Rampage shooting in Santa Barbara by misogynist 22-yo.

[PainRack]

The issue with that is that in the modern world we tend to shy away from such structures as a whole. And for arguably good reason too. What you propose is no less than establishing a set of standards and forcing men to conform to those. And that is kind of off putting to anyone who believes in the concept of freedom.

While I do agree with Melchior regarding gender roles, the idea that society can't force standards, or shouldn't have some ideals is absurd. We do enforce such standards. It's called law and morality .
We have cultural defined goals and roles. The idea of a wife beater is bad. Etc etc etc.

All I saying is that a positive model is more.... Er.. I would say satisfying than a negative model, one where we teach that to be human means we don't kill, steal and rape. It needs to be in there but achieving an ideal is more self actualization than not doing something wrong.

[madd0ct0r]

Mike Wong actually wrote an intesting article on this years ago. I'd link but the .toc site seems to be down.

In short form, the old ideal for a man was founded not on rights, but duties. A duty to look after and support those weaker themselves, a duty to understand how to support themselves so that they may fulfil the first, and a duty to recognise that such cannot be fulfilled without the wider help of society, and thus your duty to contribute to society helpfully.

In esscence, being a man is defined as being a responsible adult. You can build an identical chain for either gender, but it helps people accept it if they feel it applies to them specifically.

[Broomstick]

I would think that reducing such a person's ability to feel further emotional anger and depression (if brain surgery would work this way) would be necessary if we are seriously considering locking this person up for the rest of his or her life.

What are you saying here? That rather than confine someone physically you find it preferable to cut out parts of his brain? Brain surgery isn't re-wiring the brain, it's physically removing parts of it.

Consider that we can let someone out of prison. We can not reverse brain surgery.

That someone being born wrong should experienced a life of pain and misery is just a horrible concept to me.

Nonetheless, birth defects happen. Yes, it sucks. The universe is a hostile, uncaring, indifferent place and this is merely one symptom of that.

It's not like such a person would be able to understand the problem with himself like most criminals do when they have their liberties being taken away.

Why do you think most criminals have that level of self-reflection and understanding?

That's what you heard. What I heard is that men need to internalize that fact. When women bitch and complain they already know not all men are like that so men need to stop being so damn defensive about it. Plait is not "espousing" a view, he has that view. Can you understand that subtle difference?

I'm saying that there are males out there that can express such a view without actually holding it, not that I think Plait is lying about it. There are still many people out there that knows how to be espouse gender equality when they are talking to girls while being sexist in an all male crowd.

OK, Ray, you can not force perfection on an imperfect world. We all know poseurs exist. That doesn't mean we should just give up. Plaint is speaking to the men who can be reached.

Maybe it is just my social circle, but I've seen too many cases of other guys being more than happy to stop arguing for feminism movement when they are in a crowd without girls/

It's not just you and we are all aware of this.

Given that there are experienced and older men that seems to justify this view, it's going to take a while before we can reach that stage.

Well, we'd better get started, then!

With a little less levity – dramatic social change CAN happen. I'm old enough to remember when it was entirely legal to pay a woman less than a man for the same work (or to pay a non-white man less than a white man for the same work), when homosexuals were beaten and murdered with societal approval and seen much as we look at child molesters today, and so on. There has been an enormous change in cultural attitudes in my lifetime.

Keep in mind, as well, that western civilization is, despite its current flaws, much less misogynist than it was a few generations ago, and much less than other cultures currently in existence. It can get better.

Would they listen to people that they view as competition?

They are more likely to listen to competition they view as equally human than they are to listen to those they consider chattel.

It's not like the feminism movement has been widely embraced by men for what it is around the world.

There are a lot of women who haven't embraced feminism. That doesn't mean it's had no effect whatsoever. There has been considerable change in the most recent generations that has considerable improved the lot of women in the western world. Don't diminish the progress that's been made. Stop discarding the good because it's not perfect.

If the issue is not being able to identify his issues correctly, then we should not make an argument that all forms of help we can give him is exhausted, which seems to be the argument made by Broomstick.

On the other hand, in that case all feasible help was being given to him. It's functionally impossible to diagnose and treat someone for a psychological problem if they deliberately withhold information from you.

It's not like Elliot was deliberately hiding his views online though.

I know the concept is shocking to some people but most of the world doesn't live entirely on line. Therapists are not in the habit of pursuing their patients on-line any more than they are inclined to stalk them in the real world. If you're going to a therapist you're supposed to provide the information, not force the person to hunt it down.

I really you guys are missing the forest for the trees here. From my experience most of these guys simply do not know what they are doing wrong.

Yes, but instead of saying “Hey, is it me?” once in awhile their default is that it is always someone else's fault, never theirs. They lack a certain introspection the rest of us have.

[Broomstick]

A sidetrack from Elliot, but I can't help wondering if men need to create a counter idea of masculinity against Men Rights or their British equivalent.

I would say they do need such a thing.

The signs of growing up are being able to drink and party, being able to drive, being able to vote. Of the above, only driving is a visible status of maturity for men. I would argue college should be a sign of maturity, but modern culture has tainted it as a useful symbol for teenagers.

In the past, men became men by accepting a whole bunch of values and behaviours. Chivalry, honour,duty,husband...

Yes, those virtues were tainted by misogynistic behaviours.

They also frequently carried a load of responsibility as well as privilege. After all, to husband something is to nurture and care for it, to guard it and watch it grow. I think that meaning has been largely forgotten and it's a shame, because acting as a guardian to the family is a very positive male role. All those other things you name used to assume a certain code of conduct towards women, children, and the weak. Granted, in real life this was not always practiced but having the notion of honor and chivalrous behavior is a positive, particularly if the details of those things can continue to evolve in a positive manner.

That is one of things missing from the misogynists – they want the privileges of being a mate without the responsibility, which includes things such as self-sacrifice and being willing to compromise. You can't have a long term marriage/relationship in our society without such things.

Surely that would be a better placeholder than Broship or the current contenders on the market, wouldn't it?

Do we really need to emphasize the role of gender in culture beyond what's strictly necessary (suitable support for maternity, etc.)?

I don't we need to emphasize it so much as recognize it exists. Pretending gender doesn't exist is ridiculous, it's biology. Yes, there are intersex and transpeople, but they are a very small minority (which should also be acknowledged as existing). Most people have fairly strong gender identities.

Why should an identifiable, identitary concept of masculinity be necessary (or femininity, for that matter)? People should be encouraged to build their view of themselves on something more worthwhile than the just-about-salvageable remnants of largely arbitrary and functionally surpassed gender roles.

I'd argue that we need more archetypes. People want archetypes to emulate. We now have the action girl, the female hero, the female doctor, etc. that are treated seriously and not as objects of comedy. Unfortunately, we don't have many male equivalents – the “Mr. Mom” role is almost always comedy and it shouldn't be.

I like the fact that if I suddenly woke up as a woman nothing very important would change in my life (my girlfriend might be somewhat happy about that, actually) and I feel that if more people were able to say that society would improve (I don't mean to diminish in any way those that feel strongly about their gender identity - I'm thinking trans people, etc. - referring more to external pressure to conform).

If that happened and you didn't undergo some psychic trauma you'd be quite an unusual human being. Assuming you were such an unusual human being, a LOT important would change in your life in today's world. On another board I frequent a transwoman who counsels other transitioning people has said one of the reasons she thinks the assault rate on transition/newly transitioned transwomen is so high is because they're not used to automatically engaging many of the safety strategies ciswomen are indoctrinated in from birth.

[ray245]

I know the concept is shocking to some people but most of the world doesn't live entirely on line. Therapists are not in the habit of pursuing their patients on-line any more than they are inclined to stalk them in the real world. If you're going to a therapist you're supposed to provide the information, not force the person to hunt it down.

From what I have gathered, Elliot actually gave his parents the links to the comments he made online, and that was one of the reason why he was sent to a therapist.

[Darmalus]

Why should an identifiable, identitary concept of masculinity be necessary (or femininity, for that matter)? People should be encouraged to build their view of themselves on something more worthwhile than the just-about-salvageable remnants of largely arbitrary and functionally surpassed gender roles.

I'd argue that we need more archetypes. People want archetypes to emulate. We now have the action girl, the female hero, the female doctor, etc. that are treated seriously and not as objects of comedy. Unfortunately, we don't have many male equivalents – the “Mr. Mom” role is almost always comedy and it shouldn't be.

In the book The Men We Never Knew (it's been years, so I could be mixing it up with a book where a woman disguised herself as a man for a year) the author talks about, among other things, men having difficulty adapting as old male standards/archetypes were torn down but no new ones offered in their place. She mentions some support groups forming, but also those groups were often under attack and accused of being being reactionary, tho the author believed they were honest attempts to adapt.

The book was from 1993, so if these groups failed, it would probably explain why the MRA and similar groups are all that's left today. Groups based on honesty and openness are much easier to destroy than bastions of hate and bitter resentment. We'd be dealing with a generation given 3 options: MRA, make it up as you go along, reject feminism and go back to old archetypes.

[Channel72]

The universe is a hostile, uncaring, indifferent place and this is merely one symptom of that.

All the more reason to start taking control of things, since this Universe is too incompetent to be awesome.

But seriously, I really don't think the occasional spree shooter with social problems is actually worth the time and effort to specifically address. In all likelihood, this is one of those insoluble problems that will be incidentally fixed via efforts to correct broader social problems.

We already spend way too much money dealing with international terrorists who have clear political agendas... I'm not convinced that institutional attempts to divine and correct the motives behind one-off misfits with psychological issues would be worth it.

[Elfdart]

One suggestion from a shrink on CNN the other night was a good one: If you're prescribed certain drugs (esp. narcotics and psychiatric drugs) then you are restricted from filling that order at more than one pharmacy -no double-dipping. The pharmacist can be held responsible if he or she dispenses 30 roxicet pills after another pharmacist has done so. That's why they're all verified by phone, fax or e-mail from the doctor's office. The same should hold true for some psychiatric drugs and guns.

Why is this supposed to be a good idea? Because it means they have to see their psychiatrist that much more often or something?

Because speaking as someone who does take various psychiatric drugs I can tell you that the upshot will be that many more people having to go unhealthy stretches of time without their meds when they run out.

No, it's to have a way to keep people who are disturbed from buying guns or ammo without a background check. They're already supposed to screen felons.

[Dominus Atheos]

...

No it wouldn't. Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. "you are restricted from filling that order at more than one pharmacy" and "a way to keep people who are disturbed from buying guns or ammo without a background check" aren't related at all.

[Elfdart]

Oh for fuck's sake!

A person who takes a prescription to one pharmacy can't take that same prescription to another pharmacy and get two sets of pills when the doctor prescribed only one. Why? Because not only is it illegal (especially with narcotics and psychiatric drugs), but because the pharmacies have to verify each prescription they are asked to fill precisely to avoid double-dipping. If you do try to game the system the doctor and/or pharmacist will alert the authorities and the police will come and arrest you. Why? Because the state decided that people who are are prescribed certain medications should not be allowed to stockpile those drugs. There is a quick and fairly reliable system in place to stop a patient from acquiring hundreds of Lortabs when the doctor asked that only thirty be dispensed: The pharmacy contacts the doctor or hospital to verify that (a) the prescription is valid and (b) that you haven't been taking that prescription around to more than one drug store.

What does this have to do with gun sales? If a system is in place to keep people on certain drugs from buying more than the doctor prescribed, then there should be a similar system in place anywhere guns or ammo are sold. If you're being treated for severe psychiatric problems and have to take (for example) anti-psychotic drugs, then not only should you NOT be able to buy a gun but more importantly, anyone who sells guns or ammo should have to run your name and ID number to make sure that (a) you're not a criminal and (b) you're not crazy.

[Dominus Atheos]

Run your name and ID number against WHAT? Every doctor's office in the state?

I'm sorry, that was my mistake. I should know better then to take anything Elfdart says as sane. When Elfdart says stuff, you should just take it the same as when a 5-year old says that the sky is blue because it's Gods favorite color.

[Simon_Jester]

Ahem. Minor detail:

We could make a system work where there's a list of people not allowed to buy guns, and check names against that list. If we wanted to do that we could. Lots of places do that.

We could also make a system work where if you try to buy guns from several places at once, it rings alarm bells- because all the background checks go to the same central databse.

We could also in theory do the same thing for ammunition purchases. The catch is that gun owners buy a lot more ammo, and buy more frequently, so the database would be swamped by ammunition purchases. Also, for a lot of reasons we can't really put tight limits on ammunition to prevent mass shootings; I could discuss that more below.

The real catch, of course, is making it so that mentally ill people don't pass background checks and can't buy guns, and also making it so that they don't get the guns by other means. Remember the elementary school shooting in Connecticut, where the killer murdered his own mother and took her secured, legally obtained gun?

[Grumman]

We could also in theory do the same thing for ammunition purchases. The catch is that gun owners buy a lot more ammo, and buy more frequently, so the database would be swamped by ammunition purchases. Also, for a lot of reasons we can't really put tight limits on ammunition to prevent mass shootings; I could discuss that more below.

The other catch is that it would be completely worthless for any valid purpose. Unless you make people buy ammunition by the bullet, limiting quantities of ammunition purchased is only effective at punishing legitimate gun users, because the illegitimate uses of a gun just don't use very much ammo. One box of ammo is basically a lifetime supply if you're a spree killer, but not if you're just going down to the gun range once a fortnight.

The real catch, of course, is making it so that mentally ill people don't pass background checks and can't buy guns, and also making it so that they don't get the guns by other means. Remember the elementary school shooting in Connecticut, where the killer murdered his own mother and took her secured, legally obtained gun?

No, the real catch is implementing the smart measures, and going no further. Ensuring that gun retailers know if you're a felon or have a serious mental illness and thus know not to sell you a gun is a good idea with strong support (as long as the database is handled more openly than the no-fly list, so that we don't have more people getting screwed like Saadiq Long). Making it impossible to murder someone and steal their stuff is a pipe dream.

[Simon_Jester]

We could also in theory do the same thing for ammunition purchases. The catch is that gun owners buy a lot more ammo, and buy more frequently, so the database would be swamped by ammunition purchases. Also, for a lot of reasons we can't really put tight limits on ammunition to prevent mass shootings; I could discuss that more below.

The other catch is that it would be completely worthless for any valid purpose. Unless you make people buy ammunition by the bullet, limiting quantities of ammunition purchased is only effective at punishing legitimate gun users, because the illegitimate uses of a gun just don't use very much ammo. One box of ammo is basically a lifetime supply if you're a spree killer, but not if you're just going down to the gun range once a fortnight.

That was one of the "lot of reasons" I didn't mention to keep the post short, yes.

The real catch, of course, is making it so that mentally ill people don't pass background checks and can't buy guns, and also making it so that they don't get the guns by other means. Remember the elementary school shooting in Connecticut, where the killer murdered his own mother and took her secured, legally obtained gun?

No, the real catch is implementing the smart measures, and going no further. Ensuring that gun retailers know if you're a felon or have a serious mental illness and thus know not to sell you a gun is a good idea with strong support (as long as the database is handled more openly than the no-fly list, so that we don't have more people getting screwed like Saadiq Long). Making it impossible to murder someone and steal their stuff is a pipe dream.

Another problem, and this is one of the reasons the gun lobby is so paranoid about even sensible gun restrictions, is the slippery-slope issue.

In certain places there are precedents for a gun purchase database evolving into a gun registration database, or for a registration list being used to assist the government in mass, uncompensated confiscation of firearms. Both of those are bad outcomes from the point of view of the gun lobby, so they're hypersensitive about the issue.

Hell, I've seen people on this forum advocate exactly that, so it's not even a pure strawmanning exercise.

[madd0ct0r]

in certain places?

[Purple]

in certain places?

I too am curious as to where that supposedly happened.

[Simon_Jester]

Excuse me, I will have to go digging. Consider that statement contingent; I have to get to work and don't have time to search for a list right now. If you decide it can't be true, I'm not going to be in position to prove otherwise until this evening at the earliest.

For that matter, it's at least possible I'm misremembering a case or two.

What I can say is that there is a very sincere fear of this in the gun lobby. And a similar fear that if they make concessions to gun control supporters, that rather than this becoming the basis for compromise, it will be used to crowbar open further restrictions. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is what they fear, and I believe I recall cases where this has actually happened, though it's possible I'm actually wrong about that last and I flat out don't have time to prove it right this minute.

[madd0ct0r]

while we wait for that, I've dug out Mike Wong's rant on the men's rights movements:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/rantmode/piss/

The Pussification of Men

A puffy, bawling middle-aged crybabyWhen and how did so many men become such whiny crybabies? Just look at the following mission statement from the website mensactivism.org:

The underlying purpose of The Men’s Activism News Network is twofold:

To provide pro-male activists with news and information that will aid them in working toward establishing equal rights for men and the improvement of men’s lives.
To encourage participation in activism projects, and to promote membership in men’s rights organizations which coordinate activism efforts and serve as a supportive network for men.

Did you catch that? Men trying to form support networks, as if we’re an oppressed minority? Is this a joke? Unfortunately, it’s not. The “men’s rights” movement has gained steam in recent years, and it’s a much bigger phenomenon than Rush Limbaugh’s infantile feminist-bashing.

So what’s unmanly about the men’s rights movement? Well, let me take a stab at this by pulling up an old quote. The following is the “Code of the Knights” from Lord Baden Powell’s book “Scouting for Boys”, which was published in 1908 and became the inspiration for the Boy Scouts movement:

“Be Always Ready, with your armour on, except when you are taking your rest at night.
At whatever you are working, try to win honour and a name for honesty.
Defend the poor and weak.
Help them that cannot defend themselves.
Do nothing to hut or offend anyone else.
Be prepared to fight in the defence of their country.
Work for honour rather than profit.
Never break your promise.
Maintain the honour of your country with your life.
Rather die honest than live shamelessly.
Chivalry requireth that youth should be trained to perform the most laborious and humble offices with cheerfulness and grace; and to do good unto others.”

Roll that over in your mind a couple of times. Do you notice anything interesting? You should: there’s nothing in there about fighting for our own rights, our own after-tax income, our freedom to offend others, our freedom to behave in a boorish manner, or any of the other things that the right-wing promotes as “manly” today. And there was certainly nothing about lame displays of faux-manhood, such as wearing a “Tapout” UFC T-shirt or voting Republican.

Those who speak most often of traditional manhood tend to be clueless about what traditional manhood actually was. Traditionally chivalrous men saw themselves as protectors and benefactors of the rest of society, and like the men who stayed behind on the Titanic, they understood that this sometimes meant we would get the short end of the stick. In fact, they were proud of it.
...
A lot of men think that masculinity is under threat, but it’s under threat from these whiny crybabies, not from feminists. A feminist can’t make you stop being a man. She can’t make you turn into a whiny crybaby. She can’t make you shirk your responsibilities to your children. She can’t make you act as if you have no duty to anyone but yourself. Only you can do that to yourself.

[TimothyC]

in certain places?

I too am curious as to where that supposedly happened.

The largest and best known case was New Orleans after Katrina. Thousands of guns were seized and were only returned after years of legal fighting.

Oh, and because the guns were not properly stored, many were returned in a condition that made them unusable and worthless.

There was also the earlier instances in New York City where there were efforts to confiscate as many rifles and shotguns as they could.

[Elfdart]

Run your name and ID number against WHAT? Every doctor's office in the state?

A database of felons and dangerous mental patients.

I'm sorry, that was my mistake. I should know better then to take anything Elfdart says as sane. When Elfdart says stuff, you should just take it the same as when a 5-year old says that the sky is blue because it's Gods favorite color.

Drama queen much?

[General Zod]

Run your name and ID number against WHAT? Every doctor's office in the state?

A database of felons and dangerous mental patients.

I'm sorry, that was my mistake. I should know better then to take anything Elfdart says as sane. When Elfdart says stuff, you should just take it the same as when a 5-year old says that the sky is blue because it's Gods favorite color.

Drama queen much?

How would you go about classifying "dangerous mental patients"? Would soldiers with PTSD count? Because that seems like a great way to have that kind of solution tanked before it even gets off the ground. Or even better, prevent people from seeking help out of worries that they might get added to the database by an overzealous doctor.

[Beowulf]

"dangerous mental patients" - Adjudicated in a court of law by court appointed psychologists. IAW, what you need to take away someone's rights through due process of law.

[General Zod]

"dangerous mental patients" - Adjudicated in a court of law by court appointed psychologists. IAW, what you need to take away someone's rights through due process of law.

Given how competently we've seen the government handling "no fly" lists, I wouldn't be comfortable with that sort of system without a means of getting off it. Especially given how often psychiatrists are likely to misdiagnose someone.

[Ralin]

Elfdart you goddamn halfwit, you really think many of the people suffering from the really fun mental illnesses have the money to go around 'double-dipping' when their insurance won't cover two of the same prescriptions in a month without an express prescription from the doctor to do so? And on that note it's not all that hard to get a doctor to write a 90 day prescription for even restricted psychiatric drugs if you have a halfway good reason. I do it at least once or twice a year, and with things with fairly good street value at that.

[Simon_Jester]

"dangerous mental patients" - Adjudicated in a court of law by court appointed psychologists. IAW, what you need to take away someone's rights through due process of law.

Given how competently we've seen the government handling "no fly" lists, I wouldn't be comfortable with that sort of system without a means of getting off it. Especially given how often psychiatrists are likely to misdiagnose someone.

Creating a means to get off the list would be trivially easy, and I'm sure most states would be quite compliant if you ask them to create one. Few states are that anti-firearm.