This 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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
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.
That's been exactly what I've been thinking when I've been reading through some of these threads today 
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.
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!!
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
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!!
"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. 
I think it could go either way, honestly... 
YES INDEED 
And the only rebuttal to the op that is needed.
Sometimes it takes a man to tell the truth that needs to be told.
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
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
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
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
sure of what they are meaning. Usually and in this case.
If so, I don't see the value of the distinction that you are making.
-Laelth
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
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
Looks like you thought about how you sound. I guess one might say, genetically programmed to make fallacious arguments based in pseudoscience, if one follows the logic presented here.
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.
... is noted. You are content to condemn me. Fine. I will be content to ignore you.
-Laelth
Cheers! 
-Laelth
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
And, if they do exist, they serve no real or useful purpose.
Is that what you're arguing?
-Laelth
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.
"there's good evidence to suggest"
Evo psych is such bullshit.
It's hard for me to believe that our mating habits are closer to those of ants than to apes.
-Laelth
... please direct them to someone else. I am, truly, not interested in that distinction, and I don't see how it's useful.
-Laelth
"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?
I find sociobiology to be exceedingly useful in describing human, sexual behavior.
ymmv.
-Laelth
... 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
I feel I just stepped into an earlier century
-Laelth
Armor All!
Thank you! I needed that!
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
And, this is not a game. I am not trying to win. I am trying to understand.
Peace. 
-Laelth
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
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
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
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
Honest to goddess it's surreal. After all that HE did, it's still women's fault. I mean, just
kill women as well? It's just. not. that. simple. 
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.
None of this would have happened if he was just listened to. 
You're awesome and people like you are why I can't shake this place.
Thanks! 
You've been handling business today. It has been very interesting around here for the past couple of days.
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!
(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.
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. 
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.
uh, no. I believe that is the most fucked up thinking I have ever read here.
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.
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.
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? 
trust me, it isn't your height that is the problem and as for the claim of maturity...
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
CAN'T YOU LISTEN TO MANSPLAINING WITHOUT MAKING FUN OF HIM 
Go ahead, try it, you'll like it, it's good for ya, too!
系 男子 Sōshoku(-kei) danshi?) or grasseaters are a social phenomenon in Japan of men who shun marriage or gaining a girlfriend.[1] They are characteristically described as frugal, and interested in personal grooming.[2] Under this categorisation scheme, men and women are either herbivore type (草食系 sōshoku-kei?) or carnivore type (肉食系 nikushoku-kei?). As of September 2010, 36% of Japanese men between the ages of 16 and 19 perceived themselves in this way.[3] Additionally, two surveys of single men in their 20s and 30s found that 61% and 70%, respectively, considered themselves grass-eating men.[4] This phenomenon is viewed by the Japanese government as a leading cause in the nation's declining birth rate, prompting the government to provide incentives for couples that have children, including payouts and free health care.[5]
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
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.
