Why it's Not the Boys in the Above Picture Who Grow Up to be School Shooters

in #masculinity6 years ago (edited)

First, a PSA: I'm sick as a dog, so if I don't have a Still Not Black Enough chapter ready by Monday, that's why. But I'm tough, so I'll try to pull it off.

Anyway.

This picture was posted on Facebook and I happened to read the discussion below in the comment section.

Something that struck me was a few people saying things along the lines: "This is a good thing; the boys in the above picture will just grow up to be school shooters. Something, something, something, toxic masculinity."

I'm here to tell you why that is, in fact, not the case.

It’s not the boys in the above picture that grow up to be school shooters.

They will be masculine enough to attract a partner, shielding them from the depression that leads to school shootings.

If I had to guess, I’d put my money on the ”boys” in the picture below as potential school shooters.

School shooters are always weak and alone. They’re men who can’t get a date.

You can throw all the equality bullshit you want at me, but the simple truth is that weak and unmasculine men will end up alone because women ultimately want a man.

They may settle with a modern man in their 30s when they’re attractiveness and best days are behind them, but A) They’ll still cheat on the side if the possibility of doing so presents itself, and B) That’s only if the guys even make it into their 30s before committing suicide or a mass shooting due to depression caused by failure and loneliness.

In case you haven't noticed, school shooters aren't strong, masculine men who are popular among females. They're usually the Elliot Rodgers types who are, what, 5'5" and 90 pounds soaking wet.

I checked out a few of the videos by one Mr. Rodgers shortly after he did his thing, and the one thing I noticed instantly was just how damn feminine the guy was. There wasn't an ounce of masculinity in the guy, nothing about his body language and the way he presented himself yelled "testosterone".

It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to quickly figure out why he was a virgin. Sorry, but it's the truth.

It's the popular liberal/libertarian thing to say that people can just do whatever they please and be themselves, but honestly, as I've gotten older, I've grown more skeptical of that attitude.

I think sometimes an outsider can be in a position where it's justified to slap someone in the face and tell them that what they're doing is harmful to themselves.

And I'd say that the alarming loss of masculinity in men and boys in society is something that's not only harmful to them, but harmful to other people, as well. There aren't many things that are more dangerous than a desperate man who can't get a date. That man has nothing to lose, and when that time bomb goes off, it's a dangerous thing.

Of course, men aren't really encouraged to be masculine these days because we're trained to think that genders don't even exist and whatnot.

And this notion kind of frees men from the burden of being a man - and something that a lot of people also don't seem to get is that being a man is fucking horrible at times. Not all the time, not at all. But being a man, an actual man, is a damn burden. It's a rewarding burden ultimately, and I wouldn't have it any other way, but there definitely is a price to pay.

But when naive enough boys and young men are kind of given permission by society and culture to not carry that burden and to not take that responsibility of being a man, many will gladly take up on the offer.

The tragic outcome of this will be a growing number of weak men who are alone and depressed.

And some of them will go to the extreme of taking that out on other people.

But trust me: it's not going to be the boys in the above picture - it's the ones in the picture below.

Sort:  

It is indeed the boys in the picture below.

Another point is that the ones above aren't alone. They are working as a team. They are trying to overcome obstacles (mostly imagined) and getting stronger.

Every school shooter is shouting, "look at me, do not ignore me".

And what does society do? Drugs them and ignores them some more.


You can tell that boys who grew up with toy guns, then BB guns, then a 22... have never gone on a school shooting. Because, these boys, if they ever decided to shoot up a school, would build themselves a blind and pick off kids from a distance. The numbers of fatalities would be WAY higher. But, we can't talk about such things.

The NRA gets the blame, when they should actually get the praise.

Agree. Lack of testo in men cause mental illness. Social engineering (telling ur kids that they are toxic) is another cause. Most Boys growing up now are confused betamales. And the girls prefer the chads or the higher testo immigrants.

White boys are just confused self hating betas trying to inpress girls with their agreableness and sjw nonsense. Of course - the whole feminism welcome migrants stuff is just one giant collective shit test from white women.

They may settle with a modern man in their 30s when they’re attractiveness and best days are behind them, but A) They’ll still cheat on the side if the possibility of doing so presents itself, and B) That’s only if the guys even make it into their 30s before committing suicide or a mass shooting due to depression caused by failure and loneliness.

I’ve always thought this but never said it out loud or seen it written stark in front of me, it’s so true that those women in that category will actually do that; must be a genetic spread your code instinct?? All your points are 100% true it is the ostracized-beta-doesn’t like normal masculine things-was “odd” as a child male that becomes the evil we see today, not the prized and adored rampant male sexuality we see plastered across our faces every single day of our lives

Not taking the two pictures literally...

I agree that the shooters will likely be from the pool of "outsiders" from the bottom photos. It won't be because they dress up and act like girls. It will be because they are mentally ill (as in, real psychological problems), socially awkward (not able to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships), and/or just not suitably adjusted to society/reality (are fed too much bullshit about what "normal" is or how everything/everyone is against them, etc.).

It's the maladjusted and mentally ill that commit these crimes.

There's nothing abnormal about kids playing with toy guns or even learning how to use actual firearms. Learning about these things or practicing with them to improve ones skills is nothing more than human nature...curiosity, knowledge, the ability to defend oneself, the will to survive. Acquiring skills for self-defense or using tools that you enjoy is nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to vilify.

If there were no guns, would people still blame bows and arrows for mass murders? Would it be scary to see young boys playing with toy swords or learning hand-to-hand combat? Would a slingshot cause panic in parents/adults? Of course not...at least not for normal, mentally-fit people.

For the panicked, the maladjusted, the deniers of reality, the feeble-minded or physically weak - this could be the scariest thing imaginable.

We should not cater to them and their irrational fears. It is not the irrational that ought to dictate behavior for the rest of us. Our reason, our ability to acquire, accumulate, and pass on inter-generational knowledge is what sets us apart from the irrational beasts of nature. Why do we allow those among us with short memories and illogical/contradictory views to tell the rest of us how we ought to act, knowing that they are indeed the ones who are oblivious, unreasonable, and wrong?

Mass murderers are mentally ill people. And they kill with whatever tools are available to them, whether it's a knife, a truck, a gun, bombs, chemical weapons, or the ability to control a nation's economics or food supply. They didn't become mass murderers because they played with toys. They became mass murderers by trying to live outside of reality - by learning that their world does not cater to their illogical whims and faulty beliefs. They became mass murderers because they rejected the world as it is and found no other way to understand this rejection...and, in fact, believe that the world has rejected them instead. (And it likely had, but it is their failure to adjust/cope with reality.)

The vilification of tools and those who use them (in a non-aggressive nature) only does one thing: It creates more distortions of reality...more irrational fears...more outsiders.

Eventually, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Vilify those who use guns. Make them feel unaccepted and abnormal. Make what is perfectly rational into behavior that is socially unacceptable. And then sit back and watch as these otherwise normal people are pushed to their mental breaking points because the truly mentally-ill and maladjusted are dictating social norms.

I mean...it's not like this doesn't already happen in a variety of ways. Is there any wonder why so many people are depressed? When human nature becomes taboo and people are made to feel disgusted with themselves or just can't figure out what's "wrong" with them (because there isn't anything wrong with them), what else can we expect than to see mass psychology completely break down?

Is this not basically the recorded history of mankind? And are we (in general) just not capable of recognizing it?

So are you saying that the United States Government's entire workforce is mentally ill? Surely you are just inept and unable to grasp the larger concepts at hand, because that would be pretty absurd to claim.

So your problem is with comprehension?

"It's the maladjusted and mentally ill that commit these crimes."

The United States enacts genocide, assists genocide, and kills its own people in an elaborate attempt to gain more money and power. So, are you saying that the US Government are all mentally ill? Yes or no?

Of course. All coercive governments are. Was that not clear?

Read my other posts in response to schatten, then get back to me. Thanks.

The answer is "No". The problem with the question and the person whom I am responding to, is that they're scapegoating the "mentally ill" as the enemy and further persecuting a minority of people that deserve and require extra help from the rest of us. The point I am making here is that the culture war of which your original post is centered around is propaganda from the rich and powerful corporations and governments that are trying to keep us distracted while they commit atrocities around the globe.
"Mentally Ill" people are not the problem. We should all collectively focus our ire against the rich and powerful who run the world, and engaging in a pointless scapegoating culture war is exactly what they want to have happen.

I consider people in the government to be sociopaths. That’s classified as a mental illness, or am I wrong?

(I can be.)

It may or may not be classifiable as such, but it does more harm than good to scapegoat the "mentally ill" when 99% of the time they are just another marginalized group of people in need of help. You should create a new category called "evil sons a bitches" and put the corporate warlords and school shooters in there instead.

Are you familiar with the Halls of Power theory? Perhaps the name has been muddied in my memory, but it was a theory popularized (and then suddenly silenced) a few years ago. It was a Social Psychology theory about how sociopaths are attracted to modern political power structures, perhaps ancient ones as well, and that there is a startling prevalence of sociopathy in government both from the nature of the job - forcing people to do things and to view a larger, less personal picture of how society runs - and from this natural attraction. For quick reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#43818a754104

Tangential to this discussion, but perhaps of interest to you.

The problem with the question and the person whom I am responding to, is that they're scapegoating the "mentally ill" as the enemy...

Are people who commit mass murder not mentally ill people?

The point I am making here is that the culture war of which your original post is centered around is propaganda from the rich and powerful corporations and governments...

I wouldn't put the blame on "evil corporations," but I would absolutely fault the coercive state and the many sociopaths who comprise it.

...that are trying to keep us distracted while they commit atrocities around the globe.

I'm not sure how your point and my point are actually different here. Coercive governments and the things that they promote as "normal" and "good for society" are mostly bullshit. This is precisely why we have sick/depressed societies. I am not blaming mentally ill people. I'm blaming the society that creates mental illness in people who would otherwise be normal, functional adults - if not for the lifetime of bullshit laws and politics, fueled by politicians' and bureaucrats' perverse views of morality and their ignorance of economics/human behavior.

I'm not blaming the mentally ill for being mentally ill. I'm simply stating that it takes a mentally ill person to commit mass murder, and then offering my opinion about why many of them are mentally ill in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're reading, but it's apparently not the same thing that I'm writing. Or it's just a problem with comprehension.

My problem is strictly with your usage of the term "mentally ill" because it's nothing more than a scapegoat and an excuse. There is no excuse for mass murder, it's just being evil. Saying that "murderers are mentally ill" plants the seed in peoples' minds that "mental illness = bad, murderer, scary", etc. which does much, much, much more harm than good, especially considering mentall illness affects most people, in America at least, throughout at least a small portion of their lives (depression, anxiety, for example). You should drop that they are "mentally ill" and focus on their specific issues that are causing the problems you perceive.

For example, if a politician votes to enact genocide, blame their corruption and greed for profit and power, not a "mental illness" that may not even exist in the first place. All that language does is divide people at the bottom.

Or, get this, it's not going to be either of them because the chances of a person actually becoming a school shooter slim to none. Also lmfao @ children holding weapons of any kind being associated with "masculinity". Sure, they miiiiiight not be school shooters, but they'll probably be cops, or military, or some other toxic and oppressive position of power where people can get away with murder or have a justification to treat others like garbage. Yeah, I can do stereotypes, too :)

The real fact of the matter is the root of the problem, if anything, is isolation and treating others like they're "different" and thus bad. I can guarantee that there is not a single shred of percentage difference in effeminate vs masculine men being school shooters, but instead loners vs people that are accepted.

You're taking the pictures too literally. It's not the guns or the makeup, per se. But yes, guns are a masculine interest. Boys, on average, are more interested in stuff like machinery and whatnot. That's why men are more likely to become engineers, for example.

But your second point is correct, I think. It's isolation and the feeling of being alone, which then erupts in acts of violence.

However, which group do you think is more accepted? You yourself have made posts recently about being isolated and banned from places for being trans.

You could say the top is more likely to live a normal life, but the point is that everyone should have that same capability without having to conform to strict standards of society that they don't like, because if they do it just leads to more internal unhappiness that can manifest in the same way or in different ways that are far from the desired outcome.

I think our disconnect lies in the fact that you're talking from a standpoint of an idealized society, while I have a more gritty view.

Is it right or commendable that those people get treated poorly and bullied? No. While I find your position admirable, I also find it equally naive.

Unfortunately.

Well, let's look at history. Remember when video games were for "nerds" and "geeks" and people got the living shit beat out of them because they played pac-man after school?

Now, everyone talks about call of duty and xbox and it's a normalized thing in society. Everyone's a gamer now in some way, angry birds or farmville, etc. Society has a proven track record of evolving toward the correct position, it's just a matter of getting people to understand the worldviews that people initially perceive as "different".

An idealized society would be a lot different than just suggesting that queer kids shouldn't get bullied and tortured, but that's another topic for another time.

Remember when video games were for "nerds" and "geeks" and people got the living shit beat out of them because they played pac-man after school?

No, I don't remember this - and I grew up during this era. I never saw anyone get the "living shit beat out of them" because they played video games. There was the usual picking on nerds and bullying of kids that was and is pretty common among children, but never anything remotely close to beating the shit out of people because they played Pac-Man after school.

In fact, when I was a kid, there was this great method for dealing with bullies. The bullied would eventually fight back. Then, an amazing thing happened: the bullying stopped.

We didn't go to school counselors and demand safe spaces. We didn't become hashtag warriors (there was no Twitter or feel-good social media sites where we could live in our fake bubble worlds and echo-chambers). We didn't try to reason with violent kids.

There was an unwritten (and completely unnecessary) rule: If someone started a fight with you, you fought back. You defended yourself. If you saw someone else being attacked, you stood up for them. And, in fact, I saw this happen and participated in such defenses many times growing up. You know what the shocking part is?

It worked. Pretty much every single time.

Maybe we've had different experiences growing up, but I'm fairly certain that these blanket statements about gamers being viciously beaten for being a gamer wasn't an actual thing and wasn't an actual widespread thing. Yes, some kids were picked on...probably most kids at one point or another in their youth. No, I don't believe that people were maliciously beaten for trivial things like being a gamer. They were likely picked on because they tended to be easy targets. They were weak and easy to bully. This is not a strange phenomenon.

The truly strange part is that people watch others getting picked on, marginalized, or even beaten...and do nothing. They may even be the recipient of the antagonism and violence...and do nothing. They are taught that "violence is not the answer," even when it is the initiation of violence against them that brings on the question, "What should I do?"

The answer ought to be obvious. But if you're not willing to even put in minimal effort to stand up for yourself - to protect your own self - can you really expect others to help you? Should you expect that the aggressors will simply stop taking advantage of you? I don't think those are reasonable expectations at all, based on the observable world.

You can substitute gamers for black people if it makes you feel better. I was just using an example that's presumably more relatable.

Not everyone has the capabilities of "fighting back", and in a civilized society that isn't how things operate. Violence tends to not be the answer in most situations, but it definitely can be in some. I'm not against it entirely.

What's wrong with a safe space? What's the problem with wanting to feel like you can go to school and not have to fear for your life because an institution isn't doing what it should be doing and protecting you while you learn? We don't live in an anarchist society, if you want to do that, make a video game and play that. We live in a civilization of rational people capable of thinking for themselves.

We live in a civilization of rational people capable of thinking for themselves.

That's too funny, please continue.

This is the dark side of modern civilization.

Hmm, this argument assumes that all of these boys are heterosexual. Which may or may not be the case. In my experience, the boys below have no trouble getting attention from girls. How many mass shooters have been masters of applying makeup?

White supremacist beliefs, feeling entitled to sex, and history of domestic violence seem to be better predictors of the likeliness to become a mass-shooter. Sounds a lot like toxic masculinity to me. But I know you don’t believe that exists.

Do you think proper gun training for the incels who are not masculine enough in your opinion would have prevented these shootings? Do you really think the makeup boys are potential school shooters?

You're taking the pictures too literally. Actual appliance of makeup obviously has nothing to do with anything. And neither does gun training.

I'm not sure where the white supremacist thing comes from, I have not seen a connection between white supremacist beliefs and mass shootings myself, but you can link to something if you want to.

A feeling of entitlement to sex, however, seems to correlate with these shootings, that's where you're right.

Obviously enough, no one is entitled to sex.

But that feeling of entitlement then explodes into terrible acts of violence as the men fail to get a date, proving my point.

You can't force women to sleep with these men, but you can point them in a direction that changes them into men that can actually get some action happening.

The domestic violence thing you pulled out of your ass since these men tend to be desperately single, meaning no domestic violence can ever occur.

I’m not looking up links. You’re free of course to write it off as bullshit.

I have a sincere question though. Do you think hormone therapy would help? Like instead of anti-depressants or other psychiatric drugs, check the testosterone levels in depressed men/boys?

That's not my field, but I have read people reporting positive results after undergoing testosterone therapy. They've been happier, more balanced, more active.

Well, more like men, honestly.

There are theories flying around that the chemicals in our environment in the west actually fuck up our hormones. I can't say yes or no to this since, again, this isn't my field.

But male fish that have been found in waters contaminated by birth control pill leftovers have actually turned female.

That’s interesting and scary about the fish, but not surprising. I’m going to look that up.

Thanks for responding to a difference of opinion 🙃

Of course. I don't mind differing opinions at all. There was nothing in your comment that was an attack or something stupid, so of course I responded.

Be careful here. It seems that most shooters, at schools or elsewhere, are depressed, and medication makes the problem worse. Unless the person below is FORCED/ strongly "encouraged" to act like the pic shows, he is unlikely to become a shooter

Why do you think they are on all different kinds of pills? Because their lack of testosterone causes depression, an inability to control emotions, their concentration, everything. It completely fucks a man up, so no wonder shit like that happens.

This should be talked about more, but it isn't because it's a problem that concerns men, not women.

Yes, I agree. However, the boy in the lower part of the pic will not automatically become a shooter

Of course not! Absolutely not.

Get a $13.00 Upvote and Your Post Resteemed to My 2 Accounts @a-0-0 and @a-a-a with 72,500+ Followers. Send 3 SBD with Your post URL in MEMO to @a-0-0

really agree with you opinion.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70887.21
ETH 3581.98
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.75