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I don't recall doing that. I replied to a post that claimed that humans don't have instinctual behaviors, which claim is nonsense.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)which the baby instinctively does.
But the mother's decision to breastfeed - that is not instinctive. If she did it automatically with no questions then it would be.
Her choice of who to have sex with - that does not involve anything instinctive. That all goes into the "volitional" category.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It just gets complicated to analyze what is learned and what is instinctual. Most of our behaviors are a combination of learning and instincts. Newborn behaviors are easy to analyze - they haven't learned anything yet. It is known, for example, that we react to pheromones, as do other animals, and that many of the reactive behaviors are unconscious and entirely instinctual.
treestar
(82,383 posts)have the same exact rate of sexual desire for this or that man by "instinct." There is a lot more going on. Most people end up finding somebody. Each pair is of two individuals. They didn't choose each other by "instinct."
There have been societies where the parents or society picked a person's mate. Western society now leaves it up to the person. But each individual has a lot of different reasons for picking who they picked.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Yes, I was thinking how could we have any instincts in the way animals do. We don't do anything automatically.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)If so, I don't see the value of the distinction that you are making.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)"We are, however, slaves to most of our instincts ... eating, breathing, etc."
Breathing and eating are not "instincts" but biological imperatives to continue life. You can not continue to live if you stop breathing or eating, or not for long. Sex is not the same as a being can live their entire life without having sex.
About my term "biological imperative" : As a species, in order to continue the species some need to have sex, but as individuals it is not necessary. It is necessary to breath to continue to live as an individual, can get by without eating for a bit longer but not eating causes death also. Breathing is not an "instinct".
Per wiki (I know, not the best but it explains more clearly than I am). Eating, breathing are not instincts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
An instinct should be distinguished from a reflex, which is a simple response of an organism to a specific stimulus, such as the contraction of the pupil in response to bright light or the spasmodic movement of the lower leg when the knee is tapped. Instincts, in contrast, are inborn complex patterns of behavior that exist in most members of the species. However, the absence of volitional capacity must not be confused with an inability to modify fixed action patterns. For example, people may be able to modify a stimulated fixed action pattern by consciously recognizing the point of its activation and simply stop doing it, whereas animals without a sufficiently strong volitional capacity may not be able to disengage from their fixed action patterns, once activated.[1]
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Whether we call these behaviors "instinctual" or "biological imperatives" may be important. I grant that, but at this point I can't see the value of this distinction in the current context. Care to explain?
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)what else you say.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am not a scientist, so I am not trained to use the kind of terminology that might resonate with persons who come from a scientific background.
Briefly, my understanding is this: Humans have a tri-partite brain. At its base is a highly-developed, modern, human instinctual brain. On top of that is a highly-developed, modern, human emotional brain. On top of that is the cerebral cortex--our modern, human, rational brain. Too many people, I think, pretend that the cerebral cortex is the only part of the brain that really matters. I think it very unwise to ignore the ways that emotions (limbic-system signals) and instincts (here defined as any signal that originates from our basal, "reptillian" brains). Whether those signals are called "drives" or "biological imperatives" seems irrelevant to me.
If you can show me why this difference in terminology matters in the current context, I'd love to hear what you have to say.
-Laelth
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)If we become consciously aware of our instinctive behaviors, we can choose to override them.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The young man was a sack of shit lady-killer and we're talking about his fee-fees.
And women are not cats in fucking heat. That shit is offensive and says way more about you, all of it bad.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Maybe the most disturbing aspect of this oversimplified evo-psych stuff is how it implicitly dehumanizes both sexes.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)... might make you feel better, but it accomplishes nothing beyond that. I am of the opinion that we need to talk a lot more about what it means to be a sexual animal.
Nobody "justified" or "defended" this murderer's actions, but simply ignoring and dismissing the kinds of feelings expressed by the murderer only makes the problem worse (or leads to tragedy, as was the case here). If you seek neither understanding nor a solution, fine. Those of us who seek to understand will carry on without you.
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)You wrote that.
It is a deeply bigoted opinion, and does not foster conversation in the slightest. I'd no more try to reason with someone who made similar comments about blacks or gays.
And your sprinkles of condescension implying that anyone who calls you on it is a lower-order being who doesn't care about science is *priceless*.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)If you're not open to that line of thinking, fine, but that seems a very closed-minded position to me. I'd rather pay some attention to the role that our highly-developed, modern, instinctual brains play in our mating behavior. Natural selection has been honing our instincts for millions of years. I won't pretend those instincts don't exist and don't influence our choices.
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological_determinism
Attempts to import biological theories into sociology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.
John Maynard Smith[1]
You don't get to just say women fuck barbarians because of genetics, and then handwave that as your cool-headed interest in research. One person put that turd in the punchbowl, and now you want it examined for its creamy texture. Sorry, but no.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... is noted. You are content to condemn me. Fine. I will be content to ignore you.
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I will always counter distortions of science being used for a bigoted agenda.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that drives our choices.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But I think that most of us misunderstand the human brain.
At its base we have a modern, human, instinctual brain. On top of that we have a modern, human, emotional brain. On top of that we have a modern, human rational brain (the cerebral cortex). Those who pretend that humans are essentially rational completely ignore our highly-developed emotional and instinctual brains. I will not pretend that our instinctual and emotional brains have no influence on our actions.
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)long ago instinct may be to the point of it effecting who we are as people. without any fact or knowledge of validity. and then using our mind to condition us in certain behaviors and expectations that are literally resulting in some of our deaths.
how smart is that?
i would rather say i do not have an answer than make one up that is about prejudice and bigotry, reducing a group of people to a subservient role to make another gender feel better about themselves.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)nests while mating with the brightest colored males.
Humans, while still emotional beings, are way beyond that and to jump to conclusions based on correlations and false assumptions is wrong.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I don't like calling the human, instinctual brain "reptilian" because that label implies that our instinctual brains are "primitive" in some way. They are not. We have modern, advanced, fully-human instinctual brains that are every bit as important and powerful (if not moreso) than our rational brains (the cerebral cortexes of which we are so proud). There's nothing primitive about human instincts. Ignoring our instincts (or pretending that said instincts do not exist) cuts us off from great power that it would be better to acknowledge, appreciate, and use to our benefit.
-Laelth
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Cheers!
-Laelth
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Especially after spending hours shoveling misogynist bullshit at them and claiming it's science.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)harmony blue thought the mother of little girl horrid, that she dared made a stink and thought the girl ought to oblige the little boys, so as not to scare the boy. do you remember that thread? seeing a consistency here?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)but yeah, that would be consistent with this OP. Equally detestable.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)What bugs me most, here, is the common internet habit of ascribing motives to people with whom one disagrees. My "smile" in the above post was an attempt to say "I am smiling" and not a command to anyone, yet is was so easy and so natural for you to assume that I was ordering you to smile. It's hard to imagine that we can have a productive conversation when you are predisposed to ascribe the worst possible interpretation to anything I say.
But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and in the hope that you can see me (one day) as a decent, reasonable person with whom you could have a civil conversation, I am curious to know your opinion about the following:
I don't deny that education and condemnation are useful tools for shaping social norms and even government policy, but neither of those strategies will get more men to vote for Democrats. Too many men (and the women who love them) vote against their best interests, and that's what I am trying to change. That's also why I need different strategies than the ones you are comfortable with. Condemnation and education, from what I can tell, push many people into the waiting arms of organizations aligned with the Republican Party (i.e. the masculinist NRA and patriarchal fundamentalist Christianity). It's time for new strategies.
Do we need new strategies?
-Laelth
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Grammar is a thing. Your intention means nothing if what you write is not what you mean.
And also, I don't believe you did intend your direct command (which is what it literally and unquestionably is) as anything else. The arrogance and sexism of the habit some men have of saying "Smile!" to women has been discussed extensively. You're not fooling me.
Develop whatever strategies you want. I'm not interested in brainstorming with someone who has voiced the views you have.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)If you refuse to grant me the benefit of the doubt, and if you refuse to consider me as an ally, and if you insist on ascribing to me the worst possible motives, then I have no choice but to abandon all attempts to communicate with you.
I am saddened by your choice.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)We use our heads. It is entirely volitional. Well except in societies where people are forced into matches due to the society getting to choose. That is even less instinctive.
We can decide not to have sex at all. That right there shows it is entirely in our heads and volition.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I used the phrase "sexual choices" above. In other words, absent rape, I assume that our sexual choices are volitional, i.e. choices.
That said, I maintain that our instincts influence our choices (much more than many of us are willing to admit). Any dating site you might visit, or any night club you might visit, will feature abundant evidence of this fact.
-Laelth
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are all thinking and conscious. It's not some sort of instinct. People use their minds and know what they want.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I assume you are familiar with Pheromones. What are they for? Do they serve any purpose at all? Why do we still have them if they serve no purpose?
I remain committed to the proposition that our instincts (that part of our brains that is responsive to instinctual cues, like pheromones) are an essential part of being a human animal, and that we are very unwise to dismiss the role that our instincts play in our behavior.
-Laelth
treestar
(82,383 posts)One poster on this thread or another quoted the biological meanings and humans don't have instincts other than infant rooting and suckling. Instincts are things like the joey jumping into mother's pouch. The rest is reflexes - breathing, etc.
I think we can pretty much dismiss "instinct." It is all entirely socialization. What people value in picking mates has varied throughout societies.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)And, if they do exist, they serve no real or useful purpose.
Is that what you're arguing?
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)telling cause .... it makes sense to you. so we all must accept it as fact.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)You rightly note that I am invested. Frankly, I've been shocked by people claiming that instincts play no role in sexual selection. That's seems a rather indefensible claim to me, but I keep trying. If there is a solid defense for that claim that I haven't encountered yet, I need to hear it.
You mistake me if you think I am trying to "force" people to toe a party line of any kind, and I am not presenting myself clearly if that's how I am coming across, but this whole exercise has been quite useful to me. I hope others have found it useful as well.
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)put up with a man being disrespectful, let alone ugly to us, ... ya. we are not gonna buy it.
plus i have done a lotta lotta research on psycho evo the last 3, 4 yrs. i know it is bullshit.
it is the new, cultlike religion in the name of science for men.
i am not much in following cults.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The fundie will tell you if you are a feminist your argument is with God. He made women to serve men. If religion isn't persuasive, it becomes "science." Cause the arguer thinks there is no arguing with God/Science.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)absolutely. i know this cause there are a handful of men that do that regularly to me, here on du.
you are anti science?
you do not believe in evolution?
you are one of those?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Suckling and rooting - infants. That's it. There are some posts in the thread that describe the difference between instinct and reflex. We know what we are doing when we pick people who are sexually attractive.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am coming at this problem not as a scientist, but as ... something else. I have a specific, three-part brain frame from which I am working. It is not related to the model from which you are working.
-Laelth
treestar
(82,383 posts)force us to act in some way we would not have chosen to by volition. It put it in terms of "communication by smell." But it does not mean people do anything because of it. If some guy give me chills up my spine because he's so cool, that would be because I thought he was cool first.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it happen.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)today's equivelent is the obnoxious frat boy I guess? I don't see any young women trippping over themselves to get to the brutes.
I think if anyone claims "all women like" they are foolishly projecting.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)And it's not like there isn't a history of bigoted junk science to prop up stereotypes of other minorities.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)cheerleaders in HS, and a few dive biker bars I have never really seen this at work. Women seem to like a wide variety of men.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)genetically determined to have sex with.
And it's not like women don't get rejected either, even by bookish nerds who secretly think they deserve someone hotter.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it looked good to outsiders I think. I was young and testing the waters, finding out what I wanted. It was a bit of fun but in the end it sucked because he had no wit at all. He was not someone I could converse with. It didn't seem to matter to him, but it did to me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't get to complain about how awful that is.
And being the first one to show interest still gets you that "desperate" meme, because the thing is men want to get to pick. They don't want un-hot girls after them.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It's also quite sad, but, from my experience (and the experiences of a lot of other men) quite true. That said, it's probably not sad at all. It's probably quite wise and advanced (biologically speaking), as there's good evidence to suggest that the "vicious barbarian" has genetic code that is more likely to produce healthy, strong children.
Isn't that what we all want? I can't (and don't) blame women who act on their instincts. That's precisely how our species has advanced and came to dominate the planet. Hard for me to argue with that. Instead, my desire is to understand and theorize human mating behavior.
If we can do so successfully, my hope is that tragedies, like the one we're discussing now, can be avoided in the future.
-Laelth
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Men who think that are probably just looking for reasons why women aren't interested in them, and it's easier to blame external forces than to look inward.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... as we get older and wiser we tend to make better mating choices. That said, I will not pretend that our instincts are irrelevant to our mating behavior. I think it's important to consider how our instinctual brains work and how our instincts affect our actions.
To deny or ignore our instincts and emotions is to cut ourselves off from a large part of what it means to be human.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)"there's good evidence to suggest"
treestar
(82,383 posts)in their instincts. We like attractive people. Those are people who are good looking, well groomed and have nice personalities and good social presentation. I disagree with the ideas that there are completely separate criteria for each sex - that old fashioned idea that because we have the babies, we look for the good provider while all they care about is looks. And that it is totally out of their control and they can't help but objectify us on looks.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Evo psych is such bullshit.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)My God read what you're writing. The shooter doesn't have a point. He doesn't deserve anyone. Women get to choose to have sex with whomever they want, and not have sex with whomever they don't want.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I didn't condone squat. I just want to understand, and so does the author of the OP.
I never used the word "deserve." I stated quite clearly that women are sexual selectors. You appear to be angry about my desire to understand this young (now dead) man. That's far more disturbing than anything I wrote.
-Laelth
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and killed people because women weren't attracted to him.
It isn't that hard to understand.
Maybe if people stopped feeding this asinine assumption that women only date jerks and the good guys are getting tossed to the side and women are stupid and make bad dating choices and should date these entitled asses who consider themselves to be "nice guys" instead, psychopath entitled brats would stop blaming women and shooting them when they can't get laid.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)little girl and he was pissed at the girl and the mom, saying the little boy should have been allowed, regardless of keeping her "corralled" from her friends cause he was just being a boy? i had totaly forgotten about that.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but I do not think we mimic our ape or chimp cousins when it comes to such dynamics. I would argue that is why the Neanderthals went extinct and why we as homo sapiens continued. We as a homo sapiens have always been a cooperative species and the role of a dominant male isn't necessary like it is for apes for example. Thus, a a community support of looking out for another enables better protection than having an alpha male. But a dominant alpha male isn't also necessary to procure resources as we all know female lions do the hunting for example. Too complex to discuss dimorphism and what role that plays as well but basically it is something most people are not used to discussing.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I think we err when we pretend we are not.
Personally, I just want to understand people, and that means being very honest (often uncomfortably so) about who and what we are. We are undoubtedly a social species, and we have survived well, as such, but that has very little to do with our sexual selection habits. The people we mate with are seldom the people we decide to create a social structure with. A given individual may have sexual relations with many people, but seldom does that lead to anything resembling a permanent, social bond.
-Laelth
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)to insect families since that are so many of us on this planet. If we are no longer the apex species maybe we mimic our cousins like apes or chimps but that would require a large period of time and aggregated isolation for that to happen IMO.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It's hard for me to believe that our mating habits are closer to those of ants than to apes.
-Laelth
ancianita
(36,060 posts)of the male gender construct. It was debunked. Let's not go down this path, okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i was. i havent been on at all. can you do me a huge favor? can you send me the title to the book, ... men talk, or whatever, thru pm. so i will haev it, and remember to go buy it. sorry to be a pain.
ancianita
(36,060 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)I find that critique lacking because no sociobiologist that I have read believes that our instincts are completely deterministic, especially when we're talking about mating choices. People are shaped by their environment, and an innumerable number of variables affect human mating behavior. That said, on the aggregate, taking into consideration the unique choices of many people, we can see trends that are enlightening and suggest that our biology certainly influences our choices. To the extent that sociobiology explains why people make certain choices, I find it useful, and I am skeptical of claims that sociobiology has been "debunked."
This is just an example that I find useful:
http://www.livescience.com/9487-women-pick-mates-flings.html
ymmv.
-Laelth
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)You seem to have a fundamental lack of familiarity with basic biology.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... please direct them to someone else. I am, truly, not interested in that distinction, and I don't see how it's useful.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)vs Fatal Attraction to determine which movie best represented human behavior and interaction. Fatal Attraction ended up "winning" the debate with a large margin of science majors.
"Humans" are pretty complicated.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)"We are undoubtedly a social species, and we have survived well, as such, but that has very little to do with our sexual selection habits. "
"The people we mate with are seldom the people we decide to create a social structure with."
Are you seriously saying people do not "mate" with friends and that who we socialize with, how we socialize, being social beings has little to do with who we have sex with?
Humans have random sex, but seldom does it create a permanent social bond?
SERIOUSLY?
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)You seem to be talking about evolutionary psychology, which is a nearly completely debunked (it still has adherents) pseudoscience.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)and just because psychology is a soft science (eg not a traditional science) doesn't make it invalid. Dimorphism for example has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology and everything to do with physical morphology.
There is a bias to look down upon soft sciences but that would be foolish of us to do so IMO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)Black holey-moley!
I guess I should teach my daughters that they should fuck some creepy loser so he doesn't shoot up the town square.
"Do it for the community".
Skittles
(153,164 posts)unfortunately, they are a dime a dozen
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I suspect, however, that choosing a mate based upon instinctual signals is more likely to produce strong, healthy children than choosing a mate based upon rational, social signals (manners, education, economic potential, compatibility, etc.)
-Laelth
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)is for animals, not people -- The human animal is a LITTLE more complicated.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)if one wants to look at the psychological perspective. not from hundreds of thousands of years ago.
a boy looks to a woman like his mom. a girl looks to a man like her father. that is just one reason parenting is so important. and when a boy or girl learns negative aspects in this, it behooves them to be aware when it comes to picking out a partner.
Healthy children is a physical thing. Part genetics, part actions of the parents.
Some people had their mates chosen for them and mankind kept reproducing.
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)Ick
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I find sociobiology to be exceedingly useful in describing human, sexual behavior.
ymmv.
-Laelth
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)with all this "attracted to barbarians" bullshit.
And who, exactly, are you characterizing as "barbarians" anyway? Are we talking Visigoths here, or just plain Goths?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I used the admittedly hyperbolic term "vicious barbarian" to refer to men with higher-than-average levels of testosterone.
I hear your objection to stereotyping. The danger of stereotyping is that some individuals who are members of the stereotyped group will be exceptions to the stereotype, and, if the stereotype is damaging in some way, that those individuals will be unfairly punished for a stereotype that does not apply to those individuals at all. I understand that.
But, in the current context, I see no other way to understand this issue without some very broad conceptual frames. I am, after all, talking about men and women (and each of those fluid categories contains over 3.5 billion individuals). There are bound to be some exceptions, but that does not mean that we should abandon our search for patterns that might shed some light on this absolutely important (perhaps crucial) sociobiological construct that we call sex/gender.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)That was sarcasm. Some women are attracted to the "bad guy" but to say "It's not like the shooter didn't have a point about womens' seemingly-natural sexual selection tendencies" goes way too far.
I would like to see any scientific proof behind what you write here as "fact".
Laelth
(32,017 posts)There's a lot more out there along these lines. I can't help but believe that human sexual behavior is influenced by our genetics. We do ourselves a disservice, I think, when we ignore and dismiss the instincts that our animal species has developed over millions of years.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)The article seems to say the women in the study prejudged the men based on some physical characteristics. Their conclusions however seem based on making a lot of assumptions.
Is testosterone actually higher in men judged more attractive for a fling or was that an assumption based on "The key, he said, is testosterone, the hormone responsible for development of masculine facial features and other secondary sexual characteristics"? Causation, correlation or simply 2 facts put together (testosterone is responsible for male secondary sexual characteristics/development + some males judged sexier)?
How much of what the women in the study chose was societal vs genetic?
"Increased testosterone has also been linked to male cheating and violence in relationships", but is that correlation or causation? Because those most likely to cheat/be violent have higher testosterone, does that mean having higher testosterone leads to that?
Lots of interesting questions to come out of this.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I have no answers. I'm an attorney, not a sociobiologist, but I argue that these issues are worthy of our consideration.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Those were the points I was trying to make, not "grant that sociobiology is relevant". As one educated and employed in biology and sociology/humanity fields, taking a couple facts and put them together in a search for relevancy in no way imparts any sort of accuracy.
People prejudge each other based in a huge part on what society they were raised in, live in.
Testosterone is responsible for secondary sexual characteristics, male based.
To put those 2 together and conclude women are attracted to men with higher testosterone is very inaccurate.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Conclusions based on false assumptions are not real.
Humans are biological beings. Humans have hormones. Humans are very capable in a large part on deciding whether or not to act on their impulses.
OR: maybe women didn't give the guy the time of day because he (HELLO) came off as a serious CREEP
Laelth
(32,017 posts)This guy was seriously disturbed, but he's not the only guy to have ever had those kinds of feelings (wondering why the more desirable women chose others over him). I think it useful to explore this issue. I think it very unwise to dismiss these kinds of feelings because doing so can lead to tragedy. Apparently, this spoiled, rotten brat had therapists treating him, but even they could not hear his complaints, nor could they treat him successfully. I'd like to avoid similar tragedies in the future.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
Number23
(24,544 posts)What century do you think this is? What PLANET do you think this is?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)If you have a better explanation for the mating habits of humans, I'd love to hear it. Your knee-jerk condemnation does little to advance this discussion.
-Laelth
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)than women choosing "vicious barbarians" because of high testosterone, you'd love to hear it?
Okay, how about people choose mates based on similar interests, goals, shared social assumptions and concerns, similar sense of humor, complementary traits, physical compatibility....
I have never, EVER had a female friend tell me, "Yeah, I married him because he's such a vicious barbarian."
Jezuz H. Christ on a cracker!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... as we get older and wiser we make better mating decisions. All the same, I refuse to concede that our instincts play no role in our mating behaviors.
I would also note that choosing a sex partner and choosing a long-term mate are remarkably different kinds of choices. Studies have shown this to be true. That, in fact, is the point I was making. We are instinctually driven to choose sex partners that often do not make good mates.
http://www.livescience.com/9487-women-pick-mates-flings.html
-Laelth
Number23
(24,544 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)I feel I just stepped into an earlier century
fishwax
(29,149 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Which are all about men telling other men that what women really want is a barbarian who keeps his car nice and shiny. Words of advice to those suffering from barbarian envy: turn off the TV. It isn't real.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But you might want to take a look at this article:
http://www.livescience.com/9487-women-pick-mates-flings.html
I remain of the opinion that our genetics highly influence our mating choices.
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)included him in the hot male, woman gotta have, scenario.
what bullshit is that, lol
clooney is suppose to be all that. they use clooney, and the high testosterone theory for women being after clooney. he would fit the second catagory. but it did not fit the story they tell.
fug
lmao
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but, they have to use clooney in the article. so they use "smouldering eyes", which has nothing to do with the stupid ass study, in order to make clooney fit with pit (strong jaw). there is nothing "alpha" about clooney. but, they have to make him work in the scenario cause he is the "hot guy" of today.
clooney is a totally out there draw for the article. that is why so often all this evo babble is clear bullshit. they have no structures or guide lines. the have a story line and they make their story telling follow the line they want to conclude with.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Well, if this science doesn't suit you (or your own narrative), feel free to dismiss it.
http://www.livescience.com/9487-women-pick-mates-flings.html
Ultimately, that's what I was arguing. Either way, I appreciate your engaging me on this topic.
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)science.
Yes. Here are what I see as a few of the major problems currently faced by evolutionary psychology:
1. Evolutionary psychology is attempting to elucidate the functional organization of the brain even though researchers currently cannot, with very few exceptions, directly study complex neural circuits. This is like attempting to discover the functions of the lungs, heart, etc., without being able to conduct dissections. Although psychological evidence indisputably reveals that cognition has structure, it is less clear that it does so with sufficient resolution to provide convincing evidence of functional design. Can the current state of the art in cognitive psychology successfully cleave human nature at its joints? Maybe, maybe not. Despite these reservations, it is worth noting that virtually every research university in the world has a psychology department. Grounding psychology in an explicit framework of evolved function cannot help but improve attempts to unveil the workings of the brain. It is far easier to find something if you have some idea of what it is you are looking for.
2. The domains of cognition proposed by evolutionary psychologists are often pretty ad hoc. Traditionally, cognitive psychologists have assumed that cognitive abilities are relatively abstract: categorization, signal detection, recognition, memory, logic, inference, etc. Evolutionary psychology proposes a radically orthogonal set of 'ecologically valid' domains and reasoning abilities: predator detection, toxin avoidance, incest avoidance, mate selection, mating strategies, social exchange, and so on. These latter domains and abilities are derived largely from behavioral ecology. Although mate selection surely involves computations that are fundamentally different from predator detection, it is not so clear that the organization of the brain just happens to match the theoretical divisions of behavioral ecology. The concept of 'object' is obviously quite abstract, yet it is equally obvious that it is an essential concept for reasoning about mates, predators, kin, etc. The same goes for other 'abstract' abilities like categorization and signal detection. Ecologically valid reasoning about domains such as kinship may require cognitive abilities organized at higher levels of abstraction like 'recognition.' On the other hand, numerous experiments show that reasoning can be greatly facilitated when problems are stated in ecologically valid terms. Negating if-p-then-q statements becomes transparently easy when the content of such statements involves social exchange, for example. The theoretical integration of more abstract, informationally valid domains with less abstract, ecologically valid domains remains a central problem for evolutionary psychology.
3. Evolutionary psychology (and adaptationism in general) has devoted considerable theoretical attention to the issue of design, the first link in the causal chain leading from phenotype structure to reproductive outcome, but has lumped every other link into the category 'reproductive problem.' This failure to theorize about successive links can lead to spectacular failures of the 'design' approach. Three examples: 1) evidence of design clearly identifies bipedalism as an adaptation, but what 'problem' it solved is not at all obvious, nor does the 'evidence of design' philosophy provide much guidance (though more detailed functional analyses of bipedalism are further constraining the set of possible solutions). 2) Language shows clear evidence of design, and there are several plausible reproductive advantages to having language, so why don't many other animals have language? 3) It can be very difficult to determine whether simple traits are adaptations simply because there is insufficient evidence of design. Menopause may be an adaptation, but it has too few 'features' to say based on evidence of design alone (some 'features' of menopause, like bone loss, seem to indicate that it is not an adaptation). Very simple traits will not always yield to a 'design analysis,' simply because there isn't enough to grab onto.
4. Evolutionary psychology is founded on a model of ancestral human reproductive ecology (the EEA), yet the current version of this model is woefully out of date. Life history theory, the sub-discipline of biology devoted to understanding the fundamental aspects of the reproductive ecologies of plant and animals, has made enormous strides in the last decade or so. Little of this work has entered the 'mainstream' of human evolutionary psychology. Part of the problem is that the units of analysis for life history theorists (e.g., body size, mortality rates, taxonomic categories) are quite different than those used by adaptationists (e.g., strategies, design elements). Yet life history arguments are central to much work in evolutionary psychology (e.g., parental investment). Evolutionary psychologists need to get up to speed on the current state of the art in life history theory.
Hunter-gatherer theory is a related issue. Evolutionary psychology uses an odd mix of Kalahari and tropical Amazonian ethnography for its basic model of the EEA. Although much (if not most) work by evolutionary psychologists relies on indisputable features of the EEA such as women got pregnant and men didn't, it is time for evolutionary psychology to start talking more seriously with archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. We know a lot more about the past than we did even 10 years ago, and some of what we thought we knew has now been called into question.
5. Convergent evolution vs. phylogenetic inertia. In contrast to early approaches to the evolution of human behavior that emphasized chimp or gorilla models, evolutionary psychology relies heavily on convergent evolution type arguments. The emphasis is on functional design, with little attention paid to traits derived by descent from recent and not-so-recent ancestors. Birds are as likely to be used as models as are baboons or bonobos. Functional arguments also typically pay little attention to phylogenetic constraints. Although it is not exactly clear what kinds of constraints human ancestry might place on human cognition, it surely places some. A synthesis of primate cognitive ethology and human evolutionary psychology that takes into account both the convergent evolution of similar psychologies in response to similar ecological problems, as well as phylogenetic history, has significant potential (as most primatologists would argue, I think).
6. Finally, even the best work in evolutionary psychology remains incomplete. Two examples: 1) evolutionary psychologists have made several predictions about mate preferences, and these predictions have been verified in a broad range of cross-cultural contexts. However, the empirical data have not been subjected to many alternative interpretations. It is possible that they can be accounted for by other theories, and it will be difficult to be fully convinced that the evolutionary interpretation is correct until it withstands challenges from competing paradigms. The record on this account, however, is quite good so far. Competing theories such as the "social role", "structural powerlessness" and "economic inequality of the sexes" hypotheses have been tested in a number of studies and have received little, if any, support. 2) The cheater detection hypothesis, on the other hand, has withstood a blizzard of competing hypotheses, but it has been confirmed in only a very limited number of cross-cultural contexts: Europe, and one Amazonian group. Adaptations must be universal, and the variation seen in even the limited cross-cultural cheater detection studies suggests that further studies are warranted.
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/problems.html
here is some real academics.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Squinch
(50,954 posts)Armor All!
Thank you! I needed that!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)... on this point, I want to chime in. I never accused women of being "bad people." If you look again, you'll see that I was trying to show sympathy for women who are trapped between instincts that say "choose the vicious barbarian" and rational thought which says "choose a guy that will be a good provider and will be kind, loving, and civilized." That, in my experience, is what women face, and it sucks.
The murderer, in the case we're discussing, tried to be the good provider, loving, and civilized, but he still couldn't attract any women. He was pissed off about that, and the results were tragic.
Regardless, I think we're all better off when we try to understand human sexuality and gender roles. And, if you don't want to understand those things, you're not a bad person, but you're not helping us either.
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The murderer, in the case we're discussing, tried to be the good provider, loving, and civilized, but he still couldn't attract any women. He was pissed off about that, and the results were tragic.
The excuse of every male domestic abuser forever.
He was pissed that *hot* women were not attracted to him. Read his "manifesto". He also tore his room apart with a wooden sword because he didn't win a lottery, like the overgrown and selfish man-baby that he was.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Now, what are we going to do about it? Quite obviously, ignoring and dismissing these kinds of feelings will not make them go away.
Do you have a plan?
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)So I'm way ahead.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)And, this is not a game. I am not trying to win. I am trying to understand.
Peace.
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)If you were seeking understanding, you'd be absorbing the information you've been given.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am stricken with a bad case of what I call "John Denver Disease." In one of his songs, Poems, Prayers, and Promises, he says, "I can't help believing in my own mind, I know I'm gonna hate to see it end."
My mind tells me that what I have expressed in this thread is true and important. I have gotten a lot of negative responses, sure, but I felt compelled to say what I had to say, regardless. I seek understanding of sexual/gender dynamics among humans becuase I believe those topics to be the most important things that we consider and discuss.
Thank you for engaging me on these topics.
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)There are plenty of articles refuting the kind of biological determinism you deem to be true and important. You know science used to believe that blacks had different brains than whites, right? We don't still cling to that to try to "prove" why there is racism.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/06/sex_differences_in_mate_preferences_equality_of_society_influences_what_qualities_you_want_in_a_partner_.html
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I insist that sociobiology is not deterministic. For each and every individual, sexual choices are far too complicated for us to truly understand and scientifically theorize, but, in the aggregate we can see trends that are informative and useful, and I refuse to believe that instincts play no role in our sexual behavior.
For what that's worth ...
-Laelth
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)If you disagree, we shall have to agree to disagree.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)You are "trying to understand" yet "My mind tells me that what I have expressed in this thread is true and important."
False assumptions based on correlations are not "true".
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I note, however, that you don't seem very inclined to really hear what I have to say, either. Judge me, yes. Condemn me, yes. Correct me, yes. But really hear me and listen to me? Not so much.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Pulling back on generalizations about women and what they want - especially the ones from cave man days.
The more men think of women as other people rather than produce to be picked over to use for sex, the better.
Feminism is the plan. Getting women to a point where they are really equal.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)some women were attracted to him? Maybe he was mentally ill and could not understand how people relate?
He "tried to be the good provider, loving, and civilized"? Oh bull.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Do you disagree? There's a lot of evidence suggesting that women are more attracted to high-testosterone males for mating purposes. My assumption is that there must be a good reason for this. I assume that our highly-developed genetic codes actually influence our mating choices.
Do you think that's not true?
-Laelth
fishwax
(29,149 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)you either do not understand the English language or biology, or both.
Males with higher levels of testosterone have a less-effective immune response, not a greater one.
What you surmise is pure nonsense and conjecture on your part, based upon a faulty understanding of biology.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)My understanding is that testosterone in an immuno-suppressant, and that males with high testosterone must have a strong immune system--otherwise they would not have survived into adulthood. As such, women are inclined to choose mates with high testosterone (in order to pass on to their children a superior immune system). Am I missing something here? If so, I would love to hear what you have to say.
-Laelth
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Superior is higher, greater, better.
Suppressed is lower, lesser, not as good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression
Men with higher testosterone have a weaker, less active, immune system.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)crickets
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Higher testosterone means a weaker immune system, not a strong one.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to be the support for the old fashioned system of male dominance. They think that can't be argued with. Men are dominant due to science, so feminists are messing things up on the biological level.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)I figured this'd get ignored.
Logic-free evo psych nonsense strikes again :ROFL:
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Superior is higher, greater, better.
Suppressed is lower, lesser, not as good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression
Men with higher testosterone have a weaker, less active, immune system.
Hence, women would be driven to AVOID a man whose immune system is weak, those with higher testosterone.
dawg
(10,624 posts)But that doesn't make me a vicious barbarian. Nor does it make me a magnet for the ladies.
(It makes me a guy who drives aggressively, could use a little manscaping, and is allergic to everything.)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Cute.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Oh but if you read a few posts, it becomes clear that if a woman would have just given him sex, everything would be OK. He only did this because he was rejected, and women make bad dating choices, right?
/sarcasm
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Honest to goddess it's surreal. After all that HE did, it's still women's fault. I mean, just
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and then get at least one supporter. I knew about the other anti-HOF crew and it's SOP for them. These two are new ones, at least to my memory.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Though given the track record of several contributors here, it sadly does not surprise me -- just explains a lot.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)kill women as well? It's just. not. that. simple.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)why are intimate partners the leading murderers of women?
I know, I know, some in this thread would say the men kill women that break up with them and thus deprive them of sex, which is true. And in the same breath, they will be saying women hate men and think all men are rapists because they take precautions against unknown men - the same posters who do not care that most women have a 'in case I am murdered' note/text when they go on dates, and have no interest in changing this culture where women have to contemplate their own murder before they go on a date.
"Men are worried women will laugh at them, women are worried men will kill them."
To paraphrase the OP, if only this killer had gotten laid, he wouldn't have killed, and who cares what the women want. Well, I would say to the OP, encourage these "men" to have sex with each other, if they are so desperate, and leave women out of it.
This thread is so vile I have no words for it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)about themselves.
as if women go around with chip cause they do not get the hot man. how often do you hear women whining about not getting the hot guy
sexually frustrated? only men get sexually frustrated.
firstly... maybe men ought to get educated and wake up to the fact sex is not ALL about them. we have so idolized male sexuality to the point, that it is only about men.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)PassingFair
(22,434 posts)He was never ACTUALLY rejected for sex, because he never, ever asked a girl out.
He was helpless.
Girls were supposed to be aware of his magnificence and come to HIM.
And they didn't.
His fragile ego could NEVER have taken an actual rejection.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)central argument. It's entirely possible he was taught properly and chose to be a murdering misogynist bastard all on his own. In fact, regardless of what he was or was not taught he is solely responsible for his actions, barring an outright psycho-physiological condition.
However, I'm pretty sure you aren't attempting to justify his actions anymore than a criminal personality profiler/psychiatric pathologist seeks to justify the acts of the personalities they study. The scourging you have received was unfair and a gross mischaracterization of your comments.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but he did leave a lot of evidence (eg video) to suggest that these ideas he had were really messed up.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)and yet on several occasions here you have insisted he had no "male role models" to "educate" him and thus he was "lied to" and led astray, etc.
I've asked you several times now how you could possibly know whether or not he had male role models. Are you a friend of the family? Did you know this guy personally? No answer.
But here you say "we don't know what his upbringing was like."
So basically you pulled your entire OP out of your ass?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I am wondering if they will come explain how that could be.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)But you make a lucid and well fleshed out argument.
You not deserve the abusive comments you have been receiving here.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)if they feel it is part of the subject matter. Opinions are subjective which is why no one is truly wrong in voicing differing perspectives.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)it somewhat misguided. As a guy around your age - well, ~2 years younger - I've certainly experienced my share of sexual frustration and then some. But I think it potentially dangerous to try and rationalize, in any way whatsoever, the motives of a woman-hating psycho. Treating him as any sort of victim, or sympathetic figure - even unintentionally - merely encourages his form of pathology.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Not to mention implicitly identifying or sympathizing with a hateful psychopath, which is obviously problematic in itself.
No one acted as if Adam Lanza had any legitimate grievance. Nor should anyone do so here.
ancianita
(36,060 posts)Squinch
(50,954 posts)were some kind of deep, complex, sensitive reaction to the evils of the word around him.
What complete idiocy.
This is nothing more than the spoiled brat, entitled man-child taken to an extreme. He's a monster, and a psychopath, but he's not complicated.
You are absolutely right. We understand just fine. We just aren't about to empathize, which is what I think is being required here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)level of extreme. but the privilege and entitlement is still there.
men that actually were appalled by the speech. what did they conclude? that the guy should have held a gun to those hot blonde sorority girls and rape them instead of murdering people
Squinch
(50,954 posts)is large enough that one in four or five women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)boys. they are conditioned. and until we are honest about that. and we all look at the issue of entitlement that we are all conditioned to, about male sex, all awesome male sex, male sexuality the very definition of men.... then we will not really be addressing the issue.
and i am not dissing men. i think it takes an honest man to recognize, admit the conditioning they are afforded with their sexuality, as opposed to women.
(watching tremors while talking, and not editing, or re reading. nto in the mood, lol. hope it is clear)
Squinch
(50,954 posts)catch myself having those responses that accept male entitlement.
But there are some who, as you say, will take that idea to the felonious extreme. And there are plenty of them out there.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Or attention from anyone.
It is not their due for simply being alive or whatever it is they seem to think. These women that they deign to talk to do not owe them anything nor are they responsible for their pathology. Not one bit. Now I don't know where they get this idea, but it is incredibly common in society at large.
MRA's and pickup artists seem to think that they are owed sex and female attention. On the contrary, these guys are misogynistic pigs and should be rejected wholeheartedly by anyone with any sense of self-worth. They don't seem to get that the reason they are rejected is because there is something wrong with them and these women can sense it. Instead of lashing out, they need to closely examine their behavior and learn from their mistakes, the way everyone else does.
I do get what you are saying; that they lack good examples and clearly someone is teaching them that this is okay. The problem is our society is geared towards enabling this kind of behavior, not preventing it. If you were to do a survey among young women, I bet you would find that most of them have had to deal with a creepy guy who won't take no for an answer, at the very least, and sometimes worse than that.
ancianita
(36,060 posts)That this guy -- or any boys and men -- are explicitly "taught" at home is a big fallacy.
As you say, "society is geared towards enabling this ..."
Social constructs -- of aggression, not taking no for an answer, objectification, projection -- are watched, copied, learned and practiced.
They override so much parenting influence these days that to blame young men's decisions on parental influence after leaving home, where a throwing off parental teaching begins in high school, is doubtful at best, and to me, amusing.
So I agree with where you're headed and just want to emphasize that underrated point.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)du....
Skittles
(153,164 posts)OTHERWISE THEY ARE INVISIBLE!!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and yet, men do not see the problem reinforcing these stereotypes to appease their egos cause of their inability to have the hot girl.
truly amazing we can look at a hate filled murderer and have a like conversation of the same shit....
right here on good ole du.
ya. another thread. another man. suggesting with the dudes money, money money, he surely could have gotten the hot girls so he must be gay.
you know. girls see that money, and they are all there.
so what if the guy is a creep.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)killed her kids recently. I find it appalling in both cases to attempt to have any sympathy or "understanding" for these scum buckets.
You might as well ask me to have sympathy for Ted Bundy. Ain't gonna happen.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)You said:
"We teach young men all the wrong lessons in our society. "
OK, that part can be agreed on.
More specifically, young straight men have approached me many times asking me as to why do young women like bad boys versus "gentlemen" for example?
The shark is about to be jumped. Define gentlemen, please? Is a person that believes his wife should follow his orders a gentlemen? That she should livve her life in subordination to his, as opposed to partnership with his? Can bad Boys also be blamed, or is iot all the woman's fault?
"I try to explain to these young men that young woman in their 20's have not yet cultivated healthy boundaries yet for relationship dynamics."
Asopposed to young males that have?
"I try to rationally explain to them why do you want validation from a woman that: 1. Do not make you a priority 2. If you were to hypothetically have a child with this woman resentment would be stronger because she would strongly feel she is wasting her time with you 3. Time is a valuable resource for any human being and move on as there are other woman that do make you a priority but you must be open minded in seeking such awesome people 4. If she is making bad decisions in her life why would you want to make your life more stressful? "
Lets take this down
1) Is the male willing to make her a priority, and not just in the ways that will get him laid? A partner has needs.
2) Why should be assume he needs a/is owed a child. Furthermore, how does the girl know YOU will make a good father, as , to be blunt, many more males abaondon families than women do. She knows she will have to risk being another single mom whose father will NOT help.
3) Yes, time is a valuable resources, especially for women who will not be able to start families in their sixties.
4) Bad decisions, maybe they see the man is making some and do not want to waste time.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)" But the biggest reason why women approach me now is that i am mature and financially secure "
Oh GOD.
Look, I am Male, and like many other males, I get confused as well. But using your wallet as an aphrodesiac is pathethic.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)And my mind is going in 50 different directions - but I read that sentence in the op and was like - What? Justanothergen "heart space" is very different than "political". I've also made some very good side money ghost writing in the Relationship/Dating area. That's not the way it works. It's just - no. No, no, no.
Even Leonardo Dicaprio has to "lunge" at his models and it was all over the tabloids last year that at Cannes he got butt hurt rejection from Cara Delevigne.
cali
(114,904 posts)literal way. What you say may be true, but he was a person with NO conscience and NO empathy.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that was clearly as detached from reality as this guy was is pointless.
I have no idea what would have helped to make him an adjusted member of society, but clearly, none of us on a message board will be able to say what that is, in any case.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)None of this would have happened if he was just listened to.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Squinch
(50,954 posts)hurt you, but put that all aside and do it for SOCIETY!" sex.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)but you need to overlook that and realize just how majestic and great I am."
That guy had an OCEAN of psychological issues. The damn shame is that the 13 people that he murdered or injured and their families, and his own, will have to put the pieces back together after this cataclysm.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)he just didn't have a killer immune system.
Aristus
(66,380 posts)n/t
Solly Mack
(90,769 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)teachers for not being "proper role model"s?
I very much disagree with that assessment. He was mentally ill for sure. Did you read his diary that's been posted? Blame his father for not teaching him to not view women as sluts?
What?
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)Are you saying that only in the Eastern world do "we" fully understand "male suffering"? ... or, maybe you're contrasting the "Western world" with... the "Southern world"?
And... what the hells does that even mean?... You sound sound like some sort of bizarre OSHO parrot, trying to make dysfunction and murderous mayhem out to be a shortcoming of the understanding of the "Western world"...
While setting yourself up as some sort of voice of (judgemental) wisdom, and in so doing you seem to be trying to legitimize the sentiment, while broadbrush painting it as a shortcoming of the "Western world"... when it's not compass headings, but man-wisdom, such as that you seem inclined to provide, that really seems to be the culprit in this case...
Skittles
(153,164 posts)I feel sorry for the women you date
Number23
(24,544 posts)suddenly trying to wax poetic and profound. One was on homophobia and now this one on sexism. You guys need to give it a rest.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Just when you think it can't get any crazier than the OP, the freaking RESPONSES park the bus in Crazy Town and stay for the freaking weekend!
Good Lord this place...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this place
yup
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Misogynists are very often racists.
kysrsoze
(6,021 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)thucythucy
(8,067 posts)and I guess, crazy and disturbing as this OP is, this is as good a time as any.
Bravenak, I hugely admire the way you are able a) to recognize racist BS b) are able to respond to it with devastating succinctness and c) continue to demonstrate enormous patience as you try to spread a little enlightenment among these benighted threads.
Every time I see you in a thread you're saying something truthful and important, often in response to something bigoted and just plain weird (current example being a case in point).
And yeah, I'll no doubt be alerted on for this, but it's worth it.
Best wishes.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I truly believe that some people do not know how they sound when they say 'stuff'.
It's like having a booger in your nose and nobody tells you.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm feeling the love today!!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You're awesome and people like you are why I can't shake this place.
Thanks!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You've been handling business today. It has been very interesting around here for the past couple of days.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)for being hostile to women and poc that are trying to wax poetic on social issues. They need to stop. Yesterday.
kysrsoze
(6,021 posts)... and nothing in the way of facts. What is with the rash of this shit? His manifesto is out for all to read. He most certainly had parents who were concerned for him, and they ended up calling the police because they thought he was a danger. They knew full well he was a functional Asperger's Syndrome sufferer.
I'm really sick of seeing this rash of people jumping to their own conclusions and giving murderers a pass, based on "male suffering" or some other inane crap. A lot of us males got rejected multiple times, and we didn't go shoot up random people as a result. He was sick in the head, sot some poor male victim.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)it is indeed pathetic
kysrsoze
(6,021 posts)I just shake my head at all the excuses and facilitation going on these days, for murderers. This kind of stuff is fodder to make us lefties look like lunatics.
RandySF
(58,884 posts)If it wasn't rejection by women, something else would have set him off.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Remember Scott Peterson? He slaughtered his pregnant wife and dumped her in the bay, was convicted, and he got hundreds and hundreds of love letters in prison.
Now, women are free to choice whoever they want to be with. Im not going to stop them. But in my opinion, many women do make some very poor choices in who they choose as their mates.
Why a serial killer or someone who kills their pregnant wife is seen as attractive to some women is beyond my understanding. There is an attraction to "bad boys." I know feminists want to say that's not true... but go ask any prison guard that works the mail room of a men's prison.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)most often david? doesnt that make so much more sense than to suggest really... women as a whole like to be treated poorly.
and there you go
your ego feel better saying women just innately like being treated like shit and why the "nice" guys have to resort to murder?
point?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I imagine much the same thing, myself. To be blunt, I doubt the kind of woman who would write love letters to a serial killer is worth anybody's trouble.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)to people with healthy boundaries. they may be interesting or even amusing to watch, but not so much to have under your own roof.
raccoon
(31,111 posts)and it is so true.
polly7
(20,582 posts)people (scum) have probably lived lives never knowing what healthy treatment feels like, possibly, from never having positive family influence, or relationships free of abuse. I have a friend who, when we go out, seems to be able to sniff out the baddest of the bad - they're sometimes fun to party with for a few hours,..... but she ends up in the worst relationships because of it. Over and over. I told her I was going to kidnap her and take her to some sort of emotional rehab place on an island somewhere.
Teen girls may be attracted to the bad boys (that was me!) for all sorts of reasons, but I think any grown woman who feels validated in this kind of 'relationship' most likely has self-esteem and abuse issues.
And ....... I don't think these women are 'trash'.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)their mates."
Really? Is that limited to women? Men never make foolish decisions in who they choose as a mate? It's all just the women rejecting the nice guys, is it?
I hate to break it to you, but women in prison are pretty popular with the guys, too.
"I know feminists want to say that's not true..." No feminists DON'T want to say that's not true. Feminists and EVERYONE else know that a lot of people make bad choices about who they choose as a mate. Men do and women do.
What feminists are saying is not true is the idea that those bad choices are biologically determined. They are not. They are determined by stupidity. Men make stupid decisions and so do women.
Really, you need to stop with the nonsense about, "Nice guys just can't catch a break because the women won't pick them." If you see someone telling himself that he can't get a date because he is a nice guy, you can pretty much bet on the fact that he isn't nice at all, that he's probably put-upon and resentful and nasty.
DFW
(54,399 posts)I don't know where the backup for that statement came, but things back in the USA must have drastically changed in the last few years if that's the case.
"MOST parents?" As in a majority? I'd like to know from where the research for THAT statistic came.
My wife and I had our children outside the USA, but since they are American citizens, then that would put us in the minority if the premise is correct, which I doubt.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Thanks for pointing out that quote it stunned me as well.
DFW
(54,399 posts)It's a pretty bold statement to make without saying on what it was based. It's like saying, "most gas station robberies stem from a Robin Hood mentality of benevolence," but having nothing to back it up.
randome
(34,845 posts)But that statement seems true to me. There is no reason to have children on a planet whose resources are stretched to the breaking limit.
I have 2 daughters who adore me as much as I adore them. But I would have to say that my ex and I went through the pregnancy for no other reason than that it seemed like the thing to do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
seaglass
(8,171 posts)evidence to support the OPs statement that this is the reason the majority of people have children.
DFW
(54,399 posts)We always wanted two children. It took us long enough to get started--our first wasn't born until 9 years after we met. But we did want a family from the beginning, and so we had one. Our two girls are now out in the world, one 29 and the other 31, in decent jobs, earning their own way, going their own way (one here in Europe, one back in the USA), as it should be.
It must look different if you have/are an ex, I guess. I couldn't say, and after about 40 years together, we're not about to find out--we hope, anyway!
12kbush
(49 posts)Sorry But I refuse to play PHD With this rich white guy, at least he`s not MUSLIM so the republicans & conservatives cant jump on that OR a black guy wearing a hoodie because they never would have sold him a pack of crewing gum In Any Of Those Gun Shops..
Squinch
(50,954 posts)He's none of those things. He's a white boy who hates women, so now we are being told that we need to listen to him, and try to understand him.
Best, most succinct rebuttal of this crap yet.
Welcome to DU! Glad you're here!
boston bean
(36,221 posts)It was all the fault of women and society that teaches women to not give sex to guys like him. Good job in bringing that sick thinking here.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)- makes me sick
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)We need to just understand him more so women will give guys like him sex, right? Women need to stop being attracted to barbaric brutes. Women should make sure they're available for all men! Our bodily autonomy and right to choose whomever the hell we want is not as important as keeping men from being sexually frustrated. And if he only wanted "hot babes" then one should have made herself available! This whole tragedy could have been avoided if women just understood that and dealt with it!
/sarcasm
I can't believe this crap that's being peddled here.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)The young male in the western world does face a trying & difficult growth these days. Many here are happy to dismiss that because, ya know...they're males. But this guy here was IMO , a sick and twisted individual who does not reflect the typical male. He's a murderer and the worlds a better place with him gone. Tragically he took others with him.
Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)
Post removed
Mojo Electro
(362 posts)(Though you are getting a lot of hate for it, because of what you said being mis-characterized as you blaming women for the incident)
He never learned that his inability to attract women rested squarely on his own shoulders. He thought he knew what would attract women (i.e. being a "nice guy" and when that turned out to be wrong, he blamed everybody but himself. He blamed attractive women, he blamed the men who were sleeping with attractive women.
Who can blame women for not being attracted to such a sniveling, desperate chump. The sad irony is that if he had concentrated less on women, and more on just living his life and making something of himself, (also making use of the enormous privilege he was born into) the women might have come around. (provided he lost that thirsty creeper vibe)
A masculine role model in his life would have been huge. It would have helped him deal with rejection and have a better understanding of the realities of typical male-female interaction.
This incident did not just fall out of the sky. There is a history here, this kid's past will be full of rejection and marginalization, along with a total lack of ability to deal with those things, in a vicious spiral.
It's quite the opposite of blaming women. What this kid never realized that it was all on him. What a huge sense of entitlement he had, feeling like he deserved women's affections, but putting in zero effort to be attractive to them, then exploding because he had zero coping skills.
On a side note. It's always strange to me when there is a grandiose sense of self worth, and also a deep self loathing, all in the same individual. I guess it's no surprise that some such people snap.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)I think he would have been terrifying in an intimate sexual scenario.
He seems to see having sex as a right, and as necessary.
He thinks that life is about getting laid?
malaise
(269,026 posts)psychopath who thought he was entitled to his every want which he saw as a need.
Maybe we should describe this as 'psychopathic affluenza'.
Psychopath is the only apt description.
After shooting some dead, stabbing some to death and then chasing down a victim with a 4,000 lb automobile it appears he may have thought he was a character in GTA-5 and living out a very sick video game. Sadly though was his parents pointing out the problems to police weeks ago and their professional opinion after 'talking' with him was how he was such a nice kid.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I read his 'manifesto', from the start it was obvious he was exactly what you described him as. Totally disgusting and almost unbelievable to read just how narcissistic and psychopathic he was.
So tragic and sad for his victims and their families.
malaise
(269,026 posts)but I'm glad he wrote it so others can study people like him.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)Do you personally know his father? His uncles? Did he have older brothers, and do you know them?
How can you possibly make such an assertion, unless you know the family personally?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Last edited Sun May 25, 2014, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Unreal. Women were OBJECTS to him.
He didn't want a good women to love him. He wanted hot women to worship him.
He didn't want to interact with a woman to gain her affections. He wanted women to instinctively fall at his feet and fuck him.
He seethed with RAGE at mere thought or sight of the happiness of others. IF that involved a 'hot blonde'. In 141 pages, MUCH of which he dedicated to his desire for a woman, not ONCE does he indicate the want for a GOOD woman, a KIND, SMART, FUNNY, DECENT person. Nope. Hot. Beautiful. Sexy. That's all he wanted.
His actions were not about the world not understanding him or men. They were about him being criminally insane and driven by objectifying women as sexual objects and having ZERO social skills. He wasn't REJECTED by women, he never even TRIED to make a move, strike a conversation or court a women. He literally expected them to fall in his lap or something. He was angry because he was sure they would reject him.
And reading his manifesto is revealing. He goes into great detail stating that all women are evil horrible creatures, but he didn't even realize that he actually also told stories of a good number of incredibly nurturing relationships (non-sexual) that he had with women- his mother, grandmothers, a childhood friend, nannies, teachers, etc. He was a very disturbed kid.
Your OP is so full of ICK.
dhill926
(16,339 posts)only thing I would add, is that this OP is so full of SHIT.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)human being.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)For fuck's sake. Just merge with discussionist already. This place is toast.
Done. With. It.
SMH
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are thought of on du.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Now, I can understand some of what Skinner may have been thinking: "hey these assholes will be here, so we might as well corall them and put them to good use, and keep them off the DU forum."
However, as we learned in polticis, when you try to appease psychopaths, you only feed their desire, you confirm the little voices inside their head they say "yes Yes, this is what to do!" The author of this op could have put this on discussionist, and while it would attract hits, it would have stayed out, but no, he brought it here, knowing it would get hits, and now the MRA can claim two sites for their own.
Granted, he was clever, doing the age old "yes we condemn the violence BUT you need to understand why the killer was justified" trope that is seen everywhere. As a former Paralegal (aka the sort that does the work while the lawyer wears a suit and looks good), I can admire the acrobatics used so that the author can claim "I did not violate do ToS" even though, let's face it, he could have violated the ToS and still gotten saved by the heroic "No explation given" jury members.
But that was not enough, no, they have to show passive agressive dominance, and know that they, by sheer virtue of being DICKS, will not only get what they want, but have it offered to them first. It does not matter if Skinner (hypothetiocally) offered them discussionist as a way of making them unwittingly, dues paying pack mules for DU, the good ol boys will take over, and rewrite history to their favor.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)very astute synopsis.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and merely agree with a poster who challenged the mra post gets a person a hide.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)especially as I can sympathize with the idea of saying "hey little boys, go play in your own sandbox!" IO even liked the idea that by paying for it, they would fund DU, but then again, that is the same mistake many of the democrats made: the clintons and Obama both thought they could reaosn with people, that compromise can be made, when really, psychpaths know that not only is there no risk in being brutal, they will get rewarded for it! You know that the usual suspects are smoking cigars, sipping beer, and plannign ways to turn DU into their slave.
Kali
(55,011 posts)uh, no. I believe that is the most fucked up thinking I have ever read here.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Basically this OP admits to fomenting the very ideas that led to people like Roger's blaming women as having something wrong with them. As having 'made him suffer'. For imagined injuries that 'warranted' him lashing out at women, totally anonymous, random women.
That women are property. That they OWE men 'relationships'. That there is something wrong with THEM if they don't pair up with any given man.
He literally admitted that he counseled young men with that idea.
It's pretty high on the 'worst things in humanity' scale.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)elsewhere, it just isn't shocking. This shit is way more common than many around here seem to want to believe.
The threads where both men and women tried to rationalize away rape - tried to claim that maybe sometimes it wasn't really rape... that one got to me.
Incidents like this shouldn't ever happen, but at least they don't happen multiple times a day.
Or multiple times an hour. Like rape.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I guess I view the attitude and material in the OP as at least part of the reason how people come to value each other as something less than humans.
Which feeds into horrors like, the prevalence of rape.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the girl, and the girls mother were horrible to make it stop and not let the boy do what came natural, at the expense of the girls feeling and nothing could get him and a few others to understand that ya, even a unaware little 6 yr old is not allowed to dominate, control and harass a little girl.
there is a consistency here. i had forgotten about that thread. and it is the same thing. women AND girls are here to serve male sexual needs.
this is vomit worthy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I think the OP has earned a place on my ignore list forever and ever until the account is PPR'd amen, but I'm not sure what would happen to my ability to see this trainwreck if I put him there.
There is... interesting reference material here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cant let misogyny fester and grow. gonna show the ridiculous immediately.
that was the thread he told us he was a grasseater. i wish i was good at searching. i am not.
Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)
Post removed
yurbud
(39,405 posts)So you have to find someone who isn't interested or even aware of you and "chase" them or sell yourself until you get them.
And in the process, we can miss women who are genuinely interested in us and would require no "chase" whatsoever.
I know when I was "chasing" when I was younger, I missed a lot of women who were more compatible and even more attractive who were hanging around and dropping hints.
dilby
(2,273 posts)It just doesn't, sorry you can't undo 60,000 years of evolution and get women to want to be with weak men. Women do not want just a nice guy, they want a man who acts like a man and treats them right. I have a son, I am not teaching him how to attract women, I am teaching him how to be a gentleman to his mother and sister. I am teaching him how to respect himself and focus on doing the things in life he enjoys, playing sports, doing outdoor activities, hunting and fishing, all the stuff he really enjoys. Society would say that is not normal but it's what my father taught me and grandfather taught my father.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to him, cause he isnt weak?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)has NOT walked into a Southern sporting good store, where many of the ladies know more about hunting and fishing then the men.
Then again, I am sure Sarah Palin could teach him about those things.
Yes, this person was so banal in their comments I could actually speak of Sarah Palin in a semi complimentary way..
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ect? or is that only a weak girly thing to do?
treestar
(82,383 posts)What is a "weak" Man?
Do men like "weak" women, or is that OK, since women are weaker and need to be protected.
alp227
(32,026 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Some amateur anthropologists come up with an old theory of evolutionary mate selection and another group of amateur psychologists jump up to claim he's full of shit.
Meanwhile, hardly anyone has an actual claim to research, study, or any real claim to know just what's going on here. Just keep fanning the flames and digging yourselves in deeper to your own personal ideologies. Most replies here are exactly what would be expected from the usual suspects. Nothing new from them at all-- just yet again "You're wrong!"
Would anyone be affected by a reminder that understanding of, and maybe even sympathy with, tortured souls does not in any way imply acceptance of things they do?
FWIW, who the hell has ever said that males and females have ever looked for the same things in a mate? Or a quick fling? Given that we've changed over the few thousand years and such things as tribal rank, protection, and potential for healthy childbirth don't mean as much as they probably used to, just what does anyone on any side of this argument think are the differences, if any, in criteria for mate selection?
It would be interesting to know if any of the participants actually have some idea, a list even, of what they think proper criteria would be.
Or, are they just reacting blindly according to their own prejudices?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)in these qualities =
Kindness and a sense of humor,
common sense,
an awareness of their surroundings,
comfortable in their own skin,
likes to visit the cities but prefers to live in the country.
a sense of wonderment about the universe.
I can not speak for anyone else but, I would consider these attributes to be the proper criteria for me.
A sort of yang to my yin, if you will.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Yes.
Um ...no.
Yes.
Hell no!
Yes.
Very much yes.
I notice you didn't list "must be high-testosterone vicious barbarian". Are you sure you're really a straight woman?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I am very sure.
I see we have some common ground. It really could be that simple.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Rather than consulting "biology" to tell you what it was you really wanted. Or some man out there can tell you you are wrong, you know!
Kali
(55,011 posts)trust me, it isn't your height that is the problem and as for the claim of maturity...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)sometimes I rec my own threads ... if there is Four Recs, I will be the Fifth - to send it on to the Greatest Page.
Tooting my own horn ... if you will.
but from now own, I will think twice about masturbating in public.
oh lordy me, thanks Kali
Skittles
(153,164 posts)CAN'T YOU LISTEN TO MANSPLAINING WITHOUT MAKING FUN OF HIM
Squinch
(50,954 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Skittles
(153,164 posts)stop seeing those bodies and start looking at those hurt feelings, seabeyond!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)wasnt he being the ultimate in bad boy, making all us women hot?
would that be the logical conclusion of these mansplains?
Skittles
(153,164 posts)yes indeed
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Go ahead, try it, you'll like it, it's good for ya, too!
ann---
(1,933 posts)I'm glad the misogynistic wacko is dead. He should have killed himself FIRST if he was so unhappy.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Many "nice guys" are not just being "nice" to get in a girls pants. They are decent people who treat everyone decently, and don't understand why it isn't as valued as some negative qualities in the dating arena.
Additionally, it is not just that younger women haven't "developed boundaries," but that they recognize "bad boys" bad behavior and are drawn to it rather than guys doing a Jekyll and Hyde routine.
There are certainly the Jekyll & Hydes out there, but when "nice guys" refer to "bad boys," they mean the ones that anyone should be able to recognize from a block away.
Part of the problem is both genders are looking for certain exaggerated characteristic: men for the super-attractive women, and women for the high status or at least hyper-masculine men.
Some percentage of both genders grow out of it.
But enough don't to keep family court and those unpleasant afternoon talk shows in business.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"boundaries"
Full stop, you are part of the problem. Congrats.
"Looking back as a 21 year old man versus now at 31, women openly approach me while 10 years ago I would understand the frustration of this young man as I was invisible. But the biggest reason why women approach me now is that i am mature and financially secure and most importantly confident in myself. Some women have openly told me they would never date me because I am a few inches shy of the ideal 6 feet that they crave. I don't hate these women as I concede we are not compatible and I just move on with grace and dignity."
There's a reason they don't date you all right, and it's not your height.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The term was first coined by Maki Fukasawa in an article published on 13 October 2006, and became a buzz word in 2008 and 2009.[6][7][8][9]
This phenomenon has also created a shift in the Japanese economy. Men have been buying products such as cosmetics and sweets in greater quantities than before, and marketers have begun to shift to target this growing population. Products typical of the Japanese salaryman, such as cars, have shown a notable decrease in recent years; products geared towards family life, typically shunned by salarymen, have seen an uptick amongst fathers, as well.[10]
According to Fukasawa, sōshoku danshi are "not without romantic relationships, but [have] a non-assertive, indifferent attitude towards desire of flesh". Later, philosopher Masahiro Morioka redefined sōshoku-kei danshi as men who are "the nice guys of a new generation who do not aggressively seek meat, but instead prefer to eat grass side by side with the opposite gender."[11] Sōshoku danshi are often given as the primary cause of single women's woes.[ci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is a much more concise explanation.
Interesting phenomenon. Seems like a solution in search of a problem.
(Some pretty vicious shit on that site BB linked too.)
It does sound as if our intrepid OP is not actually a grasseater after all. Seems like a convenient label.
Edit: Is it just me, or does this poster's 'we are left with many questions' avenue of logic smell like concern trolling?
Got an amazing number of hides in this thread.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and no. it is not just you. all of us are pretty aware of this poster and his habits.
mgcgulfcoast
(1,127 posts)i think he just didnt fit in and had no outlet to find solace.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Or maybe he was, y'know, just a creepy guy who hated women almost as much as he hated himself...
It happens. A lot. Despite how we may try to rationalize it as something else, and despite what we pretend to know.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)He said women are the source of all unfairness in the world and should be exterminated.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I've seen long winded excuses in my day, but that one takes the cake and sets it on fire.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
riversedge
(70,239 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)AnnieBW
(10,427 posts)They aren't.
Seriously, I had to learn this the hard way when I was in my early 20's. Unfortunately, the nice guys that I was attracted to weren't all that nice when I got to know them. The thing is, I did eventually find a REAL nice guy, and I held on to him. He wasn't "hot" or traditionally attractive, but he treated me like an intelligent human being. But I held on to him for dear life, and he's been a part of my life for almost 30 years, and we've been married for 20.
I may be pushing 50, but I remember my early 20's all too well. Women at that age are attracted to the "bad boys" because they're pushing the limits, rebelling against their parents, acting out, etc. My best friend at the time was one of them. She consistently picked up guys who were "bad boys", and wound up getting pregnant twice and having abortions. Once she got out of college, she settled down with a decent man and has two wonderful kids.
Frankly, Rodgers sounds like a kid who needed an older man to sit down and tell him what to REALLY look for in a woman. She doesn't have to be "hot" or a "10", or even remotely attractive, as long as she's a good person. It all comes down to RESPECT. Respect yourself, respect women, and don't treat them like they're accessories. Or, if you're a woman, respect yourself, respect men, and don't act like they're your sugar daddy.