35 Things About Elliot Rodger

elliot

  1. Elliot Rodger killed six and injured thirteen in a Santa Barbara mass shooting before killing himself on Friday, May 23rd, 2014.
  2. Elliot Rodger was a straight 22 year old male from an affluent family who was described as white, but is of Malaysian Chinese descent on his mother’s side. [edited]
  3. Elliot Rodger was may or may not have been diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder; reports vary.
  4. Elliot Rodger was also mentally ill, and in treatment with multiple doctors.
  5. Elliot Rodger was a raging misogynist who believed that there was “no creature so evil or depraved as the human female.”
  6. Elliot Rodger espoused these misogynist ideals due to what he viewed as sexual rejection by women to whom he believed he was entitled.
  7. Elliot Rodger was a massive racist – idolizing white, blonde women, and enraged by white women dating men of other races.
  8. Elliot Rodger was a classist who associated wealth with personal value, assuming he could buy affection.
  9. Elliot Rodger didn’t get this way on his own.
  10. Elliot Rodger didn’t get this way for one reason alone.
  11. Elliot Rodger was incredibly privileged.
  12. Elliot Rodger did not become a killer because he was privileged.
  13. Elliot Rodger became frightening when his privilege morphed into entitlement due to toxic ideologies.
  14. Elliot Rodger became dangerous when his entitlement collided with mental illness.
  15. Elliot Rodger became lethal when he was able to arm himself.
  16. Elliot Rodger was able to arm himself because he was never involuntarily committed, despite being reported to authorities as a possible danger to himself and others.
  17. Elliot Rodger was never involuntarily committed because he was viewed as harmless by the interviewing officers, despite his extensive footprint of hate on the web.
  18. Elliot Rodger was likely viewed as harmless by the interviewing officers because feelings of entitlement and expression of animosity towards women and minorities are not perceived to be real threats.
  19. Elliot Rodger is terrifying to women because the only thing separating him and the other millions of men expressing the same kinds of ideas online and in real life is that Elliot used a gun.
  20. Elliot Rodger is terrifying to women because he is the classmate we never even realized was attempting to ask us out.
  21. Elliot Rodger is terrifying to women because he is the coworker we tried to let down gently.
  22. Elliot Rodger is terrifying to women because he is the man buying shots at the bar we turned down because it was girl’s night out.
  23. Elliot Rodger is terrifying to women because he is that first date we bailed out of because we didn’t feel comfortable or safe.
  24. Elliot Rodger is terrifying to women because he is anyone we never knew we wronged. #YesAllWomen
  25. Elliot Rodger was looking to terrorize a group of people in order to advance social ideals, but despite that being the definition of terrorism, is not considered a terrorist.
  26. Elliot Rodger would probably be labeled a terrorist if his social ideals were associated with a religion not called Christianity.
  27. Elliot Rodger would probably be labeled a terrorist if he’d used a bomb instead of a gun.
  28. Elliot Rodger would probably be labeled a terrorist if his skin wasn’t white.
  29. Elliot Rodger might have been labeled a thug, though, if he was black.
  30. Elliot Rodger targeted white people, which might be why he’s received more attention than any of the shooters in the 117 gun deaths and 666 gun injuries in Chicago year to date.
  31. Elliot Rodger makes us more comfortable if he’s just mentally ill because it makes the problem individual, excusing our culpability in building, accepting and advancing the culture that created him.
  32. Elliot Rodger makes us more comfortable if he’s just mentally ill because it means we don’t have to do anything about it personally.
  33. Elliot Rodger existed because we didn’t take it personally.
  34. Elliot Rodger will happen again if we don’t take it personally now, because cultural shifts start with personal decisions.
  35. If you’re not taking it personally, you’re part of the problem.
Advertisements

12 comments

  1. Totally judgmental. Only some of your rant has any merit. You only know anything about this fellow from what an irresponsible and manipulative press decides to tell you. His actions are inexcusable. Your rant is an emotional response. And why is it necessary to let us know he’s straight and white? What does that have to do with anything?

    1. If there is a particular point that you believe doesn’t have merit, isolate it, and I’ll be happy to respond.

      Why is it necessary to let us know he’s white and straight? It’s a component of evaluating the level of privilege he experienced, which, when juxtaposed against his written and video materials, highlights his rampant misogyny, blatant racism, and nauseating classism, all of which fueled the entitlement that became so deadly when mixed with his mental illness.

      Read all 137 pages of his “manifesto.” Watch all of his videos. Research and vet the claims seen in the press. Or don’t. I did. That’s where this list came from.

    1. Check out the #YesAllWomen hashtag on Twitter.

      When the conversation turned towards the misogyny in Elliot’s content, the default response was “not all men…”

      What became very clear was that the men who were responding to the concerns didn’t understand what it was like to live life as a woman. When 1 in 4 women are raped in their lifetime, the threat of violent misogyny is far from remote. That violent misogyny may not always be as obvious as was seen with Elliot. His case is a crystallization (albiet, an extreme one) of what many women (particularly those subjected to threats online – myself included) have to fear regularly.

      I suppose the title could have been better thought out.

      1. I feel like we’ve had this debate before. Yes, I do. Yes, I know data across the spectrum on sexual violence comes with problems. We work with what we have.

  2. Certainly a long list of cogent points, but I still wish you had chosen a form that didn’t grant the madman’s name even MORE space in print, over and over. After all, that’s part of what he wished to achieve. Why give it to him?

    1. I hear you, and I considered it. I think the reason I ultimately included it is more anecdotal than anything. It was just the other day that I made reference to Adam Lanza, and in a group of 4 educated, well-read individuals, none of them could remember who I was referencing or why they mattered until I said he was the shooter at Sandy Hook. Our memories seem to be getting shorter with each shooting that takes place, which makes galvanizing changes more and more difficult.

      I guess there’s a part of me that hopes it’s the opposite of what he’d have liked, too. He thought highly of himself; I doubt he’d have been comfortable with the descriptions here.

      But most importantly, I hope people read and think. If there’s a handful of folks who end up being exposed to ideas that challenge their worldview because the syntax made them think this was just another factoid-ish, that’s a win.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s