Was Elliot Rodger just a spoiled brat or did he suffer serious mental issues?

[zenithfreedom]

I've been watching a few videos on him; for those who don't know he's a 22yr old guy who went on a shooting spree back in May 2014 because he felt denied sex by women.

At first, you'd be tempted to just classify him as an entitled individual however his videos show someone who is seriously disturbed. Some people on the internet point out that he may have co-morbid narcissistic personality disorder along with autism and OCD.

The fact is most people with any mental disorder/syndrome never harm anyone but such disorders are overrepresented among mass shooters in America.

As someone rightly pointed out, genetics from Elliot's parents most likely "loaded the gun" while his dysfunctional family and lavishment by his parents "pulled the trigger" that led to this attack

It's true he was angry at 'chads' who could 'get' sex.

I think it's a bad idea look for other reasons although I understand the reasons.

Whatever his mental health/ medical issues
Whatever his situation around relationships

His manifesto was pretty clear, and he did target the sorority house with the students he deemed 'most attractive'.

The terrible nature of the online communities populated by angry, entitled men and boys should not be underestimated.

It's the same as any other extreme view and radicalisation is happening.

In general though it's not recognised in the same way as other types of radicalisation.

And I strongly suspect that lots of other crimes against women are happening due to this. There's a lot of Pro rape stuff as well.

@Marguerite2000

NiceGerbil he actually murdered more men than women. He didn't just blame girls, his rage was directed at women, and men who were succesful with women. He was actually contemplating murdering his younger brother , whereas his slightly older sister doesn't seem to have been on his radar. Incidentally my daughter is autistic and capable of extreme rage and violence, there's a whole raft of reasons why she won't ever become a spree killer, the fact that she's female is probably the least of them.

I understood that he murdered 3 women and 3 men. He certainly hated women but also, as others have said, men who clearly had success with women.

On the day of the attack, he targetted a sorority house intending to murder lots of the women students inside. Fortunately for those women, the main door was locked and he couldn't get inside. If he had, far more people than six would have died, mostly if not entirely women. (Murdering six people is horrific enough, obvs.)

@QuentinBunbury

I think he was radicalised online into a terrorist act against women. He clearly had issues but the online communities and the acceptance/encouragement they gave him were key. I think probably more important than bullying or his parents attitudes. We accept this is a mechanism for other types of terrorist, in fact as a society we put a lot of effort in to countering it, so I find it interesting its not really discussed about Rodger.

It's very telling, isn't it, that when a woman is murdered (not just in the Rodgers case but more generally), the police often say something like "We haven't been able to find a motive." In many cases, that IS the motive, surely? A woman is murdered by a man because the man hates women.

When Peter Sutcliffe was killing women in the North of England, the police time and time again insisted that his motive was "hatred of prostitutes." They spoke about that as if it were reasonable. When he murdered a young girl who wasn't a prostitute, the police said "This was obviously a mistake." He killed 13 women for definite (likely more) and of those 13, 5 were not prostitutes. The police completely failed to see that what PS hated wasn't a particular category of woman but women in general.

And though that case is notorious and it was 40 years ago now, I do wonder how much attitudes have really changed. A lot of men have appalling attitudes about women. When a man rapes a woman (whether he knows her, whether he doesn't), when he assaults a woman (ditto), when he kills a woman (ditto), this is all very much terrorism. But that word isn't used. Because a lot of men (including police officers, judges, news reporters) are in denial.

@Childrenofthestones

My guess is even if he had got himself a girlfriend/wife/long-term relationship, as soon as she realised what she had taken on and left him he would have killed her too. A massive narcissist.

Definitely. Everything he says in that "manifesto" is about entitlement. He saw himself as someone who was OWED a relationship.

Does anyone think that he wouldn't have been able to go on his rampage had he remained in the UK and never moved abroad? He was after all born in London.

No.

His family and personality would have been the same.

UK is pretty sexist in schools etc.

The online groups would still have been there.

I think he stabbed some of his victims.

So no.

@NiceGerbil

No.

His family and personality would have been the same.

UK is pretty sexist in schools etc.

The online groups would still have been there.

I think he stabbed some of his victims.

So no.

The UK isn't exactly a paradise but at least there is no easy access to guns.

I'm sure there are just as many bitter and raging men in the UK (and everywhere else, probs?) as there are in America. But rampages at least are rare.

We've had terrorist attacks forever.

Stabbings all the time.

Agree though general population opening guns is a total disaster. Much easier to kill more people and I'm sure it's easier if you don't have to get right up to them iyswim

His plan was to break into the college sorority house and kill the women in there, but somebody locked the door on him. So he would have killed more women, given the chance.

3 of the men he killed were his roomates, who he described as geeks, not chads.

Sorry, I missed the post that already explained most of that!

Yes but it bears saying again.

Given the posts on the thread essentially trying to play down the misogyny involved.

Good grief, saying that someone's actions were related to mental illness doesn't play them down. Especially, you know, if it's true. There's no moral high ground gained by saying that someone who was mentally ill wasn't because you think somehow that doesn't make him seem bad enough. It's just a lie.

Being mentally ill doesn't even mean that he didn't purposfully target women. That's not how mental illness works, generally, that it makes people do random things. It often makes them do very logical things, if you understand their premises which are deeply wrong, or if you can see how causation works in their minds, which is not the way it works in reality. So yes, he hated women and men who were successful with women, but the reason for that was a distorted understanding of reality.

When a man rapes a woman (whether he knows her, whether he doesn't), when he assaults a woman (ditto), when he kills a woman (ditto), this is all very much terrorism.

Terrorism has a very specific meaning, though it's been throughly abused since 9/11.It involves attacks, generally of a guerrilla type, on the general population, in order to achieve political ends through public pressure.

Men kill women all the time.
Men attack/ sexually assault women all the time.
The view of girls as sex objects starts way too young.
Online radicalisation in incel/ MRA groups is a major problem.
He's not the only man to have targeted women to hurt or kill.
The online groups feed on existing feelings that women and girls are denying men their due.
The fact of male violence against women and girls results in fear in a large swathe of the female population.

The fact it's not recognised as terrorism is because. Well. That's what men do to women.

It's a massive fail. Because men who commit awful crimes often have a background of DV, and a feeling that they are being denied their due.

I read the other day that county lines dealers are given girls as a reward.
Isis have sex slaves that they sell in marketplaces.
A jihadist who is matyred apparently gets s load of virgins in the afterlife...

There's s theme, right...

'Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which small groups of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility, to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.'

That rules out an awful lot of bombings in England as being terrorist attacks.

According to Google, terrorism is : the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Rodgers published a manifesto and was an active member of an online community that think women's purpose is to provide sex to men and they should be compelled to do so.
His attack has inspired various other attacker,, including Alex Minassian
www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56269095.amp

In what way is this not terrorism?

We don't accept "mental health" as an excuse when it's Muslim terrorists carrying out attacks. We call it terrorism. Why are white men attacking women exempt from this?

@SmokedDuck

Good grief, saying that someone's actions were related to mental illness doesn't play them down. Especially, you know, if it's true. There's no moral high ground gained by saying that someone who was mentally ill wasn't because you think somehow that doesn't make him seem bad enough. It's just a lie.

Being mentally ill doesn't even mean that he didn't purposfully target women. That's not how mental illness works, generally, that it makes people do random things. It often makes them do very logical things, if you understand their premises which are deeply wrong, or if you can see how causation works in their minds, which is not the way it works in reality. So yes, he hated women and men who were successful with women, but the reason for that was a distorted understanding of reality.

When a man rapes a woman (whether he knows her, whether he doesn't), when he assaults a woman (ditto), when he kills a woman (ditto), this is all very much terrorism.

Terrorism has a very specific meaning, though it's been throughly abused since 9/11.It involves attacks, generally of a guerrilla type, on the general population, in order to achieve political ends through public pressure.

Yes, I'm aware of how the word "terrorism" is usually employed.

My point is, being on the receiving end of hatred based on one's sex is to be terrorised. Women whose husbands or partners subject them to threats and violence often know this on a daily basis.

There is an increasing body of evidence that shows that a lot of terrorists have been in trouble with the police for DV before they turned to what is conventionally described as terrorism. (The men who carried out the Paris attacks, for example. The man in Nice who drove the lorry into dozens of people.) These sorts of behaviour are not as distinct as you might think.