CULTURE
AlterNet / By Chauncey DeVega 115 COMMENTS
The Santa Barbara Mass Shooting, Elliot Rodger, and Aggrieved White Male Entitlement Syndrome
When an entire social structure has been erected to reinforce the lie that white folks are "normal" and "Others" are "deviant," it can be very difficult to break out of denial.
115 COMMENTS115 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

Photo Credit: YouTube.com

May 25, 2014 |




As I often ask, "what shall we do with the white people?"

When an "Arab" or "Muslim" American kills people in mass they are a "terrorist". When a black person shoots someone they are "thugs". When a white man commits a mass shooting he is "mentally ill" or "sick".

Whiteness and white privilege are the luxury to be an individual, one whose behavior reflects nothing about white people as a group.

There will be not be a national discussion of a culture of "white pathology" or how white Americans may have a "cultural problem" with their young men and gun violence. The news media will not devote extensive time to the "social problem" of white male violence and mass shootings.

Elliot Rodger, a rich, white, entitled, young man allegedly shot and killed (as he apparently hunted them down) six women while driving his BMW around Santa Barbara, California late last night. Like Adam Lanza, this would appear to be a case of aggrieved white male entitlement syndrome, one which has led to a murderous and tragic outcome.

I have written about what I term "aggrieved white male entitlement syndrome" onseveral occasions.

In a complementary manner, William Hamby offers up a sharp synthesis of how rage and white male privilege come together to create monsters:

Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel (2010) proposed a mechanism that might well explain why white males are routinely going crazy and killing people. It's called "aggrieved entitlement." According to the authors, it is "a gendered emotion, a fusion of that humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back. And its gender is masculine." This feeling was clearly articulated by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre. Harris said, "People constantly make fun of my face, my hair, my shirts..." A group of girls asked him, "Why are you doing this?" He replied, "We've always wanted to do this. This is payback... This is for all the **** you put us through. This is what you deserve."

At the risk of getting too existentialist, I'd like to propose a very simple and elegant explanation for not only school shootings but a host of other barbaric acts in recent years: White men are having a crisis of both aggrievement and entitlement. One need only look at the 2012 election season to see less brutal but equally mind-numbing examples of white men going mad because they are losing their power. The "Republican Meltdown" is a perfect example of men who previously had all the control escalating to madness when that control was lost...

The thing is, losing power hurts. That's the "aggrieve" part of aggrieved entitlement. It's one thing for a bunch of white men to feel hurt because they are no longer the kings of their own private castles, rulers of all they survey. It's another thing for them to feel like they're entitled to power, and more importantly, entitled to punish others for taking it away. And that -- aggrievement plus the feeling of entitlement -- is what may well drive people like Adam Lanza to these horrific crimes.

IDK that all segments of society have issues. social change requires adjustments from us all. I think it will take a great deal of research into crime statistics to see of the trend you describe is significant.

some acts of violence are going to happen as isolated incidents not necessarily related to social change with a racial vector. What is salient in my opinion is the breakdown of the family unit and readjustment of what the family unit becomes. White folk in America may be possibly more vulnerable to this breakdown??

In some cases greater access to weapons. Kids today don;t use kitchen knives when they have access to assault rifles. It becomes more horrific because they CAN do more damage now then when I was younger.

Other societies have men of other cultures and races who have had to adjust to social change. Al Queda does so well adjusting to western values that have been brought to their countries....Tianamen Square is a fabulous example of adjustment to social/political change by the passing elite.....all of this proves nothing in my mind except that white men are people too.

Do we expect more of them for some reason? Were we doing better as a society when they were the majority governing class? I don't know the answers to these questions, and I have a strong belief in equality for all peoples and genders. But I am also smart enough to listen to those who have "been there / done that." (irrespective of race and gender)

lol

saw this and thought to post it myself,, but , ya know,


interesting points, though its not cool to include race as there are SOME other races of men who have done these things too

we could call gangs, detached black male territorial syndrome,,,,

but then, I guess we already just call them 'thugs',,huh?
maybe thats the point the author is making,,,,,shrugs,,,

I agree that its one of many human traits to have difficulty adjusting , not necessarily to manifest in killing though.

I think the point is that the standards are inconsistent. What we are calling ill in one instance to maintain the value and humanity of the person, we degrade and call thuggery in other instances.

I think thug may be appropriate, or ill may be appropriate but its just a matter of being consistent when we decide which way to approach labeling others.

here is another inconsistent type of labeling

The difference is morality, mentality, media and agenda.

Has little to do with the individual

..or maybe it just has all to do with controlling one's emotions and

putting them in check when they are faced with adversity..rather

than looking for someone to blame..

In most societies within our country it has always been the white male throughout history who is the example, the leader to follow. And we respect our leaders.

It has been my ability to personally witness that white men from the very elite (even respected politicians) to the lower classes can get away with just about anything even when caught red handed, simply because of their place of authority and earning ability in the majority of our lives.

If we start profiling and demeaning even the seriously errant white men and label them as a group (such as alcoholic wife beaters), the overall strength of the image they still currently cast in our eyes would fade so dramatically that we would question, even doubt their leadership abilities. IMO.

The bad thing about protecting men, even the mentally ill among them is that they already feel an empowerment by birthright, and when their evil natures are coddled or excused they become even more reckless knowing they will be protected as the heads of or providers of families who are very serious about saving their names, etc...

Something tells me that Elliot Rodger couldn't get laid because he exuded an arrogant and spoiled rich kid vibe that all the young women around him could easily recognize and were themselves put off by it.

Elliot Rodger, registered Democrat. Killed 7 people in Ca.


He felt entitled. Like most Dimwitcraps.

yeah, cause ted bundy and jeffrey dahmer (republicans) or others didnt feel entitled,,,,


political party is TOTALLY irrelevant to narcissistic psychosis,,,,,

Opinions are relevant unless they are from someone else, no?

Evil is evil no matter where it dwells or the tools and excuses of its actions

To control it one would have to control human nature, and anyone wishing that should be seriously considered an even greater threat to society!

yes, including my own opinion about the relevancy of political party to entitlement mentality,,,,

Uh, when a male Muslim kills people in mass in the name of his religious beliefs, then he is a terrorist. Thankfully, such a Muslim is in the minority of Muslims ... in the USA at least.

I agree that white thugs should be called just that ... thugs.

Entitlement has everything to do with the topic.

This is an open, public forum. I/we may post what we feel is suitable.
If white male is interjected, political leanings are relevant.

This is not, so far, the USSR yet.

Wouldn't it be easier just to say that white male American Humans are crazier than male American Humans who are minorities?

no, that would be racist

its more on point to say they are more APT to be excused as human or ill when they do 'crazy' things,,,

maybe we should look at when all this type behavior started? I do not see school shootings and these type of acts before the 1990's. What started happening then?

That is very true started in the mid to late 80's and by the 90's 2 income families was starting to be the norm. The 1st 5 or 6 years of a child's life is very important. We did start having/letting others raise our kids as parents were hoping for the American Dream their Parents had

looking at info on mass shootings here http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

it seems like they stem back to 1982. starting with working age men who couldnt handle rejection,,from a job or a partner,,,etc,,,

these were men that were raised in the era of one working parent homes,,,,so Im not sure if the answer lies there


I think something in the way society treats the kids, not preparing them for disappointments,,, enabled in many the inability to handle pitfalls and setbacks,,,exposing them to such much sex and violence in media , and the ease with which to attain a weapon that can kill so many so quickly was probably the WORST environment for those types to be raised in,,