On Tuesday, George Sodini opened fire in a gym outside Pittsburgh, killing three women at injuring at least ten others. It was a crime he had planned for months - and it was a crime that targeted women.
The New York Post has published the full text of Sodini's blog (read with caution), where - in addition to racist ramblings - he writes about his disdain for women and his plan to kill them.
Time is moving along. Planned to have this done already. I will just keep a running log here as time passes. Many of the young girls here look so beautiful as to not be human, very edible....I dress good, am clean-shaven, bathe, touch of cologne - 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. A man needs a woman for confidence.
This isn't the first gender-based misogynist shooting in recent years - in 2006 a gunman went into an Amish schoolhouse (also in Pennsylvania), sent the boys outside and opened fire on a dozen girls, killing three. That same year in Colorado, a shooter sexually assaulted six female high school students he had taken hostage, before killing one of them. When these shootings happened, the only person making the misogynist connection was Bob Herbert at The New York Times.
I'm at least glad to see that the mainstream media is reporting this as a crime against women. The Christian Science Monitor even discusses misogyny as a factor in the crime (can't remember the last time I saw that word in a mainstream news outlet):
While the gender-equality movement has made strides in the past century when it comes to some of the more blatant forms of societal misogyny, such as banning women from academic and professional settings, misogyny persists in American and other cultures around the world, according to historians."This killer fits into a long pattern of males who harbor hatred towards all women, the image of 'woman,' and towards individual real women, and who take out their frustration on a female scapegoat," says David Gilmore, an anthropology professor at Stony Brook University in New York and author of "Misogyny: the Male Malady."
It's also important to remember that Sodini's crime is not so different from the misogynist violence that women face every day. As Amanda writes:
George Sodini was angry at the entire world of "desirable" women for not up and volunteering to have sex with him, and every day anonymous men around the country and world beat, rape, and even kill women because said women were also considered insufficiently compliant, often to unstated demands that women were supposed to just anticipate and fill without complaint.
As ill as Sodini may have been (and it seems clear from his blog and videos that he was indeed sick), we can't separate this from the larger culture of misogyny and sexism. And also like Amanda, I find it disturbing - and downright frightening - to see how similar Sodini's writing is to a lot of MRA/NiceGuy ramblings we see so often online. Anna at Jezebel even finds some bloggers in the "pick up artist" world who say if women would have just fucked Sodini, he never would have killed.
So yes, let's continue to talk about this horrible shooting as a crime against women. But let's also make sure that we're discussing this not as an isolated crime - but as one part of an incredibly dangerous, culture-wide problem.
More at The Pursuit of Harpyness, WIMN's Voices, and Feministe.
Image via Jezebel
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pennsylvania shooter targeted women .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15362
I a still unable to articulate how I feela bout this. I am incredibly angered, in many ways, by what has happened. I have made to feel unsafe in my own city--and that is something that I have never before let happen. I am angry that this an seems to think he was "entitled" to the "prize" of attention--in a social, emotional, or sexual way--from women. I am angry that this sees to show a continuous pattern of this type of thought process, ot just here but worldwide. And I feel powerless, for once, to stop it. Perhaps this struck a little too close to home for me, but something about this shooting infuriates me and frightens me more than I ever thought it would.
What are solutions for this kind of thing? What can we do to stop it?
Well, one of the solutions is to actually look into why do men get so hurt by rejection.
- Men commit 1000% more suicide than women do following a break-up or divorce.
Unfortunately most people try to answer the question with oversimplified answers that simply ridicule the male-gender... such as "poor little things, they can't take no for an answer" or... accusing men of "entitlement".
There is some truth to the "feelings of entitlement" argument, but the problem is that most people do not realize its a much more complex issue, and that's just a part of it.
Patriarchy is a harsh mistress, ain't it? Boys are raised to bottle their emotions. They are basically taught that romantic partners are the only people to whom they're supposed to emotionally connect. I imagine a break-up WOULD be pretty devastating to someone who had nobody else to open up to, no other shoulder to cry on...
We were writing the same thing at the same time, only you were more succinct. :-)
Good point about "success" at suicide, though. Women ATTEMPT suicide even more often than men do. Men just succeed more.
Unfortunately I had the bad luck of being forced to study suicides for 2 years of my life, but its coming in handy in this instance.
In sociology we separate suicide and attempted suicide as 2 separate phenomenon.
The reason is that we actually know that most (almost all) attempted suicides were actually meant to fail. They are usually used as a way of getting help/compassion.
Its extremely, extremely rare for a person to really want to take their own life and not succeed.
The other point about specifically romantic rejection is even more telling. Over there the difference is tenfold. Men take romantic rejection 10 times as severely which is probably caused by the false-expectations the patriarchy puts on men.
I know it's not meant to be funny, so why did I laugh.
I agree Sarah! Very well put.
In fact, I may be so bold to say that 99% of gender-problems arise from men repressing their emotions.
The way the patriarchy works (and patriarchs gain power) is by:
- Teaching men to repress their emotions, and giving them a false sense of "masculinity"
- Teaching men the false notion that the way to happiness is through "getting 'hot' women"... with of course, them defining some really stupid definition of what "hot" is supposed to be
- Teaching women to harshly reject any men who do not fit some fake ideal of what a "real man" is supposed to be like (think romance novels)
In the end, both men and women are unhappy and in a constant conflict, and the only people who gain from it are the patriarchs.
p.s.
My only issue is... (and not everyone is gonna like me saying this)... That the only organizations who are fighting the patriarchy... Are at the same time organizations who ignore half of the patriarchy's victims.
The only reason why the patriarchy is still alive is because we're ignoring half the issues.
My belief is that the old gender roles are a *loop* where the old male role creates the old female role.
We have tried to get rid of patriarchy much more by dismantling the female role, but we've left men with their old male role... We're not telling boys that the old notion of a "real man" is false... and we're not teaching girls not to fall for hollywood's idea of a "real man".
Are you talking about feminists? Because many feminists acknowledge the damage patriarchy does to boys and men and work to undo / prevent it.
The real question is why more men are not interested in dismantling patriarchy, since it's such a detrimental force in their lives. Probably because, whilst they'd benefit in some ways, they'd also have to give up privilege...
""Because many feminists acknowledge the damage patriarchy does to boys and men and work to undo / prevent it.""
I recognize that many feminists do good work in tackling the damage that patriarchy is causing to boys.
However, here's the thing I'm pointing out...
Its my perception (I might be wrong) that its dis-balanced work... in that there is far more work invested in undoing the damage on girls, then there is done in undoing the damage on boys.
And why is that not ideal? Simply goes back to my theory about the loop. If you remove girls' damage, but don't remove boys' damage in an equal level... the boys simply oppress the girls back in the old roles.
We actually let these boys grow up into men who oppress women back into the old roles. We then ostracize and demonize these men for it... instead of taking responsibility for having let them grow up into that kind of a man in the first place.
Are you suggesting that feminist women must invest the same amount of time assisting boys as they do attempting to empower girls and women?
I cannot agree with that. Women and girls are an oppressed class in this world. Patriarchy primarily benefits men and harms women. The whole reason feminism exists is to end oppression against women - patriarchal oppression. In ending patriarchy, boys and men will benefit too, even if most don't see that. But it is not feminist women's responsibility to devote an equal amount of time to helping the marginalized and the privileged. If more men got on board with feminism this "imbalance" would right itself quickly.
Its precisely this short-sightedness that ends up hurting *girls* in the end.
===Let me rephrase===
1) If we ignore boys then the patriarchy gets them.
2) The patriarchy then turns these boys into men who then work to oppress women
3) All the work done on the girls is now lost
=====================
Either we get to the boys first, or the patriarchy does. If we (in our short-sightedness)... leave the boys out, we're shooting ourselves in the foot... Because if we don't get the boys. The patriarchy does.
Alright, buddy, man up. Stop whining about how feminists aren't doing anything and start your own goddam movement. You've made some good points, but you are moving into whiny douchebag territory.
Come on, enough with the personal insults, especially the creepy gendered ones ("douchebag" and "man up."). If you have a problem with the argument, address it directly.
Did you just say "man up" to someone else on a feminist forum?
Weird.
I am not saying that men aren't hurt by patriarchy, nor am I saying that men's issues ought not be important in feminism.
But since we men are the ones with male power and privilege, and often less hurt by patriarchy than are women, how about we start policing ourselves and helping save our brothers, rather than just complaining that women do not care enough - thereby implying that somehow, along with enhancing their own lives, women are supposed to, at the same time, care for privileged males?
There are organizations out there comprising of male feminists working to dismantle gender roles and patriarchy, for both women and men, and focusing solely on masculinity and how men relate to the world. All you have to do is be a part of it, rather than simply saying, "Well, women do not care enough about and ignoring half of patriarchy's victims."
Thank you. This is what I was saying. Because to me, it sounded like the other poster (I am not trying to type out his handle) was saying that female feminists weren't working hard enough to heal boys' and mens' wounds. If that was not the point, then I misinterpreted.
"We" as a society, need to stop oppression before it starts - and that means "we" must teach equality early, to kids of both sexes. It doesn't mean feminists are responsible for ending all the oppression in the world whilst others stand on the sidelines and bark orders and demands.
You're right that men have a much higher rate of suicide than women, but I don't think it's because they get "more hurt" by rejection than women.
Rejection hurts plenty for women, and I hope you aren't diminishing the pain women experience by claiming that men suffer more. We're all social creatures for whom rejection or ostracism is extremely painful.
Perhaps women have better outcomes because: 1) Society allows women to express sadness, pain, grief and vulnerability much more than men, who're supposed to buck up and not cry. Bottling up your emotions can lead to feeling like you "have no hope" and therefore "life is not worth living."
2) There have been recent studies that women have more friends than men, while men's friends tend to be their wives. Having friends is a huge indicator in overall health as well as longevity. I think society's disapproval of men freely expressing their emotions impedes many of them from having meaningful relationships--whether with other men or women.
Finally, suicide and murder are both forms of violence, and society has viewed violence as a natural expression of masculinity and testosterone. Men tend to commit suicide via more violent means--shooting themselves, jumping off a bridge--whereas women tend to use methods such as overdosing on medication.
This is really on target and insightful, though a man who's wife is his only friend really does lose more in a divorce than a woman with other friends. Not only his lover, but also his entire circle of friends.
There's an excellent discussion on a lot of the associated problems here: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/04/07/my-wife-is-my-best-friend-the-guy-code-and-the-inability-to-get-naked-without-getting-naked/
Thanks so much for that link, Brian. I had no idea who Hugo Schwyzer was.
It made me sad that men feel so emotionally "bottled-up" that they have few with whom they can truly express themselves. And Schwyzer's analysis on how that can create resentment toward the person with whom they confide is spot-on.
I once knew someone--a woman, actually--who had problems confiding. Whenever she did burst out and share some deep assessment about herself or her upbringing, she would later be resentful at the friends who were there to listen. Intimacy makes you vulnerable, and on a crass level, information is power.
Hey vicky, awesome summary!
We actually agree. I'm sorry if I miss-communicated my point.
I did not mean to imply that women are not hurt by rejection. :) In fact, they're just as hurt by rejection in terms of a rejection in itself.
I was talking about *lifetime rejection*... I.e. the culmination of the effects of rejections.
Men simply get hurt more by rejection (overall, during a lifetime, not any one rejection)... because:
- Patriarchy teaches men this **false** notion that they need to get "notches" in order to be "real men"
- This leads (ironically) to men doing the exact thing that leads to rejection (objectifying women)
At the same time:
- We still expect men to do take most of the risks in courtship, and expect them to risk most of the rejection
This leads to men experiencing a lot more rejection in their life-times. I don't think we'll ever kill of the patriarchy until we kill of the old-notion of "masculinity".
Thanks! You're so right that men are expected to take the risk in initiating a relationship with a woman. I try to make things easier for the guys by asking them out. And yeah, it's nerve-wracking, and rejection is a pooper.
Your comment: "Patriarchy teaches men this **false** notion that they need to get "notches" in order to be "real men.""
Yeah, when I get rejected by a man, I don't see it as a threat or insult to my femininity. But men are expected, as you said, "to get notches." So a man who buys into that notion would see a rejection as an affront to his sexuality and masculinity.
Yep, exactly.
A man is taught to see rejection as a challenge to his entire status and reputation as a person... Which again is a false notion, it just means she's not interested... But the patriarchy teaches men to invest their entire being and self-worth into their "notches".
""I try to make things easier for the guys by asking them out.""
I wish I could capture how much I respect you for this. But I couldn't through text. If were making this discussion real life you'd be able to tell, because I really, really, really respect you for that.
To me, that is the definition of a truly empowered woman. Not just talking the talk, but walking the walk (and there's a lot of people who just talk).
---
You do realize though that are you still very rare and special though?
I think this is the part of the phenomenon we're missing on. We're not investing anywhere nearly as much effort into liberating women sexually.
- We ostracize men for objectifying women and counting notches (which we should continue doing)... and for judging their worth on their number of women
- But at the same time we mostly ignore that most women still encourage this behavior in men, whereas women refer to inexperienced men as "losers" and a worrying amount of women still judge men's viability by his number of previous partners
We can't solve the issue if we ignore half of it. The reason our re-educating of men isn't working, is because we fail them.
We tell men "just be good, just listen to women and be kind and caring and women will come to you"... but we forget to inform *women* that the rules have changed... So the man goes out into the world as this new-age man, and all the women he meets still play by the OLD rules. So he just feels lied to, cheated to... and eventually turns misogynist.
Anna at Jezebel even finds some bloggers in the "pick up artist" world who say if women would have just fucked Sodini, he never would have killed.
Very astute of Anna. Here's my paraphrase of that quote:
"If [incredibly misogynistic statement that creates circumstances and context for mass violence against women], he never would have killed."
Hey, maybe if Sodini just hadn't fired his gun in a crowded room, he wouldn't have killed.
Hey, maybe if people didn't imply that women's bodies should be immediately accessible to men, he never would have killed.
And why, exactly, are they concerned about Sodini's life? It's not
Disregard the last sentence - vestige of a misreading of Anna's paraphrase.
I agree so hard. I went to Virginia Tech and had class with Seung-Hui Cho. A year or two before the shooting he requested to be my friend on Facebook, but having never really spoken to him I declined. I *actually* had people tell me that if I had just been his friend maybe things would have turned out differently. The mind boggles.
What disturbs me most is how this incident seems to have brought out the misogynistic bloggers and other writers (thank you Jezebel!) 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!
Yeah, we are just supposed to go up to guys and drop trou to service their needs! They deserve it for being well dressed and clean shaven! Oddly enough, I have been actively trying to find either a boyfriend or a casual buddy, and have been rejected, sometimes with insults for no added charge, by a whole lot of men. How can I fulfill my societally mandated role of providing poon to men in need if they won't take me up on it?
This.
I know men who have this sense of entitlement and who have claimed to identify with the killer. This adds a whole level of scary onto it.
They talk about us as if we are commodities to be bought and sold. The men I know (not friends, friends of the boyfriend unfortunately for me), have said that women fit into two categories: The sluts who put out and the bitches who put out to everyone but me.
Oh and these aren't Bill O'Reilly types, these are supposedly progressive liberals.
Well, I've always said a man won't call you a whore.......until you STOP fucking him.
That is so true!
It can be so illogical. I have had men call me a whore when I've turned them down! How does that even make sense?!
Also I guess the other issue is why "whore" is an insult in the first place, but I suppose that is an issue for another day.
I always figured men called a woman who refused them "whore" because of course ANY proper woman would gratefully accept the gracious gift of their penis ... unless she was a woman who only did it for money.
Well, I've always said a man won't call you a whore.......until you STOP fucking him.
"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!"
Funny you say that. Many years ago I declined to dance with a man who was obviously drunk and he kicked me. Why I didn't report it, I don't know. Too young, too scared, too powerless.
I didn't mean "funny" -- poor word choice on my part.
It's interesting to me that men who despise women rape, abuse, and/or kill them. No matter how much a female may despise men, you don't see those same actions. Females don't attack stranger men because they can't get dates. Females don't kill random stranger men because they are angry with men in general. And no matter how annoyed feminists are with the Patriarchy, we don't maim, mangle, or murder men in revenge. What is it about the male gender that they take out their anger on stranger females?
Socialization.
Women are taught to avoid taking their anger out violently. We are taught to take anger at men out on ourselves, not others. Some don't follow that, but most do.
Men are taught to channel their anger and misogyny violently. They are taught to take their anger out on oppressed bodies, not themselves.
""They are taught to take their anger out on oppressed bodies, not themselves.""
Actually, that's wrong.
Men commit 400% more suicide than women. Men also almost single-handedly do acts of altruistic death (dying in order to help others survive).
Men are taught to take their own lives primarily, not others'
"Men are taught to take their own lives primarily, not others'"
From the Department of Justice Crime Statistics: "Males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder in 2005."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
The murder rate in the United States is something like 6 per 100 000 people per year. (e.g. it was 5.6 in 2007 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) The suicide rate in the United States among men was 17.7 per 100 000 per year (in 2005 http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/index.html ) So men are more likely to kill themselves than other people, by something like a factor of 3.
Women's suicide rates were 4.5 per 100 000 per year, so figure women are more likely to kill themselves than other people by more like a factor of 10.
Women are more like to than men to kill themselves than other people. But both women and men are more likely to kill themselves than other people. The dichotomy being presented is a false one.
Well put Brian.
I wasn't trying to prove that men are "angels" who sacrifice themselves for the greater good or anything like that... just to push the balance a bit to the other side.
You did a very nice analysis there proving that men and women are about equally as likely to take it out on others (in terms of ratios).
And women are not taught that we are entitled to men's bodies the way men are taught that they are entitled to ours.
COuldn't have been said better. Even if you followed the stereotype that men want sex and women want marriage/babies, it would be inconceivable that a woman would shoot up a room full of men because no one ever proposed and gave her the babies she watned.
Couldn't have been said better. The man reeked with entitlement as though he was owed something.
Even if you followed the stereotype that men want sex and women want marriage/babies, you'll never see a woman shooting up a room full of men because no one ever proposed to her and gave her the family she craved.
Sorry for the double post. I got an error message, and made a few edits and tried to upload it again.
...and if she wasn't proposed to, it's assumed that she's "ugly" or "too choosy" because *obviously* all men want to have sex with all women.
I have thought about the very same things ...
I wonder if it's not *partly* biology. Isn't it true, for example, that most female animals will not fight unless it is absolutely necessary. (I'm not sure if this is actually fact, I read it somewhere though!)
Is our passiveness some primitive approach to survival and the survival of our children?
Isn't it true, for example, that most female animals will not fight unless it is absolutely necessary. (I'm not sure if this is actually fact, I read it somewhere though!)
That's definitely not true. Females will fight for all the same reasons that males do - to protect their territory, their food sources, etc. It's true that females may not fight as often for access to a mate, but that's balanced out by the fact that males don't fight as often to protect their young.
OK, I'll take your word for it. But why, then, are women (generally/traditionally) so passive? I do believe it's *partly* biology -- as primitive as that is. I don't agree with it -- goodness knows I'm not passive!
But it is shocking how most women suffer all kinds of abuse and injustice -- both individually and collectively -- passively. I do believe biology plays some role, no? (Biology that has played a huge role in the creation our culture, our history.)
"But it is shocking how most women suffer all kinds of abuse and injustice -- both individually and collectively -- passively. I do believe biology plays some role, no?"
My guess is that it's a side effect of women being on average smaller than men. I wouldn't be surprised if, in man-on-man attacks, smaller men hit back against larger men less often than vice versa too.
Excellent point!
If you don't mind, I'd like to relay a relevant personal experience....
I had a horrible encounter this summer with a cyclist (a very large guy, a person I had never seen before).
I was at a stop light as he pedaled by and shouted into my car window (note: my infant child in the back). "Thanks for the F----- edge!" I honked my horn at him and then he yelled F------ Slut!! I did not deliberately not "give him the edge," so I was furious.
I'm convinced it was a meeting meant to happen (a la Prof. Gates & police sgt. - small time.) I pulled over and told him exactly what I thought. Dangerous? Uh, yeah! I'd never do it again, that's for sure. He could have easily beat me to a pulp -- probably could have paralyzed me w/ one punch.
Anyway, I gave him a good talking to and I'm sure he'll think twice before he ever calls another woman a slut. (Or so I like to think & hope.)
So, yeah. Biology. Domination. We live with it.
Erm how about levels of testosterone?
Aha! Most definitely.
Not necessarily. Production of testosterone is only have the equation, there is also uptake of testosterone and metabolism of testosterone. In addition, the difference between men's and women's biology, even if you limit the comparison to only hormones, encompasses way way more than just testosterone levels. I don't think you can take a single biological factor and say "aha, this is the sole cause of the difference b/t aggression in men and women."
Re: Sex hormones
FrumiousB, I typed "Aha" as in Ah, yes, hormones! I did not type, "Eureka! We discovered the missing piece." (Which is the meaning you seem to have inferred.)
Let's clarify something...
No-one has said sex hormones are the *single* factor. There are no doubt many biological/physiological factors, obviously.
FrumiousB: ,i>"I don't think you can take a single biological factor and say "aha, this is the sole cause of the difference b/t aggression in men and women.",
Seems to me like the fact that women are socialized to be passive and take abuse with a smile on their face has a shitload to do with it.
Seems to me like the fact that women are socialized to be passive and take abuse with a smile on their face has a shitload to do with it.
"I wonder if it's not *partly* biology. Isn't it true, for example, that most female animals will not fight unless it is absolutely necessary. (I'm not sure if this is actually fact, I read it somewhere though!)"
It's somewhat true. Males are almost always more aggressive (and often physically larger) than females. That's not to say females don't fight, but I believe they usually do less of it.
Generally, iirc, the bigger the male is relative to the female, the more aggressive he is relative to her...
Interesting!
I have a female rabbit and oh boy is this untrue, haha. When I am putting food in her dish she snarls at me because she thinks I am trying to take it away.
A few questions/comments:
1) This is TMI, but I feel it needs to be said: Ironically, the night before he killed, I was an emotional mess cuz *I* really wanted to have sex and lamented about how there were no guys throwing themselves at my feet. Of course, I don't go and shoot guys because of it.
2) Is this really about women? I mean, it just seems more about masculinity i.e. "A man needs a woman to feel confident"...a man isn't a man unless he's having sex with women....a man solves problems with guns and violence.
3) I was taught that sex is drive....like hunger. Is there some way we, as a society, talk about sex as a basic human need? Of course, not all people feel sexual, but I feel like we always talk about sex as something "nice" not something that drives people nuts (literally and figuratively) when they don't get it.
I was taught that sex is drive....like hunger. Is there some way we, as a society, talk about sex as a basic human need? Of course, not all people feel sexual, but I feel like we always talk about sex as something "nice" not something that drives people nuts (literally and figuratively) when they don't get it.
Sure let's talk about it. Might I continue with the hunger analogy?
Imagine feeding a starving community by showing them how create an environment conducive to harvesting food, yet some of them angrily refuse because they want sushi.
Or imagine that you have food for everyone and a few people decide to hide some of the food and hoard it for themselves. And instead of folks getting upset about hoarding of the food, they instead glorify hoarding food and aspire to do it as well.
This is the general mentality that we are dealing with.
(please forgive the food analogies, no disrespect to the victims and to women in general)
Wait, so aspiring to be a food hoarder is the same as aspiring to be The Man Who Does Violence Against Women?
Sorry, I got a little lost in your analogy. ^_^;;
Nah. That's Ok. I'm specifically talking about the "biological drive" aspect that you brought up and how some folks in our culture feel it should be implemented.
Hoarding comes about with the idea that 50% of the population should be somewhat chaste sexual gatekeepers, while another 50% is entitled to as many partners as they can manage; besides the arrogance of it, this goal of course is rendered nearly impossible because of the constraints placed on the gatekeepers.
Overall it is a pretty undemocratic way of looking at something that folks argue is supposed to be a basic human drive, wouldn't you say?
The analogy isn't meant to go beyond that. ;)
I wanted to say one thing about sex drive being like a hunger drive. Lack of food can kill you (as can lack of water, oxygen, and in some places, clothing/shelter). Lack of sex cannot. The need for sex is not the same as the need for these other things. A lack of sex sucks, but it does NOT "drive people nuts" and it certainly doesn't drive people to kill.
I didn't mean to say that the lack of sex drove him to kill.
I'm just curious as to where the psychological need and the physical need intertwines and how they interact.
What a cowardly, mysogynistic crybaby. Oh boo hoo, he couldn't get a date or get laid! May the killer rot in Hell.
You know, this guy had the shit beat out of him by his brother, a father that ignored him, and an overbearing mother. No wonder he is screwed-up. His life was shit, and then he had the freakin' church filling him full of their crap.
Doesn't justify anything, particularly his attitude towards women, but his journal is pretty sad to read.
I don't think it's sad at all. If anything, one would think the guy would have developed compassion! Generally, people who suffer hardships in childhood develop empathy - not this dude.
I want to hear from his mother.
I'm also curious to know if the murderer was a porn aficionado.
Some people who suffer in childhood gain empathy. A whole lot of them go on to become abusers themselves.
I own porn. I've never shot anyone. Correlation does not equal causation. For example, one criminal expert once said that almost every murderer in America had a copy of one particular book in their houses. Surely we should ban this book, right? What was this terrible tome? The Bible, which millions of perfectly law-abiding people have in their homes too.
bifemmefatale: "Some people who suffer in childhood gain empathy. A whole lot of them go on to become abusers themselves."
Exactly, there's a choice.
bifemmefatle: "I own porn. I've never shot anyone. Correlation does not equal causation."
I'm not following you here, because that's not what I was thinking when I replied. But I'm convinced regularly viewing porn creates a "mindset." If a man is viewing porn involving young (sometimes VERY young) women, everyday...
Nevertheless, in my view, porn is selfish. There are untold numbers of children and women who suffer horribly in the name of porn. Why would anyone defend it?!
Now, erotica (for mature adults!), that's something else, obviously.
I do have a lot of issues with the porn industry. I think a lot of it is misogynistic crap. But not all porn is. There are some companies putting out amateur and/or women-focused stuff that does not exploit the actresses.
Ah, the old distinction between "porn" and "erotica", which is in the eye of the beholder and seems to slide around a lot. Softcore can be just as exploitative and reinforcing of harmful stereotypes, and hardcore can be sexy and egalitarian when done right. Gauzy or less-gauzy focus on the genitalia doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether a certain film is unfeminist or disrespectful to women.
Take a look at this link as far as your belief about porn-watching and crime goes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/
Why would anyone defend porn? Because I believe in freedom of expression. Because sex is an important part of human life and deserves to have art made about it just as much as birth, death, food, etc. Because watching other people gets me off and does not necessarily harm anyone. Because there are many countries in which porn is illegal and yet the society is horrible towards women. I could go on, but we've derailed enough.
bifemmefatale: "Ah, the old distinction between "porn" and "erotica", which is in the eye of the beholder and seems to slide around a lot."
I started working on an essay about this (I've since abandoned it because I can't be bothered!) There actually is a distinction. It has to do with intent. The intent of the creator(s) ...
I'd like to add one more thing. I stated in my OP that I wonder if the Pittsburgh shooter was a "porn aficionado." Apparently for many people porn is viewed as a convenient/safe way of expressing themselves sexually. OK. But that's not what's at issue here.
I raised the question specifically in regard to **this** case of the Pittsburgh shooter.
Anyone who reads the Pittsburgh shooter's blogs can see he lived in some kind of fantasy-land.
Doesn't male hetero porn = fantasy-land? (not a place I'd ever want to visit!). Diseased minds have difficulty separating fantasy from reality. If there is such a thing as a sexual appetite, then feeding a diseased mind a daily feast of blond, buxom, YOUNG, pretty girls is only going to INCREASE his appetite. Just because a food tastes good, doesn't mean it's healthy or that one should eat it every day! So again, I'm questioning the Pittsburgh shooter's mindset -- why did he so insanely desire "young" pretty women? Did male hetero porn fantasies-R-Us contribute at all? Just asking, that's all.
"[0+] vwom replied to bifemmefatale :
bifemmefatale: "Some people who suffer in childhood gain empathy. A whole lot of them go on to become abusers themselves."
Exactly, there's a choice."
I think you're discounting what seems to me at least to be a very strong possibility of mental illness. Serious mental illness. It's easy to say a mentally balanced person has choice - we do. It's not so easy when a person is mentally (or for that matter, physically) unwell.
Wait a second. Would you *please* take the time to read the original post that I replied to, the one that lead to this discussion?
The post I replied to stated something to the effect that the Pittsburgh shooter had a horrible childhood, so no wonder he had problems/issues (again, something to that effect.)
I am not, as you claim, discounting mental illness at all. I just replied as such because I know of many men & women who suffered terrible events and abuse as children but developed empathy and compassion as a result. That's all I was saying.
Why twist my comments? Seriously, why? It's terribly frustrating. And why doesn't everyone just read the posts thoroughly before going on offence. Gee whiz. Thanks.
At the risk of giving TMI I use porn every day.
And I've never shot anybody (male or female) or committed any act of violence against another person (and that's after 23+ years of regular porn use)
As for the Porn vs "Erotica" thing, could you be more specific?
What makes some pornography "good" (and worthy of the brand name "Erotica") while some other pornography is dirty, bad and selfish (and branded as "porn")?
GregoryAButler,
I admire your candor. It's not that I would necessarily associate violence with porn use (although I recall reading something about rapists/serial killers are often porn aficionados -- however I have nothing readily available that substantiates that claim.
The specifics about erotica v. porn really cannot be addressed here in this little box (not by me, anyway!). I don't mean to be evasive, I just never finished the article and while the idea is fully formed, the explanation isn't.
But for what it's worth, I simply do not think it's possible for a person to view male hetero porn on a daily basis and that *not* affect his/her thinking and mindset in a deeply profound (possibly unconscious) way. My goodness, just surfing the net you can see porn ads for "teens." "Girls Go Wild." It's Girls, Girls, Girls who are the focus and target of mainstream male hetero porn, which has thoroughly saturated our culture. Can anyone refute that?
Did I say porn is "dirty" and "bad"? No, I said I believe it is selfish. But upon reflection, I don't know if that is the correct phraseology. I don't like porn because I can't help but think of all the women -- both young & old -- and children who are terrorized by the industry.
It has been my experience that some of the most intelligent, successful, and all-around dandy people turn into major hypocrites on the subject of pornography. They are so liberal about protecting human rights but don't seem to give a damn about human trafficking & the absolute terror those involved in the porn industry create.
Incidentally, probably every friend I've ever had has used porn, so I know I'm in the minority. I have absolutely no desire to convince anyone of anything. I'm merely expressing my own thoughts.
I think if the porn industry were *highly* regulated (not likely!), that if women were directing things, and if there were absolute laws forbidding anyone under the age of, say, 21 -- for f's sake a girl can't even buy alcohol till that age, but if she's a "hottie" she can sell her body for use in Playboy or what-have-you. Does that make **any** sense whatsoever?!
We must eradicate women's sex class status before we can even begin to talk about porn being a good thing.
And an untold number of women have suffered molestation, abuse, rape, DV, etc., but they very rarely hate men - as a class - as a result.
This guy COULD have killed strange men out of anger at his brother or father, who he admitted were terrible to him. But no, he did what men usually do in these situations. He killed random women.
You know, this guy had the shit beat out of him by his brother, a father that ignored him, and an overbearing mother. No wonder he is screwed-up. His life was shit, and then he had the freakin' church filling him full of their crap.
Doesn't justify anything, particularly his attitude towards women, but his journal is pretty sad to read.
If anyone is in the Pittsburgh area, please come out to the vigil tonight, organized by The Women and Girls Foundation. Thank you.
http://kdka.com/local/LA.Fitness.shooting.2.1116276.html
i'm uncomfortable talking about this case without discussing the role his obvious mental illness/isolation played. yes, there are some larger issues at play, but i see that more in the reactions others have had to this case, i.e. "women shoulda dated this guy so this wouldn't have happened so it's your fault bwhahaha".
this guy was fucking sick, and isolated, for a long time, and he made cries for help, and no one noticed. this is in no way saying that anyone besides the killer is to blame for the incident, but undiagnosed/treated mental illness is just as much a social problem as misogyny.
The unfortunate reality is that people in this day & age don't care about hearing--much less treating--mental illness.
Besides the misogyny, yes the first thing I thought of, especially after reading his journal, was that if we didn't have such a societal stigma attached to mental illness, maybe he would have sought help for his depression-induced distorted thinking and gotten the mentoring he needed as well. (Even he realized that lack in his life.)
I feel strongly that this angle needs to be talked about in the interest of preventing future tragedies like this.
It's also clear that depressed people (I've been one) do respond to people being friendly and taking an interest in their lives--his neighbor being nice was something he had to resist to carry this out. That doesn't mean we're responsible when we don't make that effort--but what is the real cost of a smile, a hello, a short conversation when you see someone isolated and hurting? (I'm not directing this to women as the eternal caretakers of all around them, but to everyone in general.)
Finally, it is risky (as those of us who are lesbian or bi have learned) to have to do the asking. I asked my husband out; he admitted he was too shy and would not have asked me or anyone else out. Feminism means to me that both genders in heterosexual dating share this difficult task.
As a young woman just out of high school, I thought I should mention that nowadays-- at least where I lived-- girls and boys BOTH do the initiating and BOTH do the asking out.
But the form his mental illness took was to choose to shoot women- mental illness does not make one hate a particular group. Society in some way conditioned and shaped his opinions about women. His anger against women as a class was not caused by his mental illness, but by a society that encourages men to feel they have a right to women's bodies.
Joan
no question. i 100% agree with you.
my point is that millions of men live in this society with all its misogyny, yet very few of them kill, which indicates other factors are at play. the fact that this guy lived a long time with mental illness, and no one seemed to notice. (alternately, one could say *everyone* noticed, which is why he seemed to have had crappy relationships.) but there either seems to be a poor or a nonexistent social system to find and treat these sick people, and this had deadly consequences. THIS is just as much a societal failure as widespread sexism and racism.
because this man was clearly mentally ill, i don't think it's right to discuss this case only by analyzing the social factors. this wasn't a drug dealer shooting someone to protect his territory.
I'm uncomfortable diagnosing mental illness without actually examining the patient. You can't make a diagnosis from a journal. Labeling him as mentally ill is great way to set up a difference between him and "normal" guys/gals. It makes us feel good about ourselves and the people we interact with on a daily basis. We're/they're not like him. We/they won't go on a killing rampage. Truth is, his only "illness" might have been deep, abiding bitterness.
Incredibly Foxnews.com is even using 'misogynist' as a label for the shooter.
I think much of the mainstream media coverage has exceeded my expectations in that respect. On the other hand, I don't advise anyone reading the comments that have been posted in response to many of these stories...
I didn't think Faux News even KNEW the word "misogyny". Excuse me while I go check for flying pigs.
Oh they know it. They just only know it when one uses the adage "Lipstick on a pig" in reference to John McCain's proposed policies and assume there's some sort of attack on Ste. Sarah.
To Jessica's point about talking about this through the larger lens of misogyny, one way to do that is to talk about the misogynist's need for control. Sodini was articulating his frustration at being unable to control women. Women were essentially property to him. Well, rape is the same thing: The need by a misogynist to control women. I'd love to see a post/article about how the control angle manifests itself in different ways (some violent some not) and ultimately even in a mass murder. For instancce, what I don't think broadly resonates with Americans is the notion that the Pro Life position is a patriarchal attempt to control women's bodies. I don't know that such an article could connect that kind of control to this act, but it'd be interesting to see it.
I am genuinely curious as to why crimes like these aren't also considered a "hate crime" Does anyone have the answer? Is it a legal technicality thing? Or is it that sexism is so pervasive that if we started classifying this sort of thing as hate crimes there'd be too many to count? Does anyone know the reason that a crime that's so clearly hateful committed against women purely because of their gender isn't classified as a hate crime?
If he hadn't killed himself I believe he in fact could & would be charged with a hate crime.
Not yet. "Gender" isn't in hate crime legislation on the federal level (but would be with changes currently proposed). PA law, likewise, only covers crimes motivated by "race, color, religion or national origin."
This perfectly fits the definition of a hate crime.
It was very telling that initial media questions--and my thoughts too--were whether he was aiming at an ex-girlfriend who used the gym. We're so used to that kind of story that, if that had been the case, I doubt the media would have lingered over his online blog and backstory. (I’m sure there’s also tittilation over his revelation that he hadn’t had sex in 19 years, etc. “What man admits to that?!”)
This time, however, instead of a "personal crime of passion" (domestic violence or murder of the partner and often her family), the perpetrator upped the ante by coolly planning then murdering a complete group of strangers because they represented the "Single Woman."
A hate crime, as opposed to a personal crime, has the result of striking fear in the broader community from which the victims came. Who among us isn’t a little more afraid after Tuesday?
What an excellent point.
While I have felt relieved that most news outlets have talked about this in terms of misoginy, I think this has to do largely with WHY he targeted women, rather than the fact that he did it.
He killed women in an aerobics class, a place that even the most blatant sexists don't object to women going to, because they "too beautiful." This is a level of woman hating that even Fox News can recognize. I fear it would have been very different, as the examples cited by the OP demonstrate, had he targeted women in a setting that misgonists object to, such as an educational institute. In short, he hated and killed women who weren't doing anything identified with feminism (other than rejecting him, which can also be associated with things other than feminism, such as purity), so even Fox News paid attention.
Also, lest any one think I am calling aerobics and beauty anti-feminist, I am an aerobics instructor who loves gyms, I just don't specifically associate them with feminism.
I read the portion of Sodini's blog that the NY Post put up, and he reminded me a lot of the guys in those True Forced Loneliness videos up on YouTube - same sense of entitlement, same blaming their problems on being rejected by women. Some of the TFL guys are downright scary in their hatred of women. I keep thinking, if women are so awful, why do you want to be with us so badly?
Because other men think they are losers if they can't get a woman. It's a status thing, a sign of your success and efficacy as a man. He feels like a failure for not achieving these basic social status requirements, even besides the loneliness he talks about. In a society with strict gender roles, men compete with each other just like women do. His bullying brother and distant father contributed to his sense of being a failure. Therapy might have turned it around but the stigma against seeking therapy, again especially among men, seems to have made it an option he didn't consider.
I've been waiting for Feministing to post about this, and I feel really grateful for the community here when it comes to events like this... The MRA response Jezebel links to is entirely predictable and unsurprising, but still horrifying. I don't know why I was reading the comments and filling my head with that toxic crap but I was mesmerized by how terrible some of those men seemed. Sometimes it's hard work to remind myself that all men aren't like that—even though I know plenty of sweet, wonderful guys who I care about deeply and are the living examples that most men aren't cheering on murderers.
I'd like to hate the killer but, in the video, I just feel sorry for him. He seems so lonely and desperate to change his state, although he can't figure out a successful way to do so. I don't think he ever took on any real tools to do so, because—as has been pointed out—he only seems to operate on the level of thinking women would somehow call in his lap if he just looked the right way or made enough money. And we all get those messages all the time: be thin enough, smell good enough, buy the right crap, and you'll never be lonely again. I just wish our society was better at fostering compassion and connection, and encouraging it in healthy ways. That includes, of course, erasing any sense of entitlement to the affections of another human being, and putting the focus on what we can offer others rather than what we can demand or expect from them.
This incident has really struck a nerve with me. One frequently reads horror stories of men in other countries throwing acid in women's faces because the women (or their families) rejected an offer of marriage.
Here in the U.S., you have stalking, domestic violence and murder of the partner and often her family--and now, random mass murder. It was very telling that initial media questions--and my thoughts too--were whether he was aiming at an ex-girlfriend who used the gym. We're so used to that kind of story that, if that had been the case, I doubt the media would have lingered over his online blog and backstory.
On a more personal level, this freaked me out because it made me wonder, "Should I have been friendlier to that annoying man who wouldn't leave me alone at the gym?" "Should I have let him chat with me then passingly mentioned having a boyfriend--thus revealing that I'm unavailable and, just as importantly, have a 'male protector?'"
Instead, after he'd accosted me for a ten-minute long monologue about himself and how "comfortable" he felt "sharing" with me, I made it very clear that I did not want his attention. Especially when, while at an open market not far from the gym, I heard someone calling insistently at me ("Miss! Miss!"), discovered it was him, and looked so visibly displeased that he turned around and walked away without another word.
When it comes to our public safety, we women are always told to go with our gut and ignore the socialization to "be nice." "Being nice" could cost us our lives if we try to accommodate abusers, random kidnappers, serial killers, etc. I've always prided myself for having a tough, take-no-shit attitude when walking down the street.
Now, we have to worry about not being nice enough because if we don't accommodate, we might get shot?
I made the mistake of reading the Salon comments to a Broadsheet post about street harassment once. One type of comment that kept coming up was about this anger that men felt when they saw a pretty woman walking down the street. They felt that she was trying to control them by eliciting a sexual response and then rejecting them. They wanted that control back.
It was the type of comment that makes me feel sick to my stomach.
Your experience with the pushy man is something I've never known how to effectively deal with. It doesn't happen that often but when it does I always have to ask myself "How can I firmly let this man know I'm not interested but not elicit an angry, threatening response from him".
It's a lose-lose situation for us. Be nice and "lead them on", be firm and you're a bitch who now could get shot.
Thanks so much for your input. Michael Kimmel in "Guyland" extensively quotes men who feel that women are intentionally "harassing" them by looking "beautiful" then "spiting" them by rejecting them. Of course, if women didn't brush their hair, shave their underarms, and look generally presentable, then we're considered dour trolls who can't land a man.
It's comforting to hear that other women struggle with this balance. I still occasionally see that man at the gym, but he doesn't speak to me anymore. I wonder if it's because he: 1) got a girlfriend, 2) just plain realizes I'm not interested, or 3) thinks I'm a total bitch. Why should I care what a total stranger thinks? Well, that's not a dumb question, is it?
I'd love any additional advice from other women who have to deal with this!
That balance is definitely something I struggle with. I have long felt that, by being friendly to extremely socially awkward men, I am running the risk of unwanted romantic attention. I've also felt hostility when I don't reciprocate.
I even have my own guy-at-the gym story. This guy tried to chat me up in the pool when I was swimming laps. I thought I made it clear that I was maintaining conversation merely to be polite. (Actually, I was making a concerted effort to be friendly as I've told that I'm too hostile when men approach me.) The next time I was there he asked me out, and I politely declined. When I saw him again I was waiting for a lane to open up, and he said he'd save his lane for me. Then he added, "No obligation."
I didn't even know what to say, but I definitely felt some hostility from that statement. As if I did something wrong by turning down a guy I had no interest in.
This shooting incident really got me thinking. I have long felt rejected by men because I have almost never been asked out or approached by someone I'm interested in. But I always blame that on ME and my (perceived) inadequacies. It's interesting that men blame someone external, but it's still the woman getting the blame. It's been really alarming to discover I sometimes share this tendency. What did society DO to us, anyway?
Yech, how passive-aggressive: "No obligation." I would have thought to myself at that moment: "No one would have thought it until you mentioned it, jerk!!
I agree with you that women are *conditioned* to question themselves/their appeal while some men will never, ever ask: "Am I actually desirable?"
That's not to say that men don't experience insecurity or low self-esteem. I've heard guys complain about their baldness or height.
But our culture conditions men to look at romantic pursuit as a "hunt" where they go out and "acquire" a hot woman. (The woman is supposed to just stand there and look pretty--hence, all the inward scrutiny).
So when you mix a man's personal insecurity with societal expectations that he be a chest-thumping Tarzan, the end result is hostility toward women for not playing their part of the "script."
I notice this in all kinds of relationships: if you're not choosing the society proscribed role then there are scads of people getting angry and jealous a la "I have to be in here, so do you!" I've lost so many "friends" because I decided to take a different route in life, or quit a job that didn't suit me, like I was personally insulting all my co-workers or acquaintances with similar positions. I wanted to yell, "I'm not deeming it less-than, it's just not for me!"
I'm so sick of people trying to shove me into a compartment.
"I agree with you that women are *conditioned* to question themselves/their appeal while some men will never, ever ask: "Am I actually desirable?""
On the contrary, I believe most men are conditioned to believe they're NOT desirable. Ever (this plays into that "women don't want sex" trope).
Wow, well said!
i just googled True Forced Loneliness and my mind is completely blown.
The Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest PA will be holding a candlelight vigil tonight, Thursday, Aug. 6th at 5:30 p.m. at the City-County Building to offer support and non-denominational prayers to the victims and families of this tragic and senseless event.
WGF, community organizations and elected officials will be in attendance. All are welcome.
If you live in the Southwest PA area, please attend if you can. You can also help support WGF in honoring the victims by passing this information to your friends and networks. For questions or more information, please contact WGF info@wgfpa.org.
Once again there is feministing telling one part of the story. Yes, three women were killed and ten were injured and I agree that the misogyny of this crime certainly needs to be discussed but how is it that you feel fine to discuss this terrible incident without ever once mentioning race? Come on..seriously. You are fine with ignoring the racist vitriol in his comments and reduce this to simply a matter of gender? Way to practice intersectionality.
Renee, no one is arguing that the guy wasn't a sexist, racist asshole. But racism is irrelevant in the context of what happened. Sodini didn't shoot up a room full of African-Americans or Latinos or Asians. All of his victims by design were women, and white women at that, and he targeted them because they wouldn't sleep with him.
Not everything is about race.
"Not everything is about race."
Wow! Way to be dismissive of racism. That's such a ridiculous ending to any comment that I don't even feel like I can address the rest of your comment.
Oh, for crying out loud. Does EVERYTHING have to be about race? Yes, Sodini made a lot of racist remarks on that vile screed he called a diary, but the overwhelming bulk of his hatred was directed at WOMEN.
I'm not "dismissing" racism or anything else, but show me where ANYTHING about Sodini's massacre was racially motivated. He may have ranted about how "bruthas" could each have three white women of their very own, but he wasn't gunning down a room full of black men, was he? There are a lot of evil, hateful, despicable things that happen in this world because of racism, but this slaughter wasn't one of them.
If the guy was being both misogynist and racist, wouldn't it make sense to assume that there's some sort of interrelation there?
I've only heard the vaguest mentions so far that he said racist things as well, which means that (at least the ones I've read) news sources aren't seeing it as something worth talking about. Which is definitely something to criticize.
Not everything is about race?
Yeah I would agree with you however this incident definitely had a racialized element and you ignore it at your own peril. Sodini was not just threatened as a man but as a White man I won't fill up the comment thread debating this issue with you, however I will offer this link explaining exactly what race has to do with this.
Religion also fed into the whole thing, his involvement in a fundie (by his own description) church and his justification that he would go to Heaven because Jesus already paid for his sins.
There is no doubt that there were a complex web of societal issues involving race, sexism, misogyny, religion, the stigma against mental illness preventing him from getting treatment, distant father, bullying from brother and in school, and so on. We can probably analyze this for years to come since he gave us so much material.
Go read Renee's link. It IS relevant. Very relevant.
Sodini definitely made racist comments. He stated that black men always get "the best white hos." (WTF?) Given our country's historical pathology over black men with white women, it definitely taps into the old white male fear/resentment of supposedly more virile black men taking white women.
At the end of the day, though, when you look at the nature of the crime, his racism was an accessory to his misogyny. Sodini didn't rant on and on about black men blocking his access to white women. He obsessively raged at women for depriving him of his much-deserved sex and company. He walked into the gym specifically to kill women--not black men or interracial couples.
Really...I suppose you missed his journal entry for Nov 5, 2008. This is about the fact that he felt entitled to White women and felt emasculated as a man because he did not have access. He viewed the election of Obama as well as inter racial relationships to be a threat to his ability to profit from undeserved White male privilege. Race is not always about people of color sometimes it is about Whiteness.
Um, I was backing you up by quoting from that diary entry about black men and
white hos," and commented thusly:
"Sodini definitely made racist comments. He stated that black men always get "the best white hos." (WTF?) Given our country's historical pathology over black men with white women, it definitely taps into the old white male fear/resentment of supposedly more virile black men taking white women."
I clicked on your link, and the post basically elaborates in greater detail what I'd said.
I apologize I clearly misread your commentary.
No worries.
No worries.
An interesting tidbit: 48-year old George Sodini wanted "young women."
Fox News (can't believe I'm citing them, but thanks for the tip, Napoleoninrags) says he "inexplicably talks about relationships with younger women — 10 to 20 years younger." He had a book titled, "Date Young Women," which I assume isn't for young men in the same peer group as those "young women."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,537649,00.html?test=latestnews
A NY Times article references Sodini's diary entry in which he mentions a neighbor's "'beautiful college-aged girl' leaving Ms. Cowen’s home, apparently Ms. Cowen’s 22-year-old daughter."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/06shoot.html?ref=us
So, this asshole wasn't rejected by women. He rejected women his own age then raged over the fact that the ones young enough to be his daughter weren't throwing themselves at him.
Creepy, sounds a lot like the sort of attitudes Hugo Schwyzer often blogs about when it comes to certain older men and their sense of entitlement about having younger women.
This.
We see this happen over and over again with Nice Guys (TM), where they reject women who aren't conventionally attractive and then moan about how women never want them! So by this logic, the only women who are women are the conventionally attractive ones and the rest of us are chopped liver?!
Nice Guys (TM) have entitlement coming out of their ears!
"We see this happen over and over again with Nice Guys (TM), where they reject women who aren't conventionally attractive and then moan about how women never want them! So by this logic, the only women who are women are the conventionally attractive ones and the rest of us are chopped liver?!"
As far as that goes, a similar selectiveness can be seen in women unsatisfied with their pool of potential partners, with similar kinds of venting.
Right - but they don't go shooting up gyms. So I'm not sure how useful your caveat is on a thread about a terrorist, hate fueled mass murder.
"Right - but they don't go shooting up gyms. So I'm not sure how useful your caveat is on a thread about a terrorist, hate fueled mass murder."
If I am to believe what I read about is the difference between men and women on this blog, it is socialization, not an inherent difference between men and women.
Therefore any comments re: "women don't do this" are fairly meaningless. If women were socialized like men were, more would. And if men were not socialized as they are, fewer would. And most don't.
Most men do not murder women. And I don't think they're socialized to do so. They may be socialized (by men) to think they have a right to do what they want to women's bodies, though. But I still wonder why virtually NO women murder stranger men.
Since feminists are so evil, one might expect them to murder men. And yet they do not.
"Most men do not murder women. And I don't think they're socialized to do so."
I did not claim men were socialized to murder women, and you are correct to point out that most do not. Men are more likely to kill themselves than someone else.
"They may be socialized (by men) to think they have a right to do what they want to women's bodies, though. But I still wonder why virtually NO women murder stranger men."
You said it yourself, as have numerous others. Men are socialized X. Women are not socialized X. If men and women were both socialized X, they would show more similarities. To point out with what I perceive do be a certain smugness these few days, "women don't do X," is meaningless. So how do you think women would be, if women were taught from childhood that they were entitled to men's bodies, to blame men for their own failures, or to use aggression, violence, and guns? Might you not see more violence by women? Or do you claim some inherent superiority?
Feminists don't murder random men, because that is not a symptom of being raised X. And if this man had been raised feminist, unless he had a sufficiently serious condition, he would not have done it.
Yes. I think the book title I read on Jezebel was something like "How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35." They also write about how he posted on message boards asking people what they would think if they saw an older man with a "very young girl," etc.
I mean, I don't know why I'm surprised, it's obvious these men don't want real companionship and relationships with real women, but still..."I'm 50 years old and so lonely and I haven't had sex in decades and everyone rejects me and I'm desperate but NO I WILL ONLY DATE HOT 20 YEAR OLDS!" Boggles the mind. I've also noticed that a lot of those Forced Loneliness, Nice Guy type guys always bring up how women always go for the jerky jocks, handsome rich guys, whatever and won't give them the time of day because of their looks - isn't that shallow? But then they don't want to date an "ugly" girl with a nice personality either.
It's really interesting to me how many men really are all about the age. In online dating ads, so many men looking for women specify an age range which either has an upper limit at their own age or an upper limit below their own age. Now, maybe that's not a representative sample of the male population, but it has really struck me how common it is.
OMG, I tried online dating last year, and the age thing was a recurring theme: 40-year old men wanting 20 year olds, and 50-60 year old men frequently e-mailing me (a 30-year old). The latter group appeared to be well-off--one listed himself as a doctor. It was as though they thought, "I don't need to be nice or interesting or in reasonably good shape to attract the bikini-clad supermodels I want. I have money, and that's all the bitchez need."
Sigh. I can't count the times I've run across that idea in the comment threads on some article or other that ends up drifting into discussions of either dating OR appearance, but particularly the latter.
We (women) are told, smugly, that we had better keep ourselves hot and fit and land a man by 25, or else we're "Christmas cake" because of course no one will want us, it's all downhill from there. No one wants a non-hot woman, and the threshold for "hot" is set sky high in porn-star land.
Meanwhile men don't have to worry about their own looks or age, according to these same smug commenters, because everyone knows that men only INCREASE in desirability with age, because they've got fat wallets and financial stability, and that's all women are really looking for. So always, the men will win, and the women are left crying, or desperate, such a pity, the fat hags! Hahaha.
But even if you do land a man at 25, you better not "let yourself go," because the man can just dump you at any time and go pick up a new hot young thing, and there's nothing wrong with it, it's just the natural world! He has urges!
Complain about the tone? Ha, you sound fat. AND old.
Remind people that these days, women can have their own financial stability? Why then you're just struggling (because everyone knows that really, you're just not as productive as a man at anything), or worse yet, bitter. Man-hating.
And yet, in this same universe, there's the idea that all the attractive women are being cockteases and rejecting the men, so that the men are victims. Somehow these two ideas manage to coexist, often in the same thread.
Naw, men refusing to date women older than they are, and women refusing to date men younger than they are is pretty common. (I don't think the reverse occurs to much of an extent.)
Same occurs with income too, obviously. Height to some extent. Not sure about anything else.
Lots of things are common. Doesn't necessarily mean they're A-ok and shouldn't be examined. Hell, sexism and misogyny are pretty damn common, too, as one can tell by reading some of the blog posts by men who claim to "identify" with this guy.
Uh ... okay, but it does address whether dating sites are representative of the wider reality, which was the subject at hand.
Actually, in my experience they're not all that representative. It seems like there's a lot more shallowness on dating sites, from what I've seen, than IRL. And I live in Orange County, lol.
Lots of things are common. Doesn't necessarily mean they're A-ok and shouldn't be examined. Hell, sexism and misogyny are pretty damn common, too, as one can tell by reading some of the blog posts by men who claim to "identify" with this guy.
Brilliant commentary!
I say we need to focus more on this!
Thanks. This story really ate me up, so I'm so glad that there's this prolific discussion going on. It's really comforting when there are men and women discussing what's so disturbing about this incident.
I think it's deeper than "boo hoo women hate me so I'm gonna get myself a gun." He had a deep rooted mental disorder in my opinion. In his blog he repeatedly mentions the shortcomings of family support in his youth. His brother that bullied him, his mother that was demanding and bossy and his father that was a "useless sperm donor".
He was sick, that's why he wasn't with women. He wasn't very specific, but I'm sure the women he was with noticed something wrong with him in that respect and rejected him. Had nothing to do with looks. Women can bypass looks if you have a good personality and a caring nature (I can personally attest.) 99.999999999% of guys will never do this. There was no way to stop it. There will always be a fringe of "spooky" factors that no one can explain. People want things cut and dry with little proper definitions where nothing can go wrong. But that's a whole 'nother animal.
Bogger--I understand your argument. Jezebel said it like this, "men say that if some woman would've slept with this guy he wouldn't have gone a shooting spree, whereas I ask what woman would is going to sleep with a guy would go on a shooting spree?" So I get what you're saying.
But even if an underlying mental condition led women to avoid him, its plainly evident that he hated women as a result of them avoiding him. This is the difference between the underlying cause of something and the immediate cause of something.
This difference between underlying cause & immediate cause is seen in health issues all the time. Someone may have AIDS which leads them to get pneumonia. Immediate cause of death is pneumonia, underlying cause is AIDS. But just because you have AIDS doesn't mean you don't have peneumonia. Hope this helps.
LOL! Yes, women often have different "criterion."
But while 99.9999% would never open fire w/ an intent to kill, I have known countless men who believe good/desirable women must be pretty, young, and passive -- except in the bedroom, naturally. Of course they do not usually come out and say it.
And while we're at it, heaven help the pretty women. They not only have to put up with crap from males, but they also frequently have to work much harder at finding friendships with women. (There are all too many women competing for male attention.) Just a *general* observation. The female public-at-large revel in news that, for examples, Jessica Simpson has gained a few, or Victoria Beckham has cellulite. Women we love to hate?
Stop the madness!
A man can be below-average in looks, yet have a great personality -- all types of women will love him. Conversely, most men will not love a below-average looking woman w/ a sense of humor. A woman's **value** is determined by her level of desirablity to males -- that's our culture. We, however, are the sub-culture!
I may not be making much sense. I'm feeling upset over this incident not thinking all too clearly.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Normally, I do not like to entertain such reflection on those I consider to be privileged, but I will say as a girl who is a 5 or less on the hotness scale, I have met a disconcerting number of women who are probably considered very attractive by most who don't have any real friends and attempt to create lasting friendships with me. Sadly, most of these relationships come to an end rather quickly because our entertainment interests are very different and their boyfriend/male friends are generally not pleased when I am around.
They divide us so we fight each other and never end up fighting them.
I must agree with Alexis. This horrible event has made me scared as well. But, fortunately, I am also angry. Anger usually helps me to work hard to find a solution, but also like Alexis said, what is the solution? I am all out of ideas.
This hatred straight men feel toward "desirable" women because of sexual rejection is, I believe, at the center of gender conflict worldwide. First of all, most men think about sex more often than most women do. Also, it is much easier for men to orgasm and therefore gain sexual satisfaction from basic intercourse than it is for most women. This ease of orgasm with penis/vagina intercourse gives men the motivation to seek sex from women.
For women, I believe we have sex for all different reasons. Some of us are like men and can orgasm very easily and therefore have intercourse for sexual satisfaction. Some of us have sex with men to get attention, confidence, because of peer pressure or to gain economic benefits while reaping little or no sexual satisfaction. Some of us have sex with a man because we love him and may or may not have an orgasm. Men, however, mostly have sex to achieve orgasm and they do not realize the various reasons women have intercourse with them.
Men want women to need them in this sexual way as much as they need women. This is why I think all of the various religious/societal rules and laws exist to control women's sexuality. A women who is economically self-reliant, who knows herself and loves herself is going to reject a potential sexual partner she is not attracted to. Most people do not take rejection well. George Sodini reacted to rejection like a psychopath. Most men are not psychopaths, however, I think that this sexual rejection sticks in their minds and they react to it in various misogynistic ways.
Sorry for the blabbing on. I also apologize for generalizing, but I am trying to make sense of all of this. Maybe if George Sodini spent the money he used for guns on hiring a hooker once a week or getting his hands on some really good porn, this could have been avoided. Maybe men can't control themselves, so then they should give up positions of control. In my utopia, everyone would have enough to eat, a warm and safe place to sleep and wonderful orgasms. Nothing wrong with dreaming!!!
"Maybe if George Sodini spent the money he used for guns on hiring a hooker once a week or getting his hands on some really good porn, this could have been avoided."
He could have gone to a psychiatrist, or killed himself to avoid this. He looks down on "hoes." I'd guess he considers adult actresses and models to be sluts as well, because he wanted a woman for himself.
This is still saying that women are the solution to his problem. Sigh. It's sad that even us feminists can't get out of the 'everything is women's fault/responsibility' thing.
Thank you. The whole "couldn't he have gotten a hooker" thing is irritating me, because hey, that's still implying that if some woman had just fucked him, he wouldn't have gone on a murdering rampage.
This is still saying that women are the solution to his problem. Sigh. It's sad that even us feminists can't get out of the 'everything is women's fault/responsibility' thing.
I don't believe this is about women. He had a severe emotional psychosis or something like Autism or Asberger's syndrome.
Women are only what HE saw as the problem, in my opinion. His disorder caused him to be undesirable. He couldn't see that, obviously.
This mentality of "I should be nice to the loners" or "be friends with someone with no friends" does not make sense to me. He had no friends because people knew there was something wrong with him! You will just lead someone like him on. They don't understand how to interpret body language or emotional interaction.
Wow. Austism/Asberger's = Psychosis and something "wrong with him??" Nice.
Also, don't be nice to lonely people! They're all dangerous! /snark
Also, don't be nice to lonely people! They're all dangerous! /snark
Women are only what HE saw as the problem, in my opinion.
Which makes it...wait for it...about women. Seriously, even if he did have Aspberger's (and suggesting we can diagnose that from a few videos and blog entries is beyond irresponsible), do you really think that just happened to manifest as violent misogyny? Do you think that happened in a culture vacuum?
A man turned a gun on a room full of women specifically because they were women. In what universe is that "not about women"?
I didn't say it was Asberger's. I said it could be. It could have been a glioblastoma. It could have been the devil telling him to do it.
The guy had some underlying disorder. You think he was the only man ever to feel rejected by women and hopeless in life? Women were just what HE was obsessed with. If it was a woman issue, then you are agreeing with the "some lady should have just slept with him" crooners. Because a woman didn't sleep with him, he shot the place up? I don't buy it.
Humans acted naturally around him, he did not fit in with that behavior. It's human nature to avoid what is different and embrace what is known and safe. Women observed him as "off". He lacked human empathy. Years of familial abuse (or what he perceived as familial abuse) coupled with some sort of disorder are the problem, not women, in my opinion.
I am not even remotely agreeing "some lady should have just slept with him." I am saying that our culture taught him that he was entitled to women's (desirable, younger women's, no less) time, attention, and bodies. I am saying that the fact that he saw women as the problem was not just some weird quirk of his, but a function of a sexist, misogynistic society. I am saying it is about women because he is very, very far from the only man to become violent against women, or even just a woman, because he felt he wasn't getting his due. This is about misogyny and patriarchy.
There's an ABC news video on yahoo that describes his "tortured" blogs and letters as "a painful message from a lonely man." Fuck you ABC.
The fact that he killed himself changes the equation. If he hadn't, he would have been railed by the media as a woman killer (you know, helpless womenz and all that) but since he killed himself, the media is free to be sympathetic to him as mentally unstable. Not that I'm saying the guy's normal or anything, but suicide at the end lets the media explore this man as a 'tortured soul,' something that would have been impossible had he lived.
It's really unfortunate that the media thinks that's okay in this situation. It's one thing if they sympathized with him because he was mentally sick, but to call his blogs "a painful message from a lonely man" really legitamizes what he wrote. I do feel sympathy for him an a mentally ill person, but I do not think it's okay to refer to his hate speech as something that makes you feel bad for the guy.
I posted about this on facebook the other day and one of my "friends" (a dude - shock!) commented back saying, "This dude hated everyone; he would kill anyone if had the chance. If there had been a dude in front of him, he would have killed them to." UGH!
Ha! Yeah that's why he specifically targeted an all-women aerobics class. Had it circled on his calendar. *facepalm*
Yeah. I told my (pretty feminist) dad about that the other night and he got angry about that and said that my friend is an idiot.
Did he target women because they wouldn't sleep with him, or he kill himself (and them) because he was unable to attract a partner? What drove his actions, his loneliness or his misogyny? Look at the horrible comments about his parents and how poorly his father prepared him to be a decent human being. Look at what his piece-of-shit brother did to him. Look at the religious rationalization for his actions. I personally feel that the warped christianity he had poured into his head had as much or more to do with his actions than anything.
I think it is a vast oversimplification to state that he targeted women because he couldn't get laid. (I am NOT saying he did not target women.) He talked a lot about sex, or the lack thereof, but he also talked a lot about his loneliness and lack of people in his life, and how he felt so powerless to change this. These circumstances would not lead a normal person to do what he did, but he was clearly not normal. He had incredibly low self esteem, he was probably severely depressed, and he had lived what appeared to be a traumatic childhood, full of bullying.
Women were not at all what he saw as the problem. Read the diary carefully, and you will see many comments about his lack of ANY interpersonal interactions. Try spending even six months without a meaningful interaction with another human and see what that does to your psyche.
As far as his racism goes, he completely saw things clearly in terms of black and white, very racially. However, after making comments about black guys getting white women, he also made a comment about white slaveholders sleeping with black female slaves and notes it was about time this situation got reversed. What a mess of screwed up thinking.
"Women were not at all what he saw as the problem. Read the diary carefully, and you will see many comments about his lack of ANY interpersonal interactions."
But women were the only ones he targeted to kill. That makes it about women. If he felt that people in general did him wrong by ostracizing him, then why did he only choose to kill women?
In his diary, he wrote that he attended at least one party and recently went on a date. So, I don't know if saying "lack of ANY interpersonal interaction" is all that accurate.
First of all, it's not exactly true that he "couldn't get laid." He was rejected by the kind of women HE wanted: young and hot. I guarantee there were plenty of women who'd have been interested in him, but they were invisible to him.
Second, nobody here has said he killed because he couldn't get laid. He killed because he hated women and was probably depressed.
I agree (I think most commenters here probably do too). It's not that it isn't about women. It obviously is in part. But it's far more complicated than just "women" - he had various psychological issues. It's reasonable on this site to focus on the misogynist aspects of both his nature and society's nature - but for him as an individual, it wasn't as simple as just hating women.
"...This isn't the first gender-based misogynist shooting in recent years - in 2006 a gunman went into an Amish schoolhouse (also in Pennsylvania), sent the boys outside and opened fire on a dozen girls, killing three. That same year in Colorado, a shooter sexually assaulted six female high school students he had taken hostage, before killing one of them. When these shootings happened, the only person making the misogynist connection was Bob Herbert at The New York Times..."
There was also one in Montréal, Québéc, Canada, in 1989 and one in one in Winnenden, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, in 2009.
I've been mulling over why gender/sex isn't considered a "suspect class" (to use legal terminology) myself. Race, religion, country of origin, things like that can be the basis for government recognized status: when considering offering someone asylum in the US, when considering if a crime was a hate crime. Why does the US government not consider gender/sex as a class that may experience increased persecution simply due to membership in that class?
It seems rather clear that plenty of criminals, in the States and worldwide, choose their victims based on gender.
I'm going to self-promote now and say, if you want to think more about US government recognition of gender based violence and systematic abuse against women as a group, you can do so here.
Also, I would like to add that if a woman belongs to other oppressed communities, for example if she is indigenous, poor, trans, or of color, she is even more likely to be victimized. That's because victimizers are cowardly and will go for the most vulnerable targets. And it seems victimizers are often quite well apprised of how oppressions intersect.
Oops, this was supposed to be a reply to something VickyinSeattle said about hate crimes. Oh well.
pretty disgusting how this incident is used as an example of so called male entitlement. The guy was sick and is an aberration, not typical. If this site posted something on the woman that killed steve mcnair i missed it. I'd be curious to see how her reaction explains the larger female sense of entitlement
Huh? Let me guess, you're a male.
vwom: That is an incredibly rude statement. And I think he has a valid point. Men do not, as a matter of practice, behave this way. Mentally ill people behave this way.
And I am a woman.
Also I made a mistake, I should have said 'they.' I don't if ekpe is a man or woman.
Excuse me, magi? But to enter a discussion such as this calling it disgusting is rude and insensitive. Do not discuss "mentally ill" people as if they are some sub-class. I know FULL fucking well about mental illness, so don't you tell me what's rude.
You want rude? This is rude. There, now you can complain.
I didn't say the discussion was disgusting, I said you were rude. I also said that there was a valid point to separating the fact that this was not a sane man from the idea of male privilege. Cuss me out again, and I will stop being nice.
Oh, clearly you know something about rudeness then. That is just plain stupid, sorry, magi. Your comments make very little sense to me. My reply to ekpe was sarcastic not "incredibly rude." Please re-read epke's post and then my post and think again -- but put a little more effort into this time.
My comment to epke wasn't rude. Sarcastic, maybe, but not rude. But now *I am feeling incredibly rude* and I'm not going to let you intimidate or bully me.
"Cuss me out again." Let me guess, you're from the south.
You have created this little drama over nothing. I will ignore you now. If the administrators find my behavior rude or unacceptable, so be it!