This happened in the same county where I grew up. As the story unfolds, we learn that this man's motive for shooting up an aerobics class and killing several women. He wrote a web diary about it and hoped others could learn from him? What kind of lesson, I wonder?
One issue this incident brings up. Men are more likely to externalize their anger, while women are more like to internalize it. This man was angry because he couldn't find a girlfriend, so he murdered women in an aerobics class to punish us for it. When women are single, our culture tells us there must be something wrong with us. Can you imagine a woman going into a men's fitness class and shooting the place up because she couldn't find a boyfriend? No. But if she did, the media would have a field day. "Scorned woman gone crazy."
I know that this tragedy is still very fresh and I hope everyone keeps the loved ones of the victims (as well as the survivors) in their thoughts. But keep your eyes peeled for any coverage of this story that includes a discussion of gender-based violence.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: No Discussion of Gender-Based Violence in Shootings .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15335
When women are single, our culture tells us there must be something wrong with us
I find it odd that you can say this, but completely ignore something very important about this whole thing:
You talk about culture, and societal pressure on women to not be single, but the societal pressure on men to not be single is just as great, if not moreso than it is for women.
It pushed this man to murder, and suicide. Society, quite clearly, tells men that we have no value if we aren't approved of by a woman. If we aren't providing for/accompanied by/with in some way, a woman, society tells us we are failures as men.
I would think something like this, on a site that pays close attention to how society pressures women, would immediately use this to open dialog about how society pressures men, too.
Instead, you chose not to. There are bigger issues at work than the gender stereotypes you choose to indulge in, such as men externalize anger, women don't, etc.
That's interesting. I don't get those messages at all. The messages I read are that men are entitled to have beautiful women flocking to them and allowed to treat them as expendable (usu. aimed at single men, eg, axe commercials, The Wedding Crashers), and that men are silly dufuses who need a woman to set them right (usu. aimed at married men, eg, any household item commercial, Family Guy). I don't see either of those messages are particularly flattering, but I don't read a message that men need a woman to be valuable, either. Can you give some examples?
I think you have a valid point. In our society, we're constantly bombarded with messages that it's not OK to be single, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman. Dating sites abound, and in almost every movie there's some underlying theme of romance and, of course, the hero/ine always gets the guy/girl. The pressure is present for both genders, single women are stereotyped as some sort of "crazy cat lady" and guys who can't get a girl must be "geeks" who spend all day playing dungeons and dragons or something. It's interesting that you seem to talk about value as one-sided though, seeing as I think society views single women as just as worthless if they are not approved of by a man. But, overall, I think I agree with you, another way the patriarchy hurts men as well.
This was a cold-blooded, pre-meditated mass murder and hate crime against women. I am assuming that you aren't excusing this man for his actions or shifting the blame on society, but your comment came close enough to bother me ("It pushed this man to murder, and suicide"). While of-course society puts all kinds of pressure on both genders, this is not even remotely close to a reasonable response (in fact it is a terrifying hate crime), and we need to make sure that while we examine the culture as feminists do, that we hold the criminal responsible fully for his extreme, heinous actions.
Personally, I agree that society does push both men and women into relationships. However, again, I hardly think it is extreme enough to even remotely explain this sociopathic act. I believe there had to have been other, and stronger, factors to what happened, which can not be excused or pushed aside.
Second of all, in my limited perspective, single older men are valued more than single older women. This is a loose statement, and my intention is not to trivialize what happened, nor is it my intention to have an argument, and I am open to hearing you out.
I can imagine that single and/or sexless man feels less valuable in a society which elevates romance and moreover, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex. That said, in that is a sense of entitlement, in which women are seen as inter-exchangeable sexual commodities. It is a flawed system for everyone involved. I have a perpetually single male friend, who is extremely frustrated about it and angry at women, but he won't bat an eyelash at a women who is not young, very thin and model gorgeous, while he is short, fat, balding and while not bad to look at, no model. He is angry at women for not "giving him a chance," but women can sense what he wants from them (sex), that he'll take it from anybody as long as they meet the physical standards he feels entitled to, and his objectification is aggressive and unaware. My friend in no way represents every man! I am only using him as an example of someone who suffers from the pressures of society (he IS lonely and extremely unhappy) but also acts aggressively and thoughtlessly as a part of it.
Finally, I think there is validity to the comment made my the original poster on externalizing/internalizing anger, which could also be interpreted as a cultural concern rather than as indulged gender stereotypes- there are pressures on men to be manly, percieved and/or actual rewards for acting out and externalizing anger, and there is more tolerance and less intervention with overly aggressive behavior (I was an overly aggressive, female child and you bet I had to work on it). This is not good for men or women.
Good post.
First of all my thoughts are with the victims what a horrible, horrible tragedy.
I agree that there must be several factors that lead to this massacre and before we see everything in stereotypes, yes men are more likely to do those things and those who do those things are still a tiny tiny tiny minority so this shouldn´t be seen as an example that validates men are more outgoing with their aggression.
My second thought about the pressure of single men is to take a closer look at suicides rate that are if I am correct 70% male and 30% female. A huge chunk of those men killing themselves are divorced (single) husbands. So it might be true that some rich playboy like men are glad to be single. A whole lot of those that feel alone and eventually rejected take another way out. Does suicide count as internalizing your anger?
Your suicide rates are for successful suicides. Women attempt suicide at a rate far exceeding men. This upholds the internalization of anger by women.
Quite honestly attempted suicide is often a cry for help. I am not a professional so I´ll let a professional do the talking:
George E. Murphy, M.D., an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis from Science Daily (12. Nov. 1998):
--------------------------------------------
[...] [A]ttempted suicide most often is not an attempt to actually end one's life. Its purpose, he says, is to survive with changed circumstances.
"An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It's most often an effort to bring someone's attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved. Suicide contains a solution in itself," he says.
In attempted suicide, both men and women tend to use methods that allow for second thoughts or rescue. Murphy says that when people intend to survive, they choose a slowly effective, or ineffective, means such as an overdose of sleeping pills. That contrasts to the all-or-nothing means like gunshots or hanging used by actual suicides.
In the past, researchers who looked at the high rate of attempted suicide in women concluded that women were just not as efficient as men at taking their own lives. Murphy calls that "sexist baloney" and points to statistics that show that like men, women who commit suicide most often use guns. However, even as the number of women using the most lethal means increases, the suicide rate in women has slowly declined.
"So it really goes back to the same thing -- that women, when they intend to do it, can be just as effective as men in committing suicide. But they aren't so inclined," Murphy says.
See, but her point is that perhaps suicide doesn't necessarily give us gendered information about internalization vs externalization of emotion.
If you look at other things like non-fatal self-harm, such as attempted suicides, cutting and anorexia it's skewed toward women. And in a case where someone commits suicide after killing others, it sort of begs the question how many others would have done the same, but they didn't have the wherewithal, training and opportunity to take others out with them?
It is the way we look at it, as if men wouldn´t harm themselves. Of course anorexia is skewered toward women (although there is a significant chunk of male victims as well), but there is more to that, take men for example that abuse stereoids, that are obsessed with achieving the looks of a bodybuilder.
There are also other behaviours that have something to do with depression. Like drug or alcohol abuse which is skewered toward men.
Or look at the typical (is it really typical or only a myth) male behaviour to not talk about problems, to not show emotions. A big boy does not cry. Women are far more likely to go to a doctor, to talk with friends and relatives about problems.
Cases like this one are extremes and hardly statisticly significant.
Quite honestly I believe if we were able to find a percentage for man and women and internalizing vs externalizing, I doubt we would find anything that goes beyond a 40/60. Probably more equal as we all think.
If we were able to determine a percentage of men and women who internalize th
I can imagine that single and/or sexless man feels less valuable in a society which elevates romance and moreover, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex.
(emphasis mine)
Yes. I see the message being sent to men that they must be having sex, lots of sex, sex that they deserve. There is a message that women will go wild and have sex with cool guys (and to be a cool guy, just use this product!). In Pornified, the author interviews men who are angry at women b/c they feel that women must be having sex with other men (c'mon, that's what women in my pornos do!), but just not with them. I don't sense the relationship message tossed at men, but I do see the sex message.
. I am assuming that you aren't excusing this man for his actions or shifting the blame on society, but your comment came close enough to bother me ("It pushed this man to murder, and suicide").
Well, I could snark at you and say that we do this all the time for women ("She killed her kids/spouse/whatever because of pressure/issues from her spouse/society/whatever" [Andrea Yates, for example]), but I'm not excusing him based on society.
If we are to look at it in much the same way as we would a woman committing such acts (such as Yates), he'd be excused by a court, because this individual was obviously already disturbed.
From his own journal on the site, he stresses the pressure of society for a man to not be single.
Hell, in my own experience, I don't like dating. I find it awkward, ridiculous, expensive, and awful. I dislike people physically touching me. I like enjoying the quiet peace when I come home to my cats. Sex, I find messy, boring, and sort of uninteresting.
Yet, I still blush when women flirt with me and express interest, and I still worry about what women might think about what I look like when I go out in public, and many other things.
If that isn't a result of relentless societal pressure pushed into my brain, I don't really know what is.
One could even get into how women are societally allowed (and sort of expected) to be cruel harbingers of rejection in terms of romance, but men that reject women are made to feel like heels for doing it.
I'm not trying to say there's no pressure on women, but that pressure is very overt and easy to take notice of. I can see all the directions that's coming from, I assume women can too, and try to work past it.
For men, it seems more subtle. Maybe that's just my observation of it.
Still, my original mentioning of the pressure was the fact that the author of this post made certain to turn the focus of it towards such pressure on women, while completely ignoring that factor in what this man did.
I have a perpetually single male friend, who is extremely frustrated about it and angry at women, but he won't bat an eyelash at a women who is not young, very thin and model gorgeous, while he is short, fat, balding and while not bad to look at, no model. He is angry at women for not "giving him a chance," but women can sense what he wants from them (sex), that he'll take it from anybody as long as they meet the physical standards he feels entitled to, and his objectification is aggressive and unaware.
I didn't want to touch this, but I'm going to anyway.
So, because according to you, he's kinda blah, he's only deserving of women that are kinda blah (physically, to him) because of that?
Would you tell a woman that wasn't model-gorgeous that she was undeserving of men that she found attractive? That she had to lower her standards? That by wanting someone she was physically attracted to (no matter how farfetched) that she was out of her league?
"...So, because according to you, he's kinda blah, he's only deserving of women that are kinda blah (physically, to him) because of that?
"Would you tell a woman that wasn't model-gorgeous that she was undeserving of men that she found attractive? That she had to lower her standards? That by wanting someone she was physically attracted to (no matter how farfetched) that she was out of her league?"
I sure wouldn't! I would tell her that the men she found attractive have the same right to reject her that she has to reject men she doesn't find attractive. She doesn't have to lower her standards, and they don't have to lower their standards either (after all, lowering your standards and ending up in a bad relationshiop can be a fate worse than staying single!). By wanting someone she was physically attracted to (no matter how farfetched) she's not out of any league. At the same time, thinking she's entitled to someone she was physically attracted to, and complaining about him or her acting the same way she does, are pretty stupid things to do.
BTW, this reminds me of a Something Positive installment a while ago: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02152004.shtml
Would you tell a woman that wasn't model-gorgeous that she was undeserving of men that she found attractive? That she had to lower her standards? That by wanting someone she was physically attracted to (no matter how farfetched) that she was out of her league?
Even though this wasn't addressed to me, I'd like to comment.
You seem to be missing a key point here. People can want the moon on a platter, but that doesn't mean they can have it. There is nothing wrong with having desires, no matter how unattainable. But using personal failures in romance as an excuse to hate all people of a particular group is irrational and it doesn't even begin to address the bigger picture.
All I have to say is this: If a patriarchal society wants to keep putting a relatively few women on a pedestal for something that they have little to no control over (age and a b.s. beauty standard) don't complain when you're shit on from above.
Multipass:
First, if you have read this site, you should know that saying women are allowed to creully reject men is largely another way of saying that women are supposed to be the ones who say "no" because we, unlike men, should not actively want to have sex. This is undoubetldy a double-edged sword, it sucks that men are pressured to always pursue women regardless of if they actually want to or not (as you pointed out), but I would not glorify the position of "rejecter" too much.
Second, you have to know that you are talking about a tiny subset of women who society considers attractive enough to merit being picky.
It is also intersting that while lamenting that women are allowed to be "cruel" bearers of rejection, you are not critical of the idea that women are being cruel when they reject men. Yes, there are ways you can reject someone that are particularly cruel, but you seem to be embracing the idea that all female rejection of men is an act of cruelty, a feeling that can only arise if you think you are entitled to not be rejected. This is a sentiment I encounter every day when men get pissed that I won't stop on my way to work to hear more of their advances. I am not cruel, I simply have shit to do other than respond to the thousands of catcallers who feel they deserve my attention. Men would not feel slighted by this unless they took it for granted that I should stop. I don't dispute that societal pressure does contribute to and underlie them feeling bad about it, but the fact that men end up feeling bad also does not mean that the viewpoint and pressure are not anti-woman.
The shooter in this case embodied this attitude in an extreme form, he literally faulted all single women for not making themselves available to him.
You completely read into my post, and read into wrong.
There's no entitlement. Put it like this:
I know a lot of guys. I know a lot of guys that have been rejected for what I would consider cruel reasons, or in cruel ways.
Laughed at? Yeah, not nice. "Not until you get a nicer car"? Also not so nice.
I've never heard of, or met the woman that says "You know, you're an attractive guy, but I'm not looking right now/Not interested/etc, but I'm flattered, thank you" in order to reject someone.
But I've heard lots of the above. So when I say "cruel", it's because for the most part, the rejection isn't done nicely.
Second, you have to know that you are talking about a tiny subset of women who society considers attractive enough to merit being picky.
Please. To say only a "tiny subset" of women are "allowed to be picky" is a bit disingenuous.
"I've never heard of, or met the woman that says "You know, you're an attractive guy, but I'm not looking right now/Not interested/etc, but I'm flattered, thank you" in order to reject someone."
Seriously? Have you ever talked to women? Because I find this very hard to believe. I've definitely told guys before that they're very nice but I'm just not interested in them. I've never rejected someone based on their car (nor have I ever heard of a woman doing that outside of a movie, I'm sure it happens but I wouldn't consider that the norm. and even if that WAS the reason a woman was rejecting a guy, I doubt she'd say that to him unless she was purposefully trying to be cruel. again, not the norm).
I could not have put this any better.
Seriously, with rejections, sometimes you really can't win. I always try to be nice (e.g., I've already got a bf, I'm taking time off for myself), and more than once that's resulted in the guy feeling "led on" somehow and later calling me a bitch for that.
Honestly, Multipass, I've been lurking here on feministing for a while, and your posts always seem to have at least a tinge of MRA-ness about them. Kind of makes me wonder where you're coming from ideologically.
Multipass:
Those examples are obviously very cruel. But I have to second the response above, that I can't imagine what women you are talking to that you have never heard a woman say "you are a nice guy, but I am not interested" or something equally uncruel. I can't even count the number of times I have said that, and have literally told three guys in the past two days "thanks but I have a boyfriend" or some equivilant. I have been meaner on occasion, but only when the person has demonstrated such blatant disrespect (such as grabbing) that I feel no qualms about pulling out a "not if you were the last man on Earth."
I will say though, and I am not claiming that this is what causing your experience, but I often find that the guys complaining the loudest about women being shallow/cruel/gold-digging are guys who look for women in places and ways where they should not expect any different. Some men are very blatant about the fact that they are essentially trying to buy women, and many women who respond to that tactic do judge men by their ability to pay. It's messed up gender pressure on both sides to pay/be bought, but that doesn't change the outcome that women who tell your friends to get nicer cars are being influenced by sexism, not feminism.
It's not like guys never reject women, and they especially never do so in a cruel fashion. Henry VIII was just showing his wives how much he respected them and loved them and wanted to be with them when he created a new church to divorce them or chopped off their heads or what have you. There are no examples of men who cheat on or divorce their wives because they find a younger version. And no man has ever reject a woman in his own physical, economic or social class because he wanted something younger/prettier/etc. Yup, never happens, ever.
I've never heard of, or met the woman that says "You know, you're an attractive guy, but I'm not looking right now/Not interested/etc, but I'm flattered, thank you" in order to reject someone.
Now you've met 2 (me and llevinso) b/c I make it a point to politely reject men. Sometimes I get insults hurled my way for the trouble.
@MM: Second, you have to know that you are talking about a tiny subset of women who society considers attractive enough to merit being picky.
@MultipassPlease. To say only a "tiny subset" of women are "allowed to be picky" is a bit disingenuous.
MM didn't say only a tiny subset of women are allowed to be picky. Zie said "tiny subset of women who society considers attractive enough to merit being picky." MM is quite clearly discussing a societal trend, and not zie's personal opinion. Zie's right, too.
Multipass,
I also get a tinge of MRA-ness to your posts, but I am going to respond fully this time. And for the record, "I could snark that..." is the same as just going ahead and saying it, except for now I read it as "snarking."
To respond to your first paragraph, I don't think anyone, including women, should be excused by reasons of "societal pressure to not be single" from the heinous act of a cold-blooded, premeditated, mass murder hate crime. I have not specifically commented on other crimes or other kinds of contributing factors, except to suggest that there are likely other, stronger factors besides societal pressure to not be single that led to this event. Whether or not I agree with a pre-existing mental condition being reason to receive more lenient sentencing (institutionalization) in another case, which was not what I was commenting on nor was I at all thinking about the legal system, I don't believe a woman who pre-meditated and carried out a mass murder in the exact same circumstances as this man should or would be treated more leniently. I don't think your comment was specific or following logic (randomly bringing up and lumping together a bunch of other cases and contributing factors).
I also don't think your feelings about dating are gender specific. You don't think many women blush or worry about what men think about their looks?
Also, I'm honestly not sure what you are referring to about being "cruel harbingers of rejection." Can you explain this? Assuming you are taking about the bar scene, which- clearly has a meat-market vibe to it and is not the best place to meet someone of either gender- while I think there is some truth to what you are saying, I do think that this goes both ways. There are quite a few movies which capitalize on the idea of the single, perpetually dumped women. The media capitalizes on this stereotype, as well the type of situation where a typically very attractive and desirable person is rejecting typically unattractive people. However, those rare paragons of beauty hardly represent all women or men, and gendering it may reveal a gendered perspective from the the "average guy" in which these "above average" women are the only women that matter/exist. You don't know what it's like to be an average women, just as I don't know what it's like to be an average man. I know of a lot of men who look a woman over and if she's not thin enough/attractive enough/young enough/has big enough chest, she will be swiftly rejected. Some people are just assholes.
Moreover, I personally know a lot of women who are very uncomfortable with rejecting a man, and I thought it was pretty standard that many women, many who have been socialized to be overly worried about the feelings of others, have to learn HOW to say no, and how to prioritize themselves, whether it's in the bar or in the bedroom . (These "no"s are OFTEN not taken seriously unless they are very forceful). This is how it's been in my case. I've been socialized as many women have been to be polite, but it's landed me in very scary situations. When I was younger, I was nearly raped multiple times, and while the fault is of-course in the aggressor who took my polite refusals as an opportunity to push further, I was considerate and non-agressive in a way I'd never be now. I was in shock that people would not respect a kind refusal. I plan on actively teaching my children how to aggressively say no if a polite no doesn't work. At a bar, I often get groped or otherwise disrespected if I let up an inch, and a lot of men will NOT leave me alone if I politely try to excuse myself (and in MANY if not most cases, even if I say something as direct as "no! leave me alone now!"). I plan on actively teaching my children how to aggressively say no if a polite no doesn't work.
I FULLY recognize that a lot of men are GREAT- I'm dating an amazing man now! However, a subset of men are making the singles scene a more hostile environment, and that sucks, and though it doesn't justify being rude to a nice person, I do identify with the woman who is tired of men expecting her attention for the sole reason that they want it, or that they have money or muscles or whatever, and who won't let up. Women have the right to be choosy with their time and attention, and they have the right to be rude to a disrespectful person. There are ups and downs to both sides of the coin. I personally would rather be in the position of the "aggressor," if I had to choose. To be able to choose to spend time pursuing the people I am interested in, rather than stuck in potentially hostile and uncomfortable situations with people who are interested in me, is a privilege I'm not sure you understand.
My friend is a great example of what I was taking about earlier, because I've seen my friend (who I have lost patience with, but he's good to his friends and is grandfathered in with my boyfriend) hit on women, and when they politely reject him, he continues. When they aggressively reject him, he will still often continue, or say something very rude, and the women tend to leave the bar soon after. Why do women often have to leave the bar that they chose to come to, because they can't decide how to spend their time and who to spend it with?
Anyway, I agree that there is a lot of pressure on men, too, and that some of those are obvious (to be good-looking, assertive, strong, rich, unemotional, etc.), some are subtle, and some of those pressures overlap or oppose with the pressures that women feel. Most feminists do not disagree with this statement, which I feel that you are afraid of. I mentioned in my previous response that the internalization/externalization are different kinds of pressures put on either gender, which both can be taken to unhealthy extremes.
As for my friend, as others pointed out, I was not saying anything like that (nor was it the point of my post). It seems like you keep assuming that I am hypocritical when I haven't said anything hypocritical. I was talking about his extreme, unrealistic and hypocritical sense of entitlement when it comes to women's bodies, which leaks over into aggressive, objectifying interactions with them. He has become steadily more depressed and angry at an entire category of people because the individuals he's interacted with haven't given him what he feels entitled to (sex), just because. He seems unappreciative that women, too, can freely choose whether or not they want to sleep with someone, based on whatever reason they want. Also, women in his view have become interchangeable (an off-puting, and potentially dangerous viewpoint).
People, male and female, can desire whomever they want, and they can also reject whomever they want. This goes for both genders. Therefore, it is pretty silly to feel angry that no one you desire desires you, when you treat the opposite gender in the same, if not more, discriminating way. I would say, and have said, the exact same thing to a woman. Sure, an odd couple is absolutely possible- but no one is entitled to this arrangement. When a persons bottom line about who they'll date is something they can't offer to the other person, it's fair to raise an eyebrow. I believe a relationship should be fairly balanced, and different things can balance them out. Both partners have to be satisfied.
As far as I know, we (Americans at least) all live in this society yet the very vast majority of us will never respond to societal pressure the way this man did. How can you normalize his response by framing it as a somewhat understandable overreaction to all the pressure our culture puts on him to 'be a man' when 99% of men do not go into public places and mass murder people? No, that makes this man an anomaly, not a case for empathy. This man was a misogynist but he was also obviously very psychologically disturbed in other ways. Blaming societal pressure for him going off the rails is like blaming movies and video games for violence: most who are exposed to these things do not act out violently and certainly don't go on to kill people.
What disturbs me most is how this incident seems to have brought out the misogynistic bloggers and other writers who want to take this opportunity to blame feminism for anything bad that happens to women. The message being that they've all been there (scorned by the evil temptresses) and can identify with his pain and rejection. Feminism has obviously made us all think a little too highly of ourselves to the point where we think we have a right not to go out with someone who obviously wants us very badly yet makes us uncomfortable. See, if you don't succumb to the altar of the male ego you just may end up being shot, so think twice the next time you turn down that overbearing guy at the bar with too much cologne!
As far as I know, we (Americans at least) all live in this society yet the very vast majority of us will never respond to societal pressure the way this man did. How can you normalize his response by framing it as a somewhat understandable overreaction to all the pressure our culture puts on him to 'be a man' when 99% of men do not go into public places and mass murder people? No, that makes this man an anomaly, not a case for empathy. This man was a misogynist but he was also obviously very psychologically disturbed in other ways. Blaming societal pressure for him going off the rails is like blaming movies and video games for violence: most who are exposed to these things do not act out violently and certainly don't go on to kill people.
What disturbs me most is how this incident seems to have brought out the misogynistic bloggers and other writers who want to take this opportunity to blame feminism for anything bad that happens to women. The message being that they've all been there (scorned by the evil temptresses) and can identify with his pain and rejection. Feminism has obviously made us all think a little too highly of ourselves to the point where we think we have a right not to go out with someone who obviously wants us very badly yet makes us uncomfortable. See, if you don't succumb to the altar of the male ego you just may end up being shot, so think twice the next time you turn down that overbearing guy at the bar with too much cologne!
This happened five minutes from my parents' house, where I grew up. My sister was in the same shopping complex while it happened. So it struck really close to home for me, too.
There has definitely been some discussion about gender-based violence here, especially since the guy's website has surfaced. Multipass has a point that there is definite pressure on men to not be single (though it isn't moreso than for women, I don't think). But it doesn't seem like that's what the gunman was acting on at all. The difference seems to be the sense of entitlement this guy showed, as if he has been wronged by women in general because they weren't having sex with him. What we need to look at is where this sense of entitlement comes from. How prevalent is this "I'm not a bad looking guy, therefore I deserve to be getting sex from attractive young women [this kind of diminishes the autonomy/*humanity* of women, right?]" mentality, and how often can it be linked to the kind of anger that turns violent? I mean, I don't know how to answer that question, and I'm still kind of in shock about this seeing as it's my hometown, but it's something to discuss.
yet 30 million women rejected me — over an 18- or 25-year period. That is how I see it. Thirty million is my rough guesstimate of how many desirable single women there are.
I smell a Nice Guy (TM). Did he ask out 30 million women? Cuz they don't just walk up and spread their legs just b/c you bathe and are reasonably attractive.
Absolutely. I was trying to figure out what I wanted to say and this hit the nail on the head.
wow, man. Here's the story on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32292246/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
This is really scary:
"The biggest problem of all is not having relationships or friends, but not being able to achieve and acquire what I desire in those or many other areas,"
Women as something to achieve and acquire. Yeah, he got society's message alright.
Absolutely. I was trying to figure out what I wanted to say and this hit the nail on the head.
Sorry this posted twice
Waiting for a Charming(TM) radio personality to encourage women to pity fuck to save themselves...
"nice guy TM"
I went to college in Pittsburgh so this also rings home for me too.
Thanks LouieLouie for calling this massacre what it is: gender-based violence. Google yields no stories as of yet, but I will be sure to post a link if I come across something.
In addition to this issue of internalizing and externalizing anger, that I agree with, I think it is important to take note of the many culprits that show up in this discussion.
There is the alleged assailant who described women in his journal as “edible” and not human. There are the media outlets that add his contempt for women as an afterthought, and refuse to call this massacre what it is: a hate crime. Then there are the everyday people who consider men’s sexual and romantic entitlement to and dehumanization of women as normal.
This brutal massacre raises the question: where is it best to channel your anger if you want to make a difference? I am at a loss on this one, especially because the issue at hand is towering gender-based violence.
Beyond what the media chooses to call it, I am interested in how can we interrupt this feedback cycle of violence. Thoughts?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09217/988807-100.stm
PG at least mentions his hatred for women in first sentence, but it's not the focus.
I would like to see them call it a hate crime too.
I work in Bridgeville, so this hit close to home. It was interesting watching the two major news networks deal with it (one was hedging, trying not to freak out family members, trying not to make assumptions; the other was being completely sensationalistic.) I think the next few days are going to be really interesting to see how the media deals with this random, senseless, and hateful act.
Hey Kate, my parents are over in Scott (I grew up there). PPG's coverage hasn't been too bad but yet to call it what it was. Pitt police just keep saying "nothing could have stopped him." They need to make a statement about the fact that it was a hate crime. Sorry, I feel completely inarticulate in these comments because i'm in shock. Hope all is well with your workplace.
I understand the media obsession with trying to figure out a reason for crimes such as this (or school shootings or serial killers), sometimes, trying to figure out a motive is just wrong. While he (or other mass killers) did have his reasons, I do not look forward to the medias efforts in trying to sensationalize this man.
The people society should be concerned with now are his victims.
It's interesting that the media hasn't also picked up on the racist mess this guy was spewing as part of his rantings.
"One could even get into how women are societally allowed (and sort of expected) to be cruel harbingers of rejection in terms of romance, but men that reject women are made to feel like heels for doing it."
Uh, no. Not at all. You got that backwards. If women reject they can expect something very harsh in return, whether it be misogynistic slurs, or stalking and violence. If men reject, women are just made to feel like fools for thinking they weren't completely gross.
And, in any case the societal expectation of men is not that they be in a relationship, but that they be using up as many girls up as possible. the expectation of women is to let them, and then blame themselves later.
The breakdown of men feel like x and women feel like y isn't doing us an favors. When a person is rejected there are a myriad of feelings and emotions involved. He didn't shoot up the gym because of rejection. He shot women because he was a misogynistic bastard with no impulse control.
Uh, no. Not at all. You got that backwards. If women reject they can expect something very harsh in return, whether it be misogynistic slurs, or stalking and violence. If men reject, women are just made to feel like fools for thinking they weren't completely gross.,
And casual examination of violent themes in our media suggests gender differences in the popularity of violent and degrading 'rejection revenge' fantasies in lyrics and film, wrongly furthering the idea that
1) only women do the rejecting
2) women should expect to be maimed, killed or humiliated for rejecting a man
I absolutely love your screen name.
Er, I don't know if you've ever interacted with a man outside a rough bar in NYC, but no. Men are expected to chase women, and it's even often "justified" with "biology". Women are given the right to reject men as they see fit. Generally, they do not have to "expect" stalking or harsh language. It happens, but is not the norm. Very attractive/alpha men also have this right, but society/Hollywood often paints such men as womanizing jerks.
Women are given the right to reject men as they see fit.
Given the right? So, you think it was better back when only 40% of males reproduced (so says DNA analysis of modern humans)? Today it's more like 80% of men reproduce in developed regions. So much for feminism as being a cockblock.
And what exactly is your vision of an equitable situation? Because I've had this conversation so many times and the best folks can guess is some random Scandinavian country (again trending toward egalitarianism);
or if the guys are really mean spirited they gloat about going to poor countries and paying for cheap sex or a wife, where it's clear that women have fewer options socially and economically--in essence, can't refuse for financial reasons.
And realistically all this practice does is just spread around the pain: how then do you think local men feel when wealthy foreigners descend on their community to fuck? Who gets blamed for resulting social wreckage because now the women can easily out-earn their male peers by fucking entitled Americans, et. al. Who gets stigmatized when offspring are produced from these unions (often telltale mixed race kids) and these sex tourists/soldiers return home never to be heard from again? And don't get me started on the human rights abuses.
Answer those questions and then tell me why my empathy should lie with people who think that the world is their personal sexual playground when so much suffering is the result of this attitude.
- Given the right? So, you think it was better back when only 40% of males reproduced (so says DNA analysis of modern humans)? Today it's more like 80% of men reproduce in developed regions. So much for feminism as being a cockblock.
I am interested in this numbers, do you have a source (a handy link) at hand. I found the 80% number hard to believe.
Found it....ha google is your friend.
After reading some of the comments on this post...I am disgusted.
These women died. End of story.
Their deaths were a result of a gender-based hate crime, something that deserves enormous amounts of attention and productive dialogue.
rpa123- absolutely agree that gender-based hate crime deserves much productive discussion..in fact I was dong just that over this case, with a freind of mine today.
I just saw little of that in these comments. And I certainly saw NO sympathy for the victims here either.
What I saw was lots of arguing over "dating" and what men do and what women do. What does this man's "reasons" (ie: excuses) have to do with why he killed these women?
You indeed put your finger on it...he did it because of gender-based hatred. I am sorry if I do not see much discussion of that here - not as much as in other cases, anyway.
And again...these women are people with families. I see not one ounce of empathy for their plight.
I understand what you are saying. I do actually see a lot of horror and empathy for what happened, and acknowledgment that this is a tragic hate crime. As you follow the discussion you can see it evolve / derail as people responded to the first (insensitive) comment on this thread (and those that followed).
I typically make a habit of responding as fully and respectfully as I can to the entire content of posts which seem aggressive, anti-feminist, or frustrate me, and I feel that this has been in my experience the most successful way to bridge productive dialogue. I don't know if this is a ultimately good thing to do or worth my time. Some of the dating dialogue originated in the related context that there is a culture of entitlement to women's bodies, and when women exercise their free choice there is a very real potential for anger, resentment and violence towards women.
This isn't unproductive dialogue, but I do agree that some of where it ended up is insensitive in this context.
I love how you take offense it this, but were strangely absent during the Otty Sanchez discussion.
That baby died. End of story. Oh wait, it's not, because she's a woman and disturbed, so she's a victim. Let's sympathize with her!
Cank- strangely absent huh? How exactly do you know that? I read it all actually. It's my choice whether I respond...not your's.
Please woman-hate somewhere else.
I'm not saying it's my choice. I'm merely commenting on the curious fact that you apparently you didn't see anything wrong with people defending Otty Sanchez, and yet as soon as it's a man committing a crime against a woman, you leap in and talk about how terrible it is.
Furthermore, my post is not "woman-hating", perhaps you should learn to read. Why is this man any less deserving of so-called "sympathy" than Sanchez apparently was?
I should note that I'm not excusing this man- but neither did I excuse Sanchez, unlike many people on Feministing.
Thanks for all the productive dialogue, everyone.
This story reminds me of a pieced called "Men on Rape" that I read for a gender class in college. One man, a 23-year-old file clerk, is interviewed and describes how he perceives the good-looking women in his office to be taunting him when they dress up because they don't want him particularly and are more friendly with the higher-up men in the company. He doesn't understand why they don't want him and fantasizing about raping women to spite them, to show he's more powerful because they make him feel powerless. He says he wouldn't hurt them, just restrain them to rape them, but not hurt them.
I understand that this shooter was mentally ill, but it fits into a larger picture of men believing, as men, they are entitled to have women.
"He says he wouldn't hurt them, just restrain them to rape them, but not hurt them."
I'm guessing he did not understand how raping a woman would, in fact, be hurting them? That's ridiculous! Do you have who wrote that article "Men on Rape" because it sounds very interesting and I'd like to read it.
That sums it up. He thinks he should be able to have them, and he doesn't acknowledge that they are entitled to be uninterested, and entitled to not have to justify their lack of interest.
I am also interested in a link, if you have one.
"Oh wait, it's not, because she's a woman and disturbed, so she's a victim."
Cank this is quite a womwn-hating staement. Also comparing these women's pain to the child - as though they have suffered less is. Oh...and there is no "distured woman" here - only a distiurbed man who did the shootings.
Er AGAIN?? Do you actually know me? How dare you say I didnt see anything wrong with people defending Otty Sanchez??
Who do you think you are to tell me what I think?!! Stick to facts. You don't know me.
I certainly did not say that this man's actions are being excused by anyone here. But I do think that they are totally being brushed over and ignored in favour of arguing the toss. And sympathy for these women is COMPLETELY absent. I won't explain myself again.
When did I ever imply that these women have "suffered less". That's not what I meant, not what I said, and that should be obvious. I'm saying that these are two tragic crimescommitted by two deeply disturbed people. And yet, the discussion with Sanchez was filled with people trying to paint her as a "victim", trying to sympathize with her, trying to shift the blame on society for whatever reason. And in this thread, in which a disturbed man committs a terrible crime, we see none of that.. I *don't think* that this guy deserves sympathy. But *neither to I think* that Sanchez does, and reading the two discussions the biases of Feministing become painfully clear and obvious.
I never said I was aware of your thoughts regarding the matter. I only know that you chose to post in this thread, but not in Sanchez's thread, which shows (to me) that you didn't find the comments in there as "disgusting". Even if I am reading this wrong (please explain), it doesn't defeat the overall attitude difference on Feministing that I've seen between the Sanchez discussion and this one. When it's a woman, it's society's fault, or no one's fault. When it's a man (and especially a man committing a crime against a woman), there is no external influence, but merely misogyny.
For the record, of course I have sympathy for these women. But the crime itself is not the focus of my post, so you'll have to forgive me for not mentioning it every sentence. I'm only comparing two discussions and finding very telling differences.
Finally, how in the world is my quote woman-hating? I'm showing what I believe to be the mentality of many people here.
Sigh.
I didn't read that post, but I will agree that it is tough to figure out how to find compassion for any of these killers, or understand how to deal with mental illness and its different manifestations. As I said, I don't know much about Sanchez, but here are some clear differences I can discern between these two cases:
-Sodini premeditated this act for months. He was angry for the specific reason that he had not been able to get laid for many years, and his blog was filled with objectification in the truest sense, hate speech, as well as his intention (and previous attempt!) to carry out this act. He chose to deal with his anger by murdering an entire room of innocent women. The nature of his crime was well-thought out, lucid, focused and intentional.
-Sanchez was under the influence of schizophrenia, to the point that she could not tell who was dead or alive (as evidenced in the 911 call), or if the devil was in the room. Her act, while horrific, was spontaneous, not well-thought out, and not lucid. It did not reflect and act on a growing hatred and resentment for a specific group of people (it was not a hate crime).
I believe that if Sanchez were in the exact same situation that Sodini was, who had blogged about, pre-meditated and lucidly carried out a mass murder hate crime, she would have received the same treatment as Sodini. However, her case, while tragic, was quite different than that (as stated, not lucid, under influence of schizophrenia, not pre-meditated, not a mass murder, not a hate crime). This is why people were more able to label it more as a tragedy rather than a cold-blooded murder
Again, I did not read the blog, but it is important to treat each case on its own. I get frustrated when people lump things together because it is a a clear and frustrating error in logic and prevents thoughtfulness. You simply can't compare these two cases in the way that you attempting.