Injured Masculinity

In my opinion one of the biggest factors that influenced the massacre was the fact that the shooters felt the need to prove how hard, strong and virile they could be. Especially in Eric's case.

I would like to know your opinions about it .

I disagree.

I think I spoke on this a bit. Eric I think had some issues with this because of health issues and his family, I don’t think Dylan cared.

Here is the thread

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Sorry this is so short!! I’m working a 15 hour day

I don't see a link or any supporting evidence.

I think Eric felt "small" and like he was ignored and picked on for his physical appearance a lot. I think he didn't feel up to par with his peers but I don't know how much of that played in.

I don't think Dylan cared. It seemed he let his hair go all crazy and he wore the same clothes everyday. It doesn't seem he cared what others thought.

I'm sure it played a small roll. However I truly believe it's the most significant factor inmost other mass shootings. Aurora, UCSB, Vegas, Virginia Tech, Charleston, LA movie shooting, etc. White men who are raised with the idea they're owed and deserve success, academically, professionally and romantically. Then they hit the real world and aren't handed these things and worse they see PoC/women obtaining these things (because of hard work but these white man boys don't see that part). Women don't flock to them. Any effort they put forth is criticized. They were never taught to accept failure as a part of life and most jmportantly how to deal with it and move forward. This leads to these men children to taking out their frustration and rage and feeling of being wronged violently, whether its conscious or not, the guns are a way to try go salvage their masculinity, either targeting at random to attack the world that's not giving them what they believe they're owed or targeting women, PoC, whoever they see that has taken what is theirs, or with women, who they believe should have "been theirs".

Again that's not the case for every mass shooting, and there's multitude of factors beyond this that lead to mass shootings. With Parkland and Sandy Hook there was a much more significant mental health factor, in a way very different than with Columbine.

Coming back to Columbine I've always seen it as more complicated and nuanced as far as motivations compared to the majority of other mass shootings. Just having two perpetrators that were still students makes it different. Eric and Dylan were struggling with mental health but not in the way Adam Lanza or Nicholas Cruz did. They were seemingly very functional and normal -in comparison- to others.

If Dylan and Eric targeted female students and devoted more of their journals and tapes to their anger of being objected and that they had to pay like Eliot Rogers did in Isla Vista (or even a specific girl before their random assault like Seung Hui Cho or they actually targeted the (mostly male) bullies and jocks, by storming the gym, locker rooms and or weight/wrestling room, I would say their injured masculinity did play a much larger role.

I hope that makes sense!!

milennialrebelette wrote:

I'm sure it played a small roll. However I truly believe it's the most significant factor inmost other mass shootings. Aurora, UCSB,  Vegas, Virginia Tech, Charleston, LA movie shooting, etc. White men who are raised with the idea they're owed and deserve success, academically, professionally and romantically. Then they hit the real world and aren't handed these things and worse they see PoC/women obtaining these things (because of hard work but these white man boys don't see that part). Women don't flock to them. Any effort they put forth is criticized.  They were never taught to accept failure as a part of life and most jmportantly how to deal with it and move forward. This leads to these men children to taking out their frustration and rage and feeling of being wronged violently, whether its conscious or not, the guns are a way to try go salvage their masculinity, either targeting at random to attack the world that's not giving them what they believe they're owed  or targeting women, PoC, whoever they see that has taken what is theirs, or with women, who they believe should have "been theirs".

Again that's not the case for every mass shooting, and there's multitude of factors beyond this that lead to mass shootings. With Parkland and Sandy Hook there was a much more significant mental health factor, in a way very different than with Columbine.

Coming back to Columbine I've always seen it as more complicated and nuanced as far as motivations compared to the majority of other mass shootings. Just having two perpetrators that were still students makes it different. Eric and Dylan were struggling with mental health but not in the way Adam Lanza or Nicholas Cruz did. They were seemingly very functional and normal -in comparison- to others.  

If Dylan and Eric targeted female students and devoted more of their journals and tapes to their anger of being objected and that they had to pay like Eliot Rogers did in Isla Vista (or even a specific girl before their random assault like Seung Hui Cho or they actually targeted the (mostly male) bullies and jocks, by storming the gym, locker rooms and or weight/wrestling room, I would say their injured masculinity  did play a much larger role.

I hope that makes sense!!

I’m interested in knowing why you mentioned Aurora? I agree with the others but I’d love to learn more

I didn’t pick up on fragile masculinity with James Holmes.

He was intelligent and had girlfriends. Maybe I’m not looking far enough into it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Elliot Rodger and Cho Seung-Hui weren't white. In my view, people don't take up arms over masculinity of all things. Dylann Roof's case was a political killing of a State Senator and several others without any major motive of envy for the blacks themselves. If anything, he envied Rhodesia. He sounds more like the kind of person who would rather not live with blacks than have them as slaves.
Misanthropy and/or past wrongs often serve as a motive for revenge, and a lone wolf massacring a bunch of people has nothing to do with masculinity. I have yet to see a killer who seemingly did it in order to 'be a man' or some garbage like that. The real world clearly doesn't work that way.
Vegas had absolutely nothing to do with injured masculinity whatsoever.

Screamingophelia wrote:

milennialrebelette wrote:

I'm sure it played a small roll. However I truly believe it's the most significant factor inmost other mass shootings. Aurora, UCSB,  Vegas, Virginia Tech, Charleston, LA movie shooting, etc. White men who are raised with the idea they're owed and deserve success, academically, professionally and romantically. Then they hit the real world and aren't handed these things and worse they see PoC/women obtaining these things (because of hard work but these white man boys don't see that part). Women don't flock to them. Any effort they put forth is criticized.  They were never taught to accept failure as a part of life and most jmportantly how to deal with it and move forward. This leads to these men children to taking out their frustration and rage and feeling of being wronged violently, whether its conscious or not, the guns are a way to try go salvage their masculinity, either targeting at random to attack the world that's not giving them what they believe they're owed  or targeting women, PoC, whoever they see that has taken what is theirs, or with women, who they believe should have "been theirs".

Again that's not the case for every mass shooting, and there's multitude of factors beyond this that lead to mass shootings. With Parkland and Sandy Hook there was a much more significant mental health factor, in a way very different than with Columbine.

Coming back to Columbine I've always seen it as more complicated and nuanced as far as motivations compared to the majority of other mass shootings. Just having two perpetrators that were still students makes it different. Eric and Dylan were struggling with mental health but not in the way Adam Lanza or Nicholas Cruz did. They were seemingly very functional and normal -in comparison- to others.  

If Dylan and Eric targeted female students and devoted more of their journals and tapes to their anger of being objected and that they had to pay like Eliot Rogers did in Isla Vista (or even a specific girl before their random assault like Seung Hui Cho or they actually targeted the (mostly male) bullies and jocks, by storming the gym, locker rooms and or weight/wrestling room, I would say their injured masculinity  did play a much larger role.

I hope that makes sense!!

I’m interested in knowing why you mentioned Aurora? I agree with the others but I’d love to learn more

I didn’t pick up on fragile masculinity with James Holmes.

He was intelligent and had girlfriends. Maybe I’m not looking far enough into it?

He actually didnt have girlfriends. The one girl he tried to meet up with kept things at an arms length. He was smart but he was failing his doctoral progeam and his advisor was a woman. He definitely is the epitome of priviledged white males who couldn't deal with failure.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] you're right they're not technically white, I was using "white priviledged male" as more of a concept. Rogers fits I know Cho doesn't but they were both at least at prestigious enough universities.

I'll explain more when im done with work :-)

Do we have proof that Holmes”s attack was because he felt entitled?

I’ve been abused by men and women of different races. To me the thought of the virginal white male being the most dangerous person seems distant to me.

People in general are capable of evil and good.

milennialrebelette wrote:

I truly believe it's the most significant factor inmost other mass shootings.

What garbage.

I mean no disrespect to you, but the idea that most or indeed, any mass shooting or murder spree can be explained away as being the result of "white male entitlement" is absolutely ludicrous for a number of reasons, first and foremost among them that males of all races have committed mass murder. Of course you go on to state:

milennialrebelette wrote:

I was using "white priviledged male" as more of a concept.

Which makes me question why you decided to use such charged language in the first place, unless, of course, you're part of the Social Justice crowd, trying to push a certain narrative about white males.

Or perhaps you simply didn't consider the wider implications of such a term. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'll assume - for now - that this was said innocently. Moving on.

I personally think that attempting to use "male entitlement" or some other similar term as a blanket reason to explain or rationalize a killing spree is woefully inadequate. To me, it runs into the same problems you face when attempting to blame any number of things that people regularly blame for mass killings - mental illness, bullying, a culture of violence, attention seeking - none of these are adequate explanations in my view. If any of them were, then we'd see 100,000 rampage killings a year due to how prevalent it is. Brooks named his book accurately.

Hmmmm. Yes, while I think "white male entitlement" is too simple, I think "injured masculinity" is something worth exploring as a factor. There are very very few female mass-shooters, a lower proportion than female to male murderers in general so perhaps the pattern suggests something?

Elliot Rodger is a perfect example of an entitled male going on a rampage, but I am not sure anyone else has been so explicit in their rantings.

Lol at the direction of this thread. I would say all the PC myths like "white privilege" and white men having no birth right to anything in the land of their ancestors, explicit 'diversity' discrimination in media, law, academia, jobs, and the entitlement of foreigners on their land drives them infinitely more than muh racism and phantom hard work.

Did we ever find out why the 5th camera was buried? What are the odds it was because it faced that shitty multicultural America mural behind the stairs, and the media had a muh Hitler muh racism narrative to run?

"a lower proportion than female to male murderers in general so perhaps the pattern suggests something" Yeah it's a mystery. Is this where we pretend biology doesn't real?

A larger amount of women kill their children. Many more cases of Munchhousens (spelling) are women.

Women are capable of violence, maybe not on the large scale of mass shootings but they are still capable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I believe that when women do violence, it's mostly family related while men are far more likely to go on rampage killings.

I'm just throwing this out as a guess for why. Maybe men view things in the lens of a greater society that is persecuting them, yet women who are prone to homicide are more down-to-earth and think in terms of family.