Last Saturday Dr. Robi Ludwig said this about Elliot Rodger on Fox News:
When I was first listening to him, I was like, ‘Oh, he’s angry with women for rejecting him.’ And then I started to have a different idea: Is this somebody who is trying to fight against his homosexual impulses? Was he angry with women because they were taking away men from him?
Her remarks provoked a tirade from Mark Joseph Stern on Slate:
Now, it is perfectly reasonable to react to this bizarre conjecture with outrage and disgust. Ample evidence had, by that point, already illustrated that the shootings were committed by a man who craved sex with women but couldn’t obtain it. Ludwig’s claim, then, is totally baseless, leaving us to wonder whether her comments were motivated less by professional expertise than by anti-gay animus.
But taking such questions seriously is really granting Fox—and Ludwig—far too much credit. Ludwig’s claims weren’t just inaccurate; they were absolutely ridiculous, a spectacle of inane doltishness. By dredging the depths of her paranoia for the most laughably exaggerated homophobia imaginable, Ludwig’s remarks crescendoed past the usual droning doublespeak of Fox News’ bigotry and denialism to an altogether higher register of bleak, unintentionally satirical commentary on the limitlessness of Fox’s own lunacy. There is much to be angry about in this world, starting with the misogyny that still permeates our culture and seems to have driven Elliot Rodger to kill. But let us not waste our precious moments earnestly decrying the ramblings of a fool on a third-rate cable news channel that is already imploding before our eyes.
Why am I mentioning this?
Because, whatever you think of Ludwig’s thought, it is, essentially, pure Freud. To anyone who knows anything about psychoanalysis, the provenance is unmistakable.
Yes, my friends, Ludwig offered a standard Freudian interpretation of misogyny.
It feels strange to think that gay rights activists have embraced Freud for having advanced their cause.