Group Identities and Comparisons: Elliot Rodger and 'Nice Guys'

[ahunter3]

So, let's say you're espousing pride in some sort of group identity. Could be anything: polyamory, communal living, lefthanded people, people who like to retain their underarm hairs, whatever.

It's pretty much inevitable that somebody, sooner or later, is going to react to that with "Oh, so, you people... you folks are like Embarrassing Example X, that's what you're talking about, right?"

Every group has one. If you're trying to promote the idea of polyamory, someone's going to ask if you mean something akin to the early Mormons, and so forth. If you're organizing unpopular kids who get bullied, someone's going to mention Klebold and Harris.

The thing is, the comparison wouldn't be made if there weren't some kind of overlap between what you're trying to talk about and what they're familiar with.

In my case, I found myself wincing when I read some of the descriptions of mass murderer Elliot Rodger: an angry man who was very uncomfortable with taking sexual initiative, and especially angry that male sexual experience was reserved mainly for guys who did. A guy who persisted in seeing this as an external problem, not as a personal problem of his own.

I can't tell you to what extent it's a spurious connection. I don't know all that much about the guy. I've probably read less of what was written about him than the average person, to tell you the truth. But I will say this: to whatever extent there are lots of people with experiences like mine up through my early 20s, that's a fertile soil for bitter anger; and in the absence of a shared identity and a shared understanding of this as a social-political issue, bitter anger tends to seek someone to blame.

It's part of what this is about. No, I'm not saying my book will prevent people like me from growing up to become mass murderers; that would be unduly melodramatic and has no more substantiation than someone equating me and what I'm trying to talk about with Elliot Rodger.

Another Embarrassing Example X that I may be compared to is the so-called "Nice Guys". I think the original send-up of "Nice Guys" was done on the website "Heartless Bitches International" 15-some-odd years ago; the gist of it was that there exist some self-described "nice guys" who are not directly sexually forward but whose motivation for being "nice" to girls is that they anticipate or expect sex as a sort of reward for being nice guys. Perhaps more to the point, they self-identify as "nice guys" usually in the course of complaining that they are underappreciated, that those evil women have the despicable tendency to prefer mean guys who treat them horribly, and that therefore they (the nice guys) should immediately STOP being nice and treat women like shit since that's obviously what they prefer.

I do have a different point of departure than these archetypal fellows: I may be angry about how things are set up but I have no intention of changing my behavior; if we're going to call it "being nice", well, it's not something I'm doing for someone else. And although, yeah, my analysis of the overall situation contains a lot of parallels to what these guys have collectively complained about, it's not women's fault. Women have explained in detail exactly what social prompts and punishments and expectations and so forth have channeled them into those very behaviors and choices, and THEY (the women) were making those explanations as complaints THEMSELVES. But yes, undeniably, on some level and in some sense of the word, it's about the same underlying phenomenon.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

Comments

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

Here's my field report after going out with a self-described "nice guy" (who wasn't):

http://mallorys-camera.livejournal.com/471397.html

Rodger wasn't just uncomfortable taking the sexual initiative, he was also really entitled. One might almost be inclined to think that he'd OD'd on Nietzsche except I don't really think he was much of an intellectual.

[ahunter3.livejournal.com]

Oh, I remember that blog post! I recall thinking "You know, I really have to write something about the 'nice guy' phenomenon..."

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I am going to have to go back and re read your earlier posts, but I'm reading this as a frustration on your part because you don't seem to fit neatly into socially approved categories. Indeed, you straddle several at once. I simply refer to these desires and subsequent acceptance/rejection as 'tags'.

My first question is, "why do you feel societal tags are enough a vindication for you, in order to be 'accepted' for whatever you are?"

My second question is, "why were you not angry enough to tip towards violent revenge? What did you have that Rodgers lacked?"

My last question is,"do you think these pressures are worse in a world of social networking where even strangers can mock the 'loser' that it was for you when a teen?

[ahunter3.livejournal.com]

First question answer:

Shorthand oversimplifications are highly useful for everyday casual interaction with people. It has (for instance) been useful to me to be perceived as "a hippie" -- shorthand for a double handful of ideas and ideologies and attitudes, not all of which apply, but as a prepackaged set that folks in general are widely familiar with, it's close enough for everyday use. I'd very much like one that handles my gender identity and sexual orientation. For the few intimately close people in my life, I'd still prefer to explain myself in detail as a complicated individual, sure, but it's seriously exhausting to have to explain all that mess to random individuals (most of whom don't care, just as I don't feel up to the task with them). And people DO want to pigeonhole you, so that they know how to treat you, how to react to you. Their desire to do so feels like a nagging harassing insistent tug on the pantsleg from an implacable chihuahua: disruptively annoying!

Second question answer:

For a fairly long time there was a balance within me between the anger and the worry that actually there was something wrong with ME, something that was causing folks' behavior towards me, and I didn't know which was the more accurate understanding. That was reconciled by my having the (rather sudden) insight into what it was all about (hence the book, and all the communication-effort that went into it), and that clarity meant not blaming people as culprits for my experiences; instead the anger got aimed at something a bit more abstract. If violent revenge worked against a social system, I'd probably have attempted it, but it doesn't.

Third question answer:

I think on balance thigns are far better in a networked world. For every 100 additional opportunities for strangers to mock or harass at a distance, there's an opportunity to find a kindred spirit, and the latter is far more precious than the former is daunting, if you see what I mean.

[musicman.livejournal.com]

Perhaps Rodger didn't have much of a conscience, nor a good consciousness of others? Whereas, you do, on both counts. When people lose the rational basis of what they hold as normal, it seems to me they are sometimes doing so because they have lost, or never had a conscience. And when the individual is so self-absorbed that he loses consciousness of other people as real, instead of "them bitches" or "those people who rejected me" or "those people who never accepted me," they they can act on ideas, as crazy as they are, without being bothered by thinking it might be wrong.

You seem to have a very good sense of right and wrong, of conscience, and consciousness. You have a desire to help others, and not just yourself. That is the difference I see in the two of you.

i like the hippie look, and the mildness of your manners, which goes well with the hippie look. We all want some kind of cover, so we don't have to stand around forever explaining who we are and what we do. Been there and done that. People want to pigeon-hole us right away because it is easier for them to remember. For instance, if I tell someone I'm an editorial researcher, they don't like it if I go on to talk about my writing, as well as my professional photography. But what are you? they sometimes ask. Which is why polyamory is a threat to many vanilla monogamous people. And why switches are not liked by some of the D/s community. They don't want you to be more than one of anything. Whereas you are successful at being yourself, even with all of your many aspects and complicated being, that is difficult for some to accept.

Something I've had to learn when dealing with some transgendered people is to not ask "Which are you today?" but rather to accept the person may be all three, and may move from female to male to both, because that is what transitions do, and the person is allowed to be that way. If my friend arrives and is especially male at that moment, that is who the person is. And vice versa. That was hard for me to learn, and yet, I was looking to understand, I was looking to find out about transgendered, and yet my own understanding took time.

[ahunter3.livejournal.com]

Thank you! That's very affirming and I appreciate it!

>We all want some kind of cover, so we don't have to stand around forever explaining who we are and what we do< Yeah, very well and concisely put!

I do not as of yet have any close genderfluid friends, but I've read about them (autobio and otherwise); I think I, too, would initially find it hard or at least awkward. Transitioning in the older, unidirectional M2F or F2M sense might be easier to learn but as you say the transitioning itself is a process and identity may move around in nonlinear ways over the short term even if the overall trajectory is more linear.