The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The right to sexual fulfilment: a privileged gunman, misogyny and social comparisons > Comments

The right to sexual fulfilment: a privileged gunman, misogyny and social comparisons : Comments

By Rob Cover, published 26/5/2014

By any measure the Santa Barbara shooter was privileged, but apparently privilege isn't enough.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
For Aristrocrat, many thanks for the commentary.

I see the point you’re making about 1970s radical discourse and post-structuralism, but it’s unfortunately not quite correct and not quite that simple for a few reasons.

Firstly, Foucault, Butler et al. do not directly or politically advocate a breaking down of societal values (they might, but that is not the thrust of their work), rather they point to, investigate, analyse and try to make sense of cultural shifts that are/were occurring. Theoretical and philosophic work doesn’t quite ‘drive’ history, wich unfolds through all sorts of cultural shifts in complex ways. Correct that a “strong desire for one's sexual fulfilment and expectation was normalised” but this doesn’t emerge from the work of theorists and philosophers but from a range of cultural forces (I mention only popular film/tv but there are of course many other factors).

Secondly, social theory and post-structuralism don’t quite carve up the world into race/sex/gender/class but looks precisely to the ways in which such categories are constructed, made to feel ‘natural’, and maintained. If there is a political aim in post-structuralism (which is too simple a way to put it), it is to undo such categories, not just to point to oppressions.

Finally, 1960s/1970s cultural changes around “sexual fulfilment itself” is not the problem and by no means the sole cause of Rodger’s violence and suicide; rather, it is the social factors that have connected sexual fulfilment with self-worth that make him feel inferior, resulting in his anger which is channeled through misogynistic violence (and enacted by the horrific availability of weapons in the US, of course).

One wonders how much violence might have been the result of other kinds of “feeling inferior” produced by social stratification in times past—lost self-worth from religious discourse, lost sense of entitlement among aristocrats challenged by popular views. Sexual fulfilment “as achievement” is just a more recent manifestation
Posted by RobCover, Monday, 26 May 2014 2:29:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jealousy, anger, frustration, sinful nature all fed by a secular culture that is always dumb enough to ask why.
Posted by runner, Monday, 26 May 2014 2:30:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for replying Rob and for extending the discussion into new territory.
Have you read Rodger's manifesto in full yet? Your theories are interesting but I'd like to read your opinions on his extended explanation for his actions. It seems to me that if the repressed homosexual theory was to be correct he would destroy those he could not possess, ie men and also act out against those who he believed thwarted his plans, the attractive White girls of the sorority.
The "plan" such as it is hinged on social status, by having a beautiful White girlfriend he could be the perfect aristocrat, he would be accepted by those whose company and approval he truly desired, the "cool" boys,his fellow gentlemen, the boys he believed belonged to him and he to them.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 26 May 2014 2:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay of Melbourne:
Have you anything else except a well documented patent bent for homophobia, for your particular assumptions?
Like some secret personal insights, you're not prepared to share with the rest of us?
I remember reading somewhere the very worst homophobes, were religious "advocates", still in the closet?
Could that somehow describe you?
Would you care to explain to the bewildered, just how is it, you seem to know so much personal information, on the internal workings of this particular nutter?
Could it be that you your self share some of his particular peculiar personal sexual repressions, and or boy on boy sexual fantasies, you seem to want to claim he had?
Perhaps? Maybe? Surely not?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 26 May 2014 4:44:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J of M you are at it again with your obsession with gay people, and use this violent incidence to exploit your homophobia.
Studies and as been mentioned on OLO, those with continuous reference to homosexuality, some are inclined to have latent tendencies themselves.
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 26 May 2014 5:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty,I've a fascination with masculinity, not specifically homosexuality even though I regard it as an expression of masculinity, not it's antithesis as some do. That said in my view homosexuality does sit on the Feminist's "dark side", the tough, uber-macho side of masculinity, I don't see it as effeminate or un-manly.
Read Elliot Rodger's manifesto, he describes his life in microscopic detail, read and re read all of it as I did and you'll see where I'm coming from.
http://www.ibtimes.com/read-elliot-rodgers-140-page-memoir-manifesto-he-wrote-prior-his-shooting-university-1589868

As I clearly stated in my first post I don't think we as citizen philosophers can take anything away from this incident, he was as crazy as they come but since the author insists that he must be taken seriously I'm merely giving my opinion on what I've read.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 26 May 2014 5:38:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy