Third post of the day.
For the second time in a week, a gunman has walked into an American school, forced all of the males out, and then assaulted and killed female students. It happened today in Pennsylvania, and last week in Colorado. The Times reports on today’s tragedy:
“There was some issue in the past” that had left the gunman with a desire to harm female students, Commissioner Miller said. He said that the murders were premeditated and that the gunman had called his wife — without telling her he was holding hostages in a school — that he would not be coming home.
It’s not clear whether or not this shooting was inspired by the events last Wednesday in Colorado, where a male drifter in his fifties molested several girls before murdering one. School shootings have often happened in clusters in the past, so it seems possible that the two events are related. While the killers at Columbine High School famously targeted "Christians and jocks", these two shootings have targeted young females. (It doesn’t appear yet that there was a sexual element to today’s event, unlike in the Colorado murder last week.)
I’m thinking this afternoon about Commissioner Miller’s words about today’s killer:
“There was some issue in the past” that had left the gunman with a desire to harm female students.
As a pro-feminist gender studies prof, if there’s one topic that depresses me more than almost any other, it’s just how widespread male rage at women seems to be in our culture. I have no idea what the "issue" was that the Commissioner refers to that would lead the shooter to target elementary-age girls. I’m not sure what particular perversity led the guy in Colorado last week to sexually molest his victims before killing one of them. But you don’t need a degree in abnormal psych to see that these men were deeply, profoundly, angry at women. Their victims were kids, but only female kids were selected. They became the victims of twisted fantasies of disturbed men, men filled with some sick and horrific sense of revenge and "justice."
Do I think there’s a legion of men out there whose fantasy lives are similar to those of the murderers in Colorado and Pennsylvania? Lord God, I hope not. I know that the misogynistic hatred that many men feel towards all women can be tremendously powerful. Until this week, I hadn’t imagined that adult men would target vulnerable girls in such terrible ways. And while these men are obviously anomalies, they are not entirely alone. We live in a culture where rape remains ubiquitous; where sexual harassment is a nearly-universal experience for many women in the workplace; where pornography that features the narrative of teenage girls being raped or overpowered is ever more available and popular. I don’t know what specific factors inspired these two shootings, but I do know that they are, in some as of yet inexplicable way, emblematic of a larger cultural problem.
I suspect a lot more feminist commentary is coming. We just need more time to mourn and reflect.
I was talking to my wife about the Colorado school shooting the other day. Without intending bravado, I told her that if a gunman came into my classroom and ordered me out, I wouldn’t leave until all my students could go with me. I asked her if she would want me to leave if we had kids of our own; after all, heroism is easier for the childless! My wife told me, "No, you should stay, regardless. There are some things even more important than living for your own children, and if you’re a teacher, protecting your classroom is one of them." She’s right on, my wife.
As a teacher and a youth leader, I take protecting young people very seriously. No one can really know what they would do in such a horrible situation, and it is my sincere hope that none of us ever face it. But for those of us who teach and give our lives to young people, there is a sense that the classroom is a sacred space. If someone is coming to hurt one of my kids, they will have to do it quite literally over my dead body. That is not false bravado; it’s the quiet but firm acceptance of the responsibility that my career and my avocation convey.
Happened three weeks ago here in Montreal as well. The victim also a young woman.
I fear that a copycat phenomenon could be occuring here, and that more men will be inspired by these well-publicized events to act out in a similar way (i.e. random massacre of women). It’s pretty frightening indeed. God help us all.
Recognizing your gross hyperbole (e.g., rape is not “ubiquitous,” but in fact quite rare in our society) for what it is - and therefore rightfully dismissing it as such - reveals once again the predictable response from feminists when such things happen: Rather than recognizing the reality that these men are extremely disturbed individuals who represent the most rare fringe of males, feminists jump on this like hungry dogs on a steak and use it to advance their campaign to malign and denegrate men. These people are no more representative of men as a group than Lorena Bobbitt, Clara Harris, Aileen Wuornos, et al. are of women as a group. All are profoundly mentally disturbed and should be seen as such. Further, stirring up paranoia and suspicion against men in women contributes absolutely nothing of value to society, especially for relations between men and women (which are already strained to the breaking point) and indeed just might contribute to the problem. Yes, we should be trying to understand why these people are going ballistic, but to use these incidents as a tool to incite suspicion and paranoia of an entire group is shameful. It’s akin to what the whites in Atlanta did prior to the 1906 race riots. Hugo, I certainly hope that this is not the direction your hoping to take this topic.
As for your claim that “If someone is coming to hurt one of my kids, they will have to do it quite literally over my dead body,” well, talk is cheap. We’ll see what happens if - heaven forbid - you get the chance to put your money where your mouth is.
Hugo, I genuinely hope you never have to face a gunman in your classroom. But if you do, and it takes place after you have your own kids, you may find that there AREN’T “some things more important than living for your own children.” Take it from somebody who actually has kids, your priorities change after you have one of your own.
Secondly you espouse pacificism, and I assume would oppose concealed carry of weapons (or, as some of us like to think of it, would support victim disarmament). That being the case, harming one of your kids “quite literally over your dead body” would be the easiest thing in the world. Your presence there, impotently insisting that the big meanie stop his evilpatriarchalracistsexist aggression, would only add up to one more dead body in the classroom.
I’d imagine that Bush’s upcoming “address” on school violence will lead to increased security in schools - and I’m not against that. Above all, we need to protect the children.
But I wonder when we, as a society, will mature enough to start addressing the disease, not the symptoms?
These people, male, female, young, or old, are all ill. The “school shooter” kids who carry guns in their bookbags, these older men who have the world to choose from and, for whatever psychological reason, select children as their victims - they’re all sick. And, yes, maybe there’s some copycatting going on, but the fact that shooting up a school strikes all of them as the way to end their pain suggests there’s some commonality in the psychology behind what’s happening.
I’m not talking about universal access to mental health professionals (although I wouldn’t fight it), I’m talking about us, as a society, taking a good look at our consumer-obsessed culture where “success” is measured in terms of your purchasing power and more companies make arrangements for their employees dogs to get care during the workday than for their children.
(thechief? I don’t think you should dismiss Jonathan’s position too lightly. These mentally ill people who invade a school to prey on children - it’s not out of the question that, faced with an adult, someone who doesn’t fit the profile they’ve mentally targeted, they might hesitate, or even draw back. Any moment during which a potential killer is not pulling the trigger is a life saved. I, myself, am childless and not a teacher - but I cannot fathom walking out of a room and leaving a group of children at the mercy of a potential murderer.)
“Thechief” (what a typical handle for a men’s right advocate, I gotta say), one thing I have learned from my years with the Mennonites and the peace church movement. Pacifism isn’t passive (they come from different Latin roots.) When we stand with the force of our faith and our convictions, when we stand with Jesus, we may well find miracles. I know full well talk is cheap. I also know I’m a coward. But I’ve found in my life that faith trumps cowardice, many a time. That’s been a great miracle.
Honestly, right now I don’t want to discuss these shootings any further — I’m just praying for the victims and their families.
As a pro-feminist gender studies prof, if there’s one topic that depresses me more than almost any other, it’s just how widespread male rage at women seems to be in our culture.
And what are some of the reasons for this male rage?
1) Women’s sexist double standards. e.g., women who expect men to pick up the check when dating.
2) Women lying about using birth control in order to entrap men into marriage/child support.
3) Women making false charges of rape.
4) Women thinking violence against women is bad but ignoring their own violence againt men (check out V-Day).
5) Women extending the definition of “sexual harassment” to include just about anything they do not like men doing, thereby destroying the careers of many men.
As soon as women are willing to address their own sexism, the violance will stop.
As soon as women are willing to address their own sexism, the violance will stop.
Of course … no wonder prepubescent schoolgirls get shot in the head. It’s because those uppity women want high-paying jobs but won’t pick up the check.
Seriously, you’re an embarrassment to your cause here.
The school shootings are tragedies, like all school shootings. It really is frightening that even in an Amish school this can happen. I imagine that has shaken them to the core.
It is likely either a coincedence or a copy cat that two people targeted girls in one week. If two shooters targeted boys within a week, I doubt there would be much outcry from feminists that there was widespread misandry and violence against boys.
As the first poster said, most HUMANS are generally decent folks. These people are the fringe elements, the incredably disturbed. We should be looking at ways to catch this before a killing spree, but sometimes we just can’t.
While Burton may have not phrased things as I would, he is right in a way. Men are increasingly becoming angry with the world, with society, not just at women. Watching everyone from schools, government, law enforcement and the court system excuse women’s bad behavior then claim they are powerless is frustrating. Everywhere violence against men is laughed at, romanced, encouraged and excused. Violence against women is condemned (as it should be), and even in the porn industry true violent porn is not the norm. Most men are NOT turned on by rape or assault. That is like saying most porn is pedophilia.
Has anyone here EVER seen a woman kicked in the groin, stabbed, bit or slapped in mainstream media and have it meant as comedy? Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles had an old woman getting punched, and the funny part was that it was meant to show just how low these men sunk, hitting an old woman. Even then they had to stop the punching so she could say “Have you ever seen such cruelty?”
Even for a woman it is frustrating to be treated as a child, like I am incapable of responsibility. If I ran over a man with my car, I should be jailed for murder, not let go and given therapy. If I rape a 14 year old, I should be put in prison for rape, not given custody and child support.
I am not sure if this general anger against society is a reason for these shootings. I don’t think they are, I would think that would have been communicated otherwise. But who knows. There is only so far you can push people before they lose it.
That said, these girls did nothing to deserve getting shot. My prayers are with them and thier families.
Well, Hugo - all I can say is if I was ever faced with surely saving the life of an innocent, or rolling the dice on both - I go for the sure bet. You never know when the dice of fate are going to land with both sixes down.
I might roll the dice if my own life was the only thing being bet, but I don’t see me as having the right to unilaterally decide to roll the dice with someone else’s on the line.
Burton, I had no idea that “women” were a monolithic entity rather than individuals. Clearly, in that light, feeling rage towards “women” in general makes perfect sense.
Justaguy says: As for your claim that “If someone is coming to hurt one of my kids, they will have to do it quite literally over my dead body,” well, talk is cheap. We’ll see what happens if - heaven forbid - you get the chance to put your money where your mouth is.
Well, no kidding. But I think it’s an ethically helpful thing to do to think about these situations in advance and to make a commitment in advance as to one’s behavior. That way, you aren’t considering it for the first time when the gunman shows up.
I was really surprised when I heard about this. It is exceptional: in most hostage situations it’s normally the women that get released and the men who are slaughtered when the situation degenerates into a bloodbath. Violence in these situations is gendered, but it’s normally men who are on the receiving end. I can’t help but think that part of the reason girls were targeted is because violence against them in this manner is thought of as so beyond the pale and horrific. If you want to do something really foul, killing lots of schoolgirls is really it. It was also strange to read Hugo channeling the most cliched macho crap at the end of the article.
While I tend to agree with a lot of what Burton and Bisquit Queen have to say about male anger, I think the problem with School Killers has more to do with what we’ve allowed our schools to become.
I’m sure more than a few of you here have not so fond middle and high school memories. Memories of bullys, or of hurts and cruelties dished out in ways that left scars that for some, have taken many years to heal, if indeed they ever do.
In many of these killings, a common theme has been that the kids (and now that they’ve grown up, adults) that did the killing were picked on unmercifully for years. Is it any surprise that some of these kids have grown up with mental health issues?
Kids can be heartbreakingly cruel and we’ve all known that for a long time. As a society, we’ve done absolutely nothing about it. In fact we’ve encouraged it.
I think framing these killings as some misogynistic statement, does both men and women a disservice, and minimizes the fact that these people were quite insane.
As a former teacher, the end of Hugo’s article is far from “cliched macho crap.” I give the Doc a great del of grief when I think he has it coming, but that is beyond the pale, and the cheapest of shots I have ever seen. It is what one does when one is a teacher. If you aren’t one, you wouldn’t understand. If you are one, please get out of the profession, as you’re a disgrace to it.
It’s real easy to paste a “mentally ill” label on those shooters.
People always want to label evil as “mentally ill” because they don’t want to have to realize the depth of depravity that a person can descend to, so that person must be “sick”; those acts couldn’t possibly be deliberate.
It also tars all people with mental illnesses, that somehow they could just “snap” and turn from a kindly person to an evil demon.
It doesn’t work that way. A mental illness does not make you cruel. And those murders were intensely cold and cruel.
I’ve worked with people with mental illnesses since 1990; I’ve never met a person with a mental illness who was capable of this sort of thing.
Both those men were able to negotiate society and jobs to some extent. The first shooter was too old to be newly diagnosed with schizophrenia, and there’s no other evidence he may have had it.
The second shooter had a job and was negotiating society at least somewhat; while he may have been delusional (the “rambling” notes that were left), he was on top of things enough to have taken his own kids to the bus stop and then not do this at THEIR school (a school which he had to be more familiar with).
These were planned, deliberate acts which were not intended to do anything but provide some sort of revenge.
The small percentage of patients I’ve known with mental illnesses who were violent generally did not PLAN to be violent; something in their delusional system frightened them, and in trying to protect themselves, someone got hurt. Or they hurt themselves. Or someone happened to be in the way at a time when the person lost control. Or they trashed a room or put a fist through a wall. They did not purchase guns and ammo and round up a bunch of little girls (or anyone else, for that matter) for the purpose of killling them.
Can’t you see the difference?
Gonzman - do you think a female teacher would vocalise similar thoughts in the same manner? Do you think what Hugo said plays into no scripts about gender roles? I’m sure you’re both sincere, but I don’t think your affiliation with those feeling came about in a vacuum.
Burton: you should get help. Now. Seriously.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jamiranda/whyLie.htm
I find it hard to believe that a sane adult would sanction the murder of girls.
Seriously. Get help now.
Nik, I know a female teacher in a bus accident who refused to allow the fire department to rescue her until the children were safe.
You’re the one trying to slap the label of “macho” on it, and attach shame to it.
Nik, I know both male and female teachers. I have heard female teachers feel the same way with Hugo, it’s not a gender thing. I was talking to friends who were (back then during Columbine’s shooting) teachers, and this is a teacher’s ultimate nightmare. A female colleague of a friend the very same statement about leaving her kids- “over my dead body.”
By all means, none of us know what we will *really* do in a situation like that. Sometimes things happen so quickly that you don’t have time to do anything but simply react- and not have the ability to think things through or act in that way that you *want* to. I have never met a teacher that didn’t feel as Hugo does, and if they do- I agree with Gonzman that they need to leave the profession.
Burton,
so why are women pissed?
1) Men’s sexist double standards. e.g., men who expect to get laid but call women with sexual experience whores.
Oh, and how about the men that assume paying for dinner = getting sex.
2) Men refusing to use birth control and dodging child support payments.
3) Men feeling rape is justified due to a woman’s sexual history.
4) Men thinking violence against men is bad but ignoring their own violence againt women.
I can tell you, everyone feels bad if a guy gets shot by a mugger, but when a woman is raped, many guys blame the victim unless she’s 12 or a virgin. Otherwise, we’re suspect and possibly asked for rape.
5) Men denying the existence of “sexual harassment”, thereby destroying the careers of many women.
As soon as men are willing to address their own sexism, the violence will stop.
Let’s answer your question.
As a pro-feminist gender studies prof, if there’s one topic that depresses me more than almost any other, it’s just how widespread male rage at women seems to be in our culture.
And what are some of the reasons for this male rage?
1) Women’s sexist double standards. e.g., women who expect men to pick up the check when dating.
If you don’t want to pick up a check, don’t. If you want a type of woman that’s willing to pay, then you don’t want a repeat date with a woman that doesn’t pay, right?
I’ve always been prepared, and have paid for my date dinners the majority of the time.
2) Women lying about using birth control in order to entrap men into marriage/child support.
If she wants kids or wants marriage and you don’t, stop f**king the woman, like now. Get out and find yourself someone that has the same view as you do. I’ve personally known guys that have been in this situation, and all of them were hanging around for the sex when they knew that the girl wanted marriage and they didn’t. Women are wrong for doing “entrapment”, but men are also wrong for continuing to use someone for sex, too.
Also, when birth control fails, women get blamed for “entrapment” even if it’s not the case.
Yes, and there are also men that bully and beat women to try to get them to abort to have an abortion.
There are also men that refuse to wear condoms and bitch about having to “bag it up” to “get laid.” I also don’t hear too many men calling for better birth control for men. They consider this birth control thing to be a “woman’s business.” If this is such an issue, why is it that polls after polls show that men are reluctant to take any time of birth control pills, shots, or implants (like a male Norplant)? It’s obviously not a big enough issue. If there was more of a demand for male birth control, there would be more research into it. So where are you in this matter? I’ve seen more WOMEN call for improved male birth control, and see it as vital and important for men to be able to expand their birth control options.
I know that pregnancy is a big issue for women- the birth control pill is one of the most prescribed medication for women in this country.
3) Women making false charges of rape.
There are false charges that happen with many crimes, not just rape.
4) Women thinking violence against women is bad but ignoring their own violence againt men (check out V-Day).
Women’s violence against men pales in comparison to men’s violence against women. The majority of women think violence is bad, period- except for cases of self-defense, for both genders.
5) Women extending the definition of “sexual harassment” to include just about anything they do not like men doing, thereby destroying the careers of many men.
If being considerate of the comfort of people you work with, and taking steps to make sure people are you can work in a professional environment is a BAD thing… well, I’d love to slap you back in time and keep you there.
You don’t think women’s careers were destroyed from men making the workplace an uncomfortable and hostile place?
Oh wait, only men matter… and women need to stay barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, right?
>Kids can be heartbreakingly cruel and we’ve all known that for a long time.
It makes sense to me that to avenge your worst pains, you would do it at the place where you suffered the most (or the closest approximation). For a lot of people, that would be at school.
And actually, I don’t think that schoolyard bullying has gotten any worse or better over time. Maybe we should be wondering why people seem more likely to snap in this day and age.
Gonzman,
There a key piece of context–about this teacher and this school–that you are missing; it makes the teachers’ actions much more comprehensible.
The Amish are absolute pacifists; they take “resist not evil” completely literally. One book you will find in every Amish home is The Martyrs Mirror, a list of tens of thousands of people who died without resisting their persecutors. Dirk Willems, who saved his pursuer from certain death at the cost of his own life, is probably the best known. So the teachers, by their own religious commitments, were utterly helpless.
Sam, I think you’re confusing pacifism with passivity too. I’ll post about the distinction soon…
It’s just alien to me, Sam. I could no more stand by and watch my most determined foe get killed and do nothing as I could my own flesh and blood, even if they asked me not to. It would haunt me the rest of my life, and I’d feel like their blood was on my hands from a sin of omission.
Pacifist, passive, whatever. There’s something we need to realize about pacifists in general, including the Amish: They can afford to be pacifists because somebody else is holding a gun for them. They can afford not to raise their hand against evil because somebody else–a police officer, a soldier–is standing between them and true evil. Somebody else will do the dirty work of keeping them safe, except for those awful situations where the system somehow breaks down, like yesterday in Pennsylvania. Then the pacifists are going to be toast.
“We all sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.” George Orwell.
Chief, I’m going to try and post on this tomorrow. A defense of the basic principles of pacifism does indeed seem in order.
Chief, I’m going to try and post on this tomorrow. A defense of the basic principles of pacifism does indeed seem in order.
I’m very interested to know how getting shot in a pointless attempt to protect your students does your own children any good. (By the way, I don’t think you want to get into the “if you aren’t a ________ you wouldn’t understand” line of argument Gonzman proposes, not being a parent.)
chief, from the point of view of the Amish, they don’t depend on men with guns. It’s not as if you said “Guys, we’re removing your police protection”, they’d hastily take up arms.
OK, pacifist is the wrong term for the Amish (and I used it knowingly, in the hope of being less confusing). Non-resistant is the proper term; I’ll post a few relevant lines from the Dordrecht Confession.
[W]we believe and confess that the Lord Christ has forbidden and set aside to His disciples and followers all revenge and retaliation….
From this we understand that therefore, and according to His example, we must not inflict pain, harm, or sorrow upon any one, but seek the highest welfare and salvation of all men, and even, if necessity require it, flee for the Lord’s sake from one city or country into another, and suffer the spoiling of our goods; that we must not harm any one, and, when we are smitten, rather turn the other cheek also, than take revenge or retaliate.
The Schleitheim Confession is even more unequivocal:
The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and puts to death the wicked, and guards and protects the good. In the Law the sword was ordained for the punishment of the wicked and for their death, and the same (sword) is (now) ordained to be used by the worldly magistrates…
Now it will be asked by many who do not recognize (this as) the will of Christ for us, whether a Christian may or should employ the sword against the wicked for the defense and protection of the good, or for the sake of love.
Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls… .Such (an attitude) we also ought to take completely according…
Thirdly, it will be asked concerning the sword, Shall one be a magistrate if one should be chosen as such? The answer is as follows: They wished to make Christ king, but He fled and did not view it as the arrangement of His Father. Thus shall we do as He did, and follow Him, and so shall we not walk in darkness…. Also Peter says, Christ has suffered (not ruled) and left us an example, that ye should follow His steps.
And yes, it’s an utterly foreign ideology to almost all the non-Plain.
Note that this is different, in a very key point, from pacifism: the Anabaptist tradition argues that force is legitimate for government, and how it is used is no concern of the Christian.
And thechief, the people who wrote this were being actively persecuted by their government; they didn’t adopt it just because someone else was assuring their safety.
“chief, from the point of view of the Amish, they don’t depend on men with guns. It’s not as if you said “Guys, we’re removing your police protection”, they’d hastily take up arms.”
Really? All of them? Every single Amish?
Were police and military protections removed from Amish communities, one of two things would happen.
The first and more likely scenario: Some–perhaps not all, but some–would decide that their lives and the lives of their loved ones would be worth fighting for after all, and they would take up arms.
The second and more horrifying scenario: To a man, woman and child they would stick to their principles and refuse to resit an aggressor (and sooner or later their WOULD be an aggressor, the events of Pennsylvania have proven that a totally innocuous life spent harming no others is no guarantee that somebody isn’t going to want to harm you). And they’d all be dead.
Getting shot *pointlessly* does nobody any good. But it’s not always that extreme, is it? I may have a collection of black belts, but I’d be a moron to take on someone who was armed and knew what they were doing with a firearm. There have, however, been a couple over the years that have found that having the gun, and using it effectively, are two entirely seperate things. I’ve carried since I was of age to - and even having pistols pulled on me, going into my third decade, I’ve never had to clear it from the holster. And if the Good Lord is kind, I will be buried with the same being true. Better for me, though, to have and not need than need and not have.
And Sam, I do admire their consistancy in their principle, even if I don’t agree with their scriptural foundation, reasoning behind it, and have different moral conclusions. I knew an Mennonite fellow who refused to take someone to court after being cheated by him because he couldn’t reconcile using a court of law if he wouldn’t be able to support it otherwise. Won’t even sign a contract - business on a handshake or no deal; and frankly I find it a great pity I only sold him a couple computers, as he’s the best person I know to do business with. (POS machines for his store - yes, Amish do use computers.)
And criminy, Hugo, the picture next to where I am posting. Jeez. If that is your dad, him and my late Grandpa could have been twins. Could it….?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah……..
Ah, let’s talk about violence against women and it doesn’t take long for the MRAs to come out.
And thechief, that wasn’t Orwell. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations
So corrected, Antigone, thank you (sincerely–I like getting attributions straight. And believe me, I’ll take Sir Winston Churchill as a source any day of the week).
As for why MRA’s “come out” when the topic turns to violence against women? Because these days, in the blogosphere at least, it seems to be a short leap from “violence against women” to “it’s every man’s fault.”
Hugo, I’m a court clerk, not a teacher, but I’ve thought the same about what I would do if violence broke out in my courtroom. While I am quite confident in the security measures now in place at the courthouse and the jail I work at, there are still plenty of ways for a firearm or other weapon to get into the wrong hands, even in a secure courtroom. Metal detectors and x-ray machines were only installed at the courthouse in 1995 after a man shot and killed his estranged wife and two other women outside of a civil courtroom. Knowing that history as well as many similar stories (it seems almost every security improvement was made after something terrible happened) and having seen a couple of situations get out of control, the thought is not far from my head. I’m as sure as I can be having never experienced it that I would not leave while my judge, attorneys, officers, interpreters, defendants, and civilians were still present. I hardly think I’m being macho, but if that’s what some insist on calling it, so be it.
Meanwhile, I do hope that the families and communities affected can find comfort somehow in the wake of such tragic and inexplicable events.
People always want to label evil as “mentally ill” because they don’t want to have to realize the depth of depravity that a person can descend to, so that person must be “sick”
I think it has more to do with separating themselves from “those kind of people.” If the shooters are somehow different, somehow inhuman, then people find it easier to grasp what happened. This sort of oversimplification and generalized, projected vilification (two men actions are now a reflection of all males) is simply a denial that those shooters are inherently no different than us. Next time, it could be you. And in the right circumstances–or wrong circumstances–it will be you, male, female, feminist or not.
You’re welcome, thechief.
I didn’t do it to be snotty, it merely irks me when people lose their words. I’m sure no hostility was intended on your part.
I think there *is* a key piece of context missing here, and it has nothing to do with pacifism. It has to do with the fact that this is a one room schoolhouse, possibly lacking a telephone. It may well be that to escape from this situation to seek help was the bravest response and the response most likely to save lives in this situation.
Furthermore, I think it’s execeptionally bad taste to raise this question.
“Cause these days, in the blogosphere at least, it seems to be a short leap from “violence against women” to “it’s every man’s fault.”
I’m very tired of boys whining that those evil nasty feminists blame all boys for bad things. You hide behind the “it’s not my problem, it’s not my fault” position of priviledge and because of a bloated sense of entitlement scoff at the very idea that it could be your buddy, your brother and possibly you. Must be nice to be so protected from the obvious truth.
But thankfully, other posters aren’t so dishonest.
“Next time, it could be you. And in the right circumstances–or wrong circumstances–it will be you, male, female, feminist or not.”
Thank you for pointing out the obvious fact most people seem to miss.
~~~
Hey Burton - get help immediately. That you even wrote that list as justification for the constant violence against women makes me seriously concerned for any women in your life. Does ANY of those cowardly examples forgive any of the following?
Notice the dates. There are all recently and only the those deemed “newsworthy”
Johannesburg, Africa - Women protest the frequent “losing” of documents needed to prosecute rape cases. 10/03/2006
Man breaks into 51 year old woman’s home and wakes her from a nap by sexually assaulting her. 10/03/2006
A report from Alberta, Canada shows 10% of Alberta women were victims of violence in 2004, ranging from stalking to spousal homicide. 10/03/2006
18 year old man lures a woman to his apartment, then rapes her and beats and chokes her to death. 10/03/2006
England - Man rapes a 15 year old girl twice then throws her into a canal. 10/03/2006
Man kidnapped and raped his exgirlfriend at gunpoint. 10/03/2006
Two separate women were raped by men in hotels in unrelated cases. 10/03/2006
Man being held for felonious sexual assault of a three year old. 10/03/2006
A RAINN member writes into a paper correcting the erroneous statistics they reported, letting them know that in the United States, 176,540 rapes against women were reported and 73% of the reported rapes were committed by a man the woman knew. 10/03/2006
Neighbors interrupt a man attemting to sexually assault a young woman. 10/02/2006
South Africa - 10 year old girl manages to interrupt an adult man attempting to rape her 4 year old sister. 10/02/2006
Man kidnaps woman and her young child, attempts to rape her. 10/02/2006
Man rapes woman in her hotel room. 10/02/2006
Man kidnaps woman at bus stop and attempts to rape her. 10/02/2006
Ireland - Man sexually assaults woman in Sligo. 10/01/2006
Northern Ireland Rape Crisis Center fighting government decision to stop funding. 10/02/2006
Man attempts to rape woman at bar. 10/02/2006
South Africa - Legislator found guilty of rape, allowed to continue serving anyway. 10/02/2006
Man attempts to sexually assault woman at beach. 10/02/2006
Five girls killed by grown man who invades Amish schoolroom for “revenge” for undisclosed wrongs. 10/01/2006
Man chases down his wife and shoots her. 10/02/2006
Man kills his wife because she was going to leave him. 10/01/2006
Man follows three young girls, catches one and rapes her. 10/01/2006
Man breaks into home of 82 year old woman, robs and rapes her. 09/29/2006
The 14th attempted rape in the same neighborhood of the year occurs when a man breaks into a woman’s home and attempts to sexually assault her. 08/29/2006
Man invades school, takes 6 girls hostage, sexually assaults them, kills one. 09/27/2006
India - man kills infant daughter because he wanted a son. 09/26/2006
59 year old woman raped in her own home - 09/26/2006.
Afghanistan - Gunmen kill women’s rights activist for the crime of - educating girls. 09/26/2006
Man kills woman and her daughter for reasons unknown. 09/26/2006
India - Man beats wife to death years after she leaves him. 09/24/2006
UK - Older teen boy rapes 14 year old girl. 09/23/2006
Man kills his wife and himself, no known motive. 09/22/2006
Man finds his wife in a domestic abuse shelter and kills her. 09/19/2006
Man shoots his wife at a party. 09/19/2006
Woman choked, dragged to death by boyfriend. 09/18/2006
India - Three men gang-rape 12 year old, are released on bail. 09/18/2006
Nun killed in retaliation for one male-dominated religion’s animosity for another male dominated religion. 09/17/2006
Man kills friend’s infant daughter after being asked to watch her for a brief time. 09/19/2006
Austin man rapes woman after offering her a ride. 09/18/2006
Man breaks into his estranged wife’s home and shoots her. 09/14/2006
Man kills estranged wife and shoots her new boyfriend in front of their five children. 09/14/2006
Pakistan - Man kills wife and daughter on “suspiscion of illicit relations”. 09/14/2006
England - Woman violently raped after being dropped off by taxi. 09/10/2006
Two men invade a couple’s home, tie them up, and rape the wife. 09/09/2006
Man beats wife, tries to burn mother in law. 09/07/2006
India - Man shoots wife because of “financial constraints”. 09/07/2006
Austrailia - Rugby team charged with raping a woman, which, of course, is referred to as a “scandal”. 09/06/2006
Man kills estranged wife at hardware store. 09/04/2006
Man sees two other men raping a woman, so he takes pictures and then joins them. 09/04/2006
Male Terrorism. Plain and simple.
And Biscuit Queen - men aren’t turned on by rape. By and large, that might be true. But, on the other hand . . .
http://punkassblog.com/2006/09/28/rape-spam-leads-to-secret-patriarchy-handbook/ (warning: could trigger. not at all work safe)
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm
It’s time to stop self-soothing ourselves with the “it’s all very rare” lie.
Lya Kahlo, I can post a longer list regarding incidents of violence regarding female perpetrators. Big deal. And it would be a longer list just from incidents that happened in the last two weeks in the UK (never mind the world). It doesn’t matter though.
There are violent people in this world. Some are men. Some are women. Some have black skin, some white and so on and so on. Pointing a finger at **only** men who are violent while ignoring incidences of female violence is out-and-out sexism - some would say misandry. And it is a desctructive and angry attitude that has a hold of you - doing **you** no good.
Before this thread goes south very fast, please let’s not get into warring anecdotes. Those who revisit the whole domestic violence issue will find their comments deleted. Let’s stay on topic — narrowly so.
Thank you, Professor. I was driving to work and listening to NPR when I heard about the second school shooting involving females. I pulled my car over and began to sob once more within a week’s time. My only shock came when a man on the radio stated that he could find no similarity in the two cases besides the “obvious” - both men ended the spree with suicide.
The only “obvious” similarity?! Was he kidding?! I’m not part of any organized religion here in Oklahoma, but I do say a prayer for all children hurt - whether it be in school, at home, or anywhere else in the world; not just America. But I was so enraged when I heard that the only similarity was the suicide.
If anyone says that these two men did not enter a school and intentionally target female students is a flat out liar. I believe (my opinion here) that the more we shy away from the truth concerning femicide in the society we live in today will only be more cause to such acts in the future. Why do grown men feel the need to attack those of the opposite gender that never once perpetrated any wrong against them? You can look at other school shootings and recognize “bullying” as factors easily. Why can’t you look at femicide in the same way? It happened and it happened to women.
And no, I don’t believe they are mentally ill. I believe we prescribe too many with the simple disregard as being mentally ill. These were two men that were angry at the female gender. Simple. Why? Perhaps we will never know, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t intentionally target women. They targeted them and they succeeded in exacting whatever revenge or anger towards them in the form of murder and molestation.
Stay on topic and say what is really going on here. If you feel comfortable defining me as a feminist so that you may attach a stereotype to me then feel free to do so as I don’t see “feminist” as a dirty word. If you feel the need to scream that I am wrong in my interpretation of the events, then do so while turning a blind eye to the facts.
At the end of the day the fact remains that women are dead. They are dead because they are women; like any other hate crime it should be SEEN as such. Would you be the having the same argument or better understanding if the two men intentionally targeted African-American students or homosexual students? The similarity would be obvious and you wouldn’t need “feminists” to come and blow their horns.
Thank you, Professor. Thank you very much.
My thoughts on Bart Township, Pennsylvania:
1. I usually bristle when the media focuses on the gender of murder victims, accident victims, natural disaster victims, etc.: “37 people were killed, including some women and children.” (WHICH means the others were men, right?) No bristling this time, though, as the targetting of a certain gender was the obvious point and appears to be quite relevant to motive (if you can even call it that). It’s perfectly legitimate, in this case, to call attention to it.
2. I don’t believe that indicates, however, that most men have such a hatred toward women and girls, even of a highly reduced nature. As someone has pointed out, we’re used to hearing the killer releasing the female hostages and then killing the males, but I wouldn’t refer to that, necessarily, as indicative of male self-hatred.
3. I don’t know how many of you have been to Pennsylvania Dutch (actually “Deutsch”) Country, but it’s one of my favorite places to drive through. The land is beautiful, and the people there are for real. These aren’t hucksters dressing up in old clothes for nostalgia’s sake, or to bring in tourism dollars. They walk the walk, and ironically I think their faith and lifestyle might actually make them MORE prepared for tragedies like this than we are; listen to how many have put the word “forgiveness” into their comments on television.
4. When we consider the depth of the media coverage, we begin to understand why exactly unhappy, suicidal people kill others before they do. Obviously, something is seriously wrong with them and wrong with their lives, but they realize that if they merely kill themselves — unless they do that in a spectacular, very public way — it won’t make the national news. Killing others, the most innocent people out there, assures you of a national dissection and that someone will acknowledge you. If that’s what Charles Roberts wanted, he’s certainly getting it.
5. Metal detectors and other security measures aren’t a panacea for society, but they ARE part of the answer. For those who think they’re extreme measures, I ask you: have you ever been to an airport? A courtroom? Remember the metal detectors? Would you ever get into an airplane these days WITHOUT them? Those who argue that metal detectors are too scary almost seem to want children to FEEL safe rather than BE safe.
6. It’s good to see teachers and others who say they’ll protect their students to the death — that’s far from action-movie bravado — but I want you to keep in mind, Hugo, that your life has great value, equal to that of any of your students. No matter how old you are, what parts you have affixed to your body, or what job title you have, your life means something. No one is expendable; we’re all in this together.
7. I’m at least glad that I haven’t heard much of the line, “I never thought it could happen here,” or, worse, “This isn’t SUPPOSED to happen here.” The former shows naïvete; the latter shows amazing insensitivity, as if to suggest that moving away from the inner cities and living in the affluent suburbs or the rural areas makes you permanently immune. (”But our kids play lacrosse! And we shop at Lowe’s!”
As we know, it shouldn’t happen, but COULD happen, anywhere.
Boy Genteel
Stay on topic and say what is really going on here. If you feel comfortable defining me as a feminist so that you may attach a stereotype to me then feel free to do so as I don’t see “feminist” as a dirty word.
Geri, two separate incidents that share the same profile of victim and perpetrator does not a pattern make. This is like taking two points, joining them together and saying “LOOK! A TREND!”. You need more data. Even then, you need to investigate the motives of these individuals and see if they are similar. Right now, the two incidents apparently have very particular motives unique to each perpetrator.
Sounds like you’re using these incidents to peddle your own stereotypes.
I would only add to what Dave remarked re. Geri’s comments by pointing out that when there are cases of true genocide, the only “gendercide” that occurs is against men. Worldwide, men are targeted far more often than women when true gender-base genocide is perped, and statistically the number of women targeted thusly is insignificant.
I agree with Dave that it appears that Geri is peddling stereotypes here, and indeed, is a shining example of one of those “hungry dogs pouncing on a steak” that I spoke of in my original response. Taking advantage of this kind of tragedy to promote a sexist agenda is profoundly disrespectful and really quite shameful.
I agree with Dave that it appears that Geri is peddling stereotypes here, and indeed, is a shining example of one of those “hungry dogs pouncing on a steak” that I spoke of in my original response. Taking advantage of this kind of tragedy to promote a sexist agenda is profoundly disrespectful and really quite shameful.
When did I peddle a feminist statement? I said that there is a similarity in both cases wherein two men entered schools, intentionally targed those of the female gender, and then killed for being female.
I’m not saying that femicide is on the rise. I always find it amazing how quickly those wanting to front their own issues are quick to assume and put words into other statements. I was pointing out that I was upset that the only similarities between the two incidents was the suicide and not that the female gender had been intentionally targeted.
In these two cases the women are dead because they are women. It wasn’t because they were black. It wasn’t because they were homosexual. It was because they were women. Did I say it is now an ongoing trend to intentionally kill women? No, I did not.
Please, feel free to quote me somewhere as saying such. I did not quote other events but merely these two.
If anyone says that these two men did not enter a school and intentionally target female students is a flat out liar. I believe (my opinion here) that the more we shy away from the truth concerning femicide in the society we live in today will only be more cause to such acts in the future. Why do grown men feel the need to attack those of the opposite gender that never once perpetrated any wrong against them? You can look at other school shootings and recognize “bullying” as factors easily. Why can’t you look at femicide in the same way? It happened and it happened to women.
Will it make you feel better if I called it murder and not “femicide?” Either way you put it women are dead because they were women. And “justaguy” - I’m not taking advantage to promote a sexist agenda. I was taking a moment to look a bit deeper into the acts of two men in two separate incidents. But thank you for making me feel as if my opinion is worth nothing more than profound disrespect and shameful.
I find it insulting that you took my opinion as a “hungry dog pouncing on a steak.” Perhaps you are the one working against a sexual agenda while I’m merely putting together the facts of two cases.
I don’t think that being upset or saying something about violence towards women is trying to push a “feminist sexual agenda.” Pointing out the facts is certainly not either.
Further more, pinning Geri’s opinions and stated facts is only furthering the negativity towards women and feminists. I feel it is only furthering the violence, by talking about the opinions in a negative way. As the saying goes, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Words can really hurt, people. Do not encourage abuse further by critisizing others who have opinions on women and feminism.
It is just as wrong to be verbally abusive towards women as it is to do all these other things that were discussed.
I was so angered by some of the things that were said. Some of the things were quite insulting. It truly sickens me to see just how abusive and insulting some of these responses were…
I find it insulting that some of the responders were DISMISSING these recent violent atrocities simply as “tragedies.” Yes, these crimes were tragic; but to dismiss these occurrances as “tragedies,” and nothing more, is ignoring the facts and furthering the abuse.
For instance, the recent school shootings- all the victims were women. The only men directly affected were the killers who killed themselves. No men were killed in these instances. These women were raped and killed. These WOMEN were TARGETED by these sick monsters.
By dismissing these incidents as “tragedies” is plain ignorant. It is ignoring the hard, cold facts. I felt these people who were replying to someone’s opinion in a negative way and being insulting were almost encouraging more abuse towards women. Verbal abuse and violence is intolerable and atrocious. I am disgusted.
Some people like to say that the equality of men and women has come a long way, but when stuff like this happens, like some of the replies I read, it really brings into focus just how stunted some people can be and how we really haven’t come very far. The desire for equality between the sexes is not an “agenda,” or a vendetta. The desire for wanting to press the FACTS is not an “agenda.” Responding to the obvious bullying is not an “agenda” either…
Before responding to opinions, sort out in your mind what are opinions and what are facts…
Geri: I’m not saying that femicide is on the rise.
You certainly implied it though: “I believe (my opinion here) that the more we shy away from the truth concerning femicide in the society we live in today will only be more cause to such acts in the future.
Sarah: Words can really hurt, people.
You mean like suggesting those who disagree with you are abusive towards women?
For instance, the recent school shootings- all the victims were women.
Define recent, because if we are speaking of this past year, all (nor most) of the victims certainly were not female.
By dismissing these incidents as “tragedies” is plain ignorant. It is ignoring the hard, cold facts.
Yes, it is. The cold, hard facts are that males are murdered far more often than females, they targets for random violence far more often than females, and they are the victims of school violence far more often than females. And, unfortunately, when it happens to males, some people just roll their eyes, say PHMT and carry on with their day.