Quick Hit: Man kills ex and her new lesbian lover.
This is horrible.
Police are looking for a man who shot and killed one woman and wounded another in what is being called a bisexual love triangle gone wrong.The NYPD says 22-year-old Janet Martinez was pronounced dead at the scene on Wednesday. A 20-year-old woman is in critical condition at Brookdale Hospital.
Martinez had obtained an order of protection against a man, and police said they are looking for him. There is no word on whether he is wanted for questioning in the shooting.
Note to MSNBC, calling this a love triangle makes it sound like hate crimes against the queer community is sometimes OK. It is not.
Via MSNBC and Daily News.
Thanks to Kenyon for the link.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Man kills ex and her new lesbian lover. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12256
That is revolting. Even though we see evidence of the human race's ability to engage in awful violent acts on a daily basis, it's somehow still hard to believe that someone would do this.
Note on the headline: "Man kills ex and her new lesbian lover" does not seem to be an accurate headline (and hopefully will not become one), as the other woman is still alive, albeit in critical condition, but alive.
I don't see how this is any different than a jealous ex-lover shooting his ex-girlfriend and her new male lover.
Unless the shooter actually disliked homosexuals, I don't see the "hate crime againt the queer community."
What I do see is another jealous male killing his female ex-partner for moving on with her life, which pisses me off because it is a symptom of the patriarchy.
I agree, I don't think it's promoting violence against homosexuals, but calling it a "love triangle" makes it sound much more salacious than it needs to. Too Jerry Springer.
"Note to MSNBC, calling this a love triangle makes it sound like hate crimes against the queer community is sometimes OK."
Why? Would you interpret MSNBC's use of the phrase "love triangle" to be making it sound like it was somehow okay, if the people involved had been a male shooter, his girlfriend and her heterosexual male lover?
Also, where is the evidence that the shooter was motivated by hatred of homosexuals, rather than insane jealousy over his ex-girlfriend?
Please be clear I'm not condoning the shooter's behavior; it is barbaric and horrendous. I'm just not treating is as something with broad social implications for the queer community when the personal relationships involved are sufficient to explain it. Maybe that element was there, maybe not -- but there is no indication of it from the news report.
"Would you interpret MSNBC's use of the phrase 'love triangle' to be making it sound like it was somehow okay, if the people involved had been a male shooter, his girlfriend and her heterosexual male lover?"
I don't know about the OP, but I would, yes. Not an anti-lesbian hate crime in that case (and possibly not in this one, although I do think that has something to do with this attack), but certainly a demonstration of the belief that women are property, that women should be passive in their sex lives, that women are objects to be acted on rather than human beings. I think the use of "love triangle" in either case makes it sound as if the victims were complicit, and it dismisses a heinous attack as a crime of passion, something traditionally viewed as less horrific than any other brutal act of violence.
I'm not sure if it's a hate crime, but the use of the word "love triangle" skeeved me out. It's akin to using "had sex with" to refer to rape, or "child sex" to refer to molestation-- a euphemism.
That and it paints the situation as lurid ("Oh my god! Bisexuals! Love triangles! Jealousy! How unusual and sexy!"), when it's really just tragic.
That was my problem with the wording as well leshachikha. It seems the author just used this phrasing to titilate readers.
I don't think the "love triangle" is much of a problem since it often implies nastiness -- it's the use of bisexual that I think is a bigger problem. That's what I think was used to titilate.
While I do think the lesbianism had some involvement in the shooting, I don't think it counts as a hate crime. There are a lot of hate issues involved I think, but they aren't all homophobic.
My biggest issue was with MSNBC for the "bisexual love triangle gone wrong." The author, I agree, is just trying to get readers' minds in the gutter and then read on, instead of focusing on the real issue. If this is a bisexual love triangle gone wrong, what is a bisexual love triangle gone right? Hmm, let me guess, the hyper-sexualized image of two stereotypically hot lesbians who can't control themselves because the desire a man so much, when that image doesn't make any sense?
"The Daily News quotes police sources Thursday as saying that Martinez was shot twice in the head by her ex-boyfriend, who then chased her lesbian lover. That woman was chased across five lanes of traffic and hit by an SUV, the News said."
Doesn't lesbian lover create a certain image in anyone else's head? They may have been, probably were partners. That has a completely different meaning and connotation to others than "lesbian lover." It's just creating more triggers to fantasize over than pay attention to. Also, no, her partner was not just "that woman." Use "the woman." The primary connection to shooter was identified by name, therefore there is no woman #1, woman #2 situation. The partner is at this point the only "woman" identified as such. To me it seems: One, denigrating to all women because we can simply referred to as this woman or that woman now. Two, It's really denigrating to the partner because she's not even good enough to be the woman, she has to be "that" woman. Three, and key to #2 it creates a sense of otherness for both being a woman and for being a lesbian
I'm a sociolinguistics major, so it's interesting to me to see the way people tag the descriptions of members of minority groups with extra words that serve to dehumanize the person involved.
One text I read recently (don't remember the name, sorry) found an interesting case of this in the courtroom. A female convicted murderer with children was referred to in a family court dispute as a "killer mom". Of course, all kinds of men with children commit murder, but have you ever heard of a "killer dad"? No, he'd just be a "killer" or a "dad".
I think this is another example of this. It's not just a love triangle, it's a "bisexual love triangle", an exotic plot full of intrigue and mystique. She's not a girlfriend or a partner or a date, she's a "lesbian lover", despite the fact that she might have called herself bisexual or queer or what-have-you. The use of such descriptions makes this a story about queer drama, not a story about a monster who needs to be strung up in the town square. Any story about a man killing his female ex's boyfriend--sorry, "straight lover"--would focus on the evil act committed by the murderer, not the relationship his ex had with the deceased, which wouldn't be portrayed as though it were a freaking Satanic ritual circle, fer cryin' out loud.
the fact of the matter is that they were in a lesbian relationship, you can't just ignore that. The fact that his ex was fucking another woman probably had a lot to do with his rage and violence. Especially since "turning someone gay" is often seen as damaging to ideas on manhood and masculinity.
As stated several times upthread, there is nothing presented here to indicate a hate crime.
Unless there is some material that is not presented here I'm taking offense at a distortion that lends credence to the "reactionary liberal/leftie" label I have to deal with on a regular basis.
Can we not, as progressives, present the facts without painting them in distorting colors? Hell, the reason I am a progressive liberal is because I believe reality does indeed have a liberal bias. So when false arguments get lumped in with perfectly valid ones I feel like it's a cheap tactic that hinders our voice more than it can ever help.
just wondering: would you consider it a hate crime if he had been screaming "dykes" at them?
Well it would lend more credence to the claim, but not make it certain. If you're mad enough to fight someone or kill them then you're wanting to hurt them in any and every way possible. Calling someone names in the heat of a fight is something that kind of happens as part of the overall objective of hurting them.
For example: Calling a woman a "bitch" or a "cunt" is pretty misogynistic use of language, but if you're in a fight it can just happen and may not indicate an overall sense of misogyny in the person doing the shouting.
We're too quick to claim that any attack on a minority at the hands of someone not of that minority is a "hate crime". This is an example of an instance where the person committing the assault has plenty of "traditional" motives for doing this crime.
"just wondering: would you consider it a hate crime if he had been screaming "dykes" at them?"
Sounds like a fair question. Did he actually do that?
Goodness, didn't you know? When women kill men it's a terrifying, monstrous aberration, but when men kill women, especially women they were once involved with, it's just a crime of passion. No big deal.
After half a lifetime of being harassed because people assumed I'm attracted to women, I agree with the few commenters who believe that, yes, the fact that the woman was now dating another woman helped motivate the violence. Hatred of lesbians is too prevalent, and too violent in its incarnations, for me to think otherwise.
It strikes me that the kind of man who would shoot a woman for daring to move on without him is the kind of man who would have a problem with lesbians in general. Both kinds of hate boil down to a rigid sense of gender roles and the idea that women are property rather than thinking, feeling human beings.
what is your basis for these statements? Where have you read that it's "no big deal" when women are killed by men while stating that the inverse is horrific, etc?
Your entire post seems to be an exercise in jumping to conclusions: "It strikes me that the kind of man who would shoot a woman for daring to move on without him is the kind of man who would have a problem with lesbians in general."
Huh? Why?
Because if he is a misogynist/sexist man who has severe entitlement issues when it comes to women, it might then make sense that he'd likely have a problem with women to whom he cannot ever have access to (and gain control over), by default.
Women who are lesbians would definitely fall under such a category.
How is he misogynist? Killing his former lover isn't proof of this any more than a woman killing a man is proof of misandry on her part.
" ...calling this a love triangle makes it sound like hate crimes against the queer community is sometimes OK."
Samhita, where are you getting that from? I have not seen anywhere in the article nor anyone in these comments excuse the actions of Martinez. Even remotely.
Calling it a "bisexual love triangle gone wrong" makes it sound like some naughty, kinky thing where all the participants were willingly involved and then, oops, they were playing with fire and it went wrong! One guy got jealous, crime of passion! That's not what happened. The woman ended a relationship with this guy. She had an ORDER OF PROTECTION against him. He was as out of her life as she could get him, she was in a new relationship. It was not a "love triangle." That she was bisexual is irrelevant. None of that had anything to do with things "going wrong," which is an interesting choice of words for "man brutally murders two women."
Not belabor the point I made in my first comment, but one of the women is still alive. She probably wouldn't appreciate already being counted among the dead while hanging on in critical care.
This is not to say that he did not intend to kill her as well, but thus far, it seems, he has thankfully failed at taking two lives.
I also do not think that this was a hate crime. Clearly, the man seems to be driven by jealousy over his ex, not hatred against a lesbian.
Anyway, the thing that really gets me is the whole "bisexual love triangle" thing. I mean, this isn't Days of Our Lives or something. This is real life and it's a real tragedy, to be taken seriously. Anytime a journalist uses the phrase "love triangle" in a murder case is disrespectful, in my opinion. At least in our culture, love triangles are usually associated with sexy, dangerous (but in that good, "I'm living on the edge" kinda way), and enticing. Love triangles are a thing that make up a huge part of our entertainment industry - in books, movies, and what have you.
Using it to describe a murder is NOT portraying the news as what it is: news about a tragic murder, NOT another cheaply written romance novel that you find 40-year-old women reading in the back of a Barnes and Noble on a Sunday afternoon.
This article angers me on two levels. First, I'm angry about the travesty of this violent act. This is horrible and it is an example of the reason why many lesbian and bisexual women are scared to leave abusive male partners.
But as a bisexual woman, I'm also incredibly angry at MSNBCs choice of headline. It is so frustrating to feel like I can never win. My sexual orientation is thrown out there with no verification to titillate. Was the victiem or her girlfriend bisexual? Did they identify as such? Does the woman who was called the "lesbian lover" even identify as a lesbian? Of course MSNBC didn't ask. They just saw some same-sex relationship and slapped a lesbian label on then added a bisexual label on to make it sexy. It would be a bisexual love triangle had the victim been carrying on simultaneous relationships with both. But she wasn't. She dumped her dickwad ex and there is nothing to suggest how she identified herself. And I bet you a million dollars that no one in the news media will ever bother to get the truth of her sexual orientation right.
It makes me think of when one my heroes, bisexual activist Robin Oches was interviewed for a news article about the Mass marriage decision and despite making her sexual orientation (and lifes work) clear to the reporter, the article about her marriage was subtitled "Lesbian Pair Wed After 7 Years Together". We just can't fucking win. When bisexuals commit, they erase us into lesbians. When anything remotely same-sex sexy happens, they are quick to call it bisexual. It makes me want to scream.
Someday I want to live in a world where I am not regularly harassed, erased, and embarrassed because of my sexual orientation.