Mass Murderers and Women: What We're Still Not Getting about Virginia Tech
Fri, 2007-05-04 05:43
#1
Maysie
Mass Murderers and Women: What We're Still Not Getting about Virginia Tech
Fri, 2007-05-04 05:43
#2
Maysie
quote:
Mass Murderers and Women: What We're Still Not Getting About Virginia Tech by James Ridgeway April 20, 2007Evidence shows that many mass murderers begin and end their rampages with violence against women. With over 30 dead in Virginia, can we finally begin to take the issue seriously?
Of all the lessons contained in the horror at Virginia Tech, the one least likely to be learned has to do with the deadly danger posed by the dismissive way we still view violence against women.
The first person killed by Cho Seung-Ho, a freshman named Emily Hilscher, was initially rumored to be Cho's current or former girlfriend – the subject of his obsession or jealous rage. It now appears that she never had a relationship with Cho, but the rumors were spread quickly, especially by blogs and by the international tabloid press.
(snip)
More significantly, local police and university administrators appear to have initially bought this motive, and acted accordingly. In the two hours between the murders of Hilscher and her dorm neighbor Ryan Clark, and Cho's mass killings at another university building, they chose not to cancel classes or lock down the campus. (They did choose to do so, however, in August 2006, when a man shot a security guard and a sheriff's deputy and escaped from a hospital two miles away.) Virginia Tech President Charles Steger said authorities believed the first shooting was a "domestic dispute" and thought the gunman had fled the campus, so "We had no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur." The assumption, apparently, is that men who kill their cheating girlfriends are criminals, but they are not crazy, not psychopaths, and not a danger to anyone other than the woman in question. (Or, as one reader commented at Feministe sarcastically, "Like killing your girlfriend is no big deal.")
In fact, these attitudes ignore past evidence of both "domestic disputes" and a more generalized misogyny as motives in mass killings. Multiple murders in homes and workplaces often begin with a man killing his wife or girlfriend. Mark Barton, who in 1999 shot nine people in an Atlanta office building, began the day by bludgeoning to death his children and his wife; six years earlier he had been a suspect in the death of his first wife and her mother, who were also beaten to death. In another high-profile case, the December 1989 mass shooting at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, Marc Lepine was after women, whom he hated, and had a list of feminists he wanted to kill. He murdered four men and 14 women, and wounded 10 more women. In September 2006, Duane Roger Morrison walked into Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colo., and took six female students hostage, killing one. And last October, Charles Carl Roberts IV took over an Amish schoolhouse, let the boys go, and killed five girls.
(snip)
Lax gun laws...combined with precious little awareness of the role violence against women plays in psychopathic behavior have led to tragic results. Will they again?
[url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2007/04/virginia_tech_women.html]...
Fri, 2007-05-04 06:14
#3
First, kudos to feminists for first observing this statistical trend. I was rather surprised when I first had it explicitly pointed out to me, surprised that I didn't know it already, that it wasn't one of the first things said in more articles on homicidal killers. That being said, I also feel they're not correctly identifying the problem. I don't think it's about misogyny per se. It's more the role women play in the psychology of these men. Once males hit puberty, there's a sudden cost to being a social misfit that dwarfs all other previous and future costs - most girls (and later women) have no desire to speak to them or be associated with them. Women come to symbolize everything that's wrong with them.
It's easy to see how being immediately and categorically dismissed by anybody one falls in love with (something I suspect a whole lot of babblers cannot conceive of) could very much destroy an individual's soul.
What I'm saying is, it's not misogyny itself. It's the fact they begin as social outcasts and continue to be social outcasts. The link with women is that women act as an amplifier due to these men's stunted heterosexuality. The root problem that needs to be dealt with is the lack of social skills. Cho's spurned romantic advances were textbook. What was even more textbook was his social reclusiveness.
[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Fri, 2007-05-04 06:44
#4
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]First, kudos to feminists for first observing this statistical trend.[/b]
I’m not sure that’s a “statistical” trend. Mass murders are rare and these observations are, therefore, more anecdotal.
The [url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm]statistical trend[/url] is that men are about four times more likely to be murder victims than women.
[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
Fri, 2007-05-04 06:57
#5
Sven, I'm not 100% clear on what the purpose of your point is. The link you provided was for general homicides. That would presumably include events such as gang warfare where unsurprisingly most of the victims would be male.
The statistic you looked up, that of all homicides, is an amalagam of all statistical trends. The thread seems to me to specifically about school shooters which have their own pathology distinct from homicides in general.
Just a few examples:
Luke Woodham (killed 3 in Pearl Mississippi)
Breakup with girlfriend
Michael Carneal (killed 3 in Paducah, Ky)
Girls who wouldn’t date him
Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (Jonesboro, Arkansas - snipers)
Killed 5 – all female
Wounded 10 – 9 of 10 were female
So yeah, it (sexual psychology) was definitely a factor to the victims of Luke Woodham, Michael Carneal, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, as it was in VTech. Now the question is how to understand it.
[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Fri, 2007-05-04 08:23
#6
Sven
Well, 500_Apples, as far as “statistics” go, the only statistics in this story were: “One third of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner (as opposed to about 3 percent of male victims). Of these, 76 percent had been stalked by the partner in the year prior to their murder. Murder ranks second (after accidents) as the leading cause of death among young women.”
None of those statistics support a “statistical trend” regarding the gender of victims in mass homicides (the rest of the numbers cited in the story were anecdotal examples). A “statistical trend” necessitate looking at [b][i]all[/b][/i] mass homicides over a long period of time and analyzing the gender make up of the victims. This story doesn’t do that. Therefore, that is why I was questioning your “statistical trend” assertion.
The observations about mass homicides may be interesting in a very narrow sense but as a subject of concern, it pales in comparison to the issue of homicides generally. There are about 16,500 homicides per year (in the USA), four out of five of which are male victims. If there are 100 homicides that are part of "mass" homicides in a year, then mass homicides represent about 0.61% of the total. So, even assuming there is the "statistical trend" that you asserted, this story is akin to sounding an alarm that female math scores are somewhat lower than male math scores, when if you look at education success generally, females far exceed males in school performance (whether it’s test scores, graduation rates, drop-out rates, rates of college-bound students, etc.).
[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
Fri, 2007-05-04 08:34
#7
Sven
[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
Fri, 2007-05-04 10:18
#8
Are you taking over yet another feminism thread with posts about how men are the real victims?
I think maybe it's time for you to stay out of the feminism forum, Sven.
[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Fri, 2007-05-04 10:34
#9
Whatever Sven's main point might be, he does have a point about this: The Mother Jones article gives insufficient evidence to conclude that there is a "statistical trend" of mass murderers victimizing women more than men.
I would not be surprised if such a trend did indeed exist. But to show this, you have to survey [i]all[/i] mass murders over an appropriate period of time, to see if the victims are disproportionately female.
(Maybe I'll do some superficial research to test the claim ...)
Fri, 2007-05-04 10:50
#10
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Are you taking over yet another feminism thread with posts about how men are the real victims?[/b]
No. I’m questioning 500_Apples’ claim that there is a “statistical trend” regarding gender of victims of mass homicides.
And, as far as homicides go, men are four times as likely to be the victim of any given act of homicide as a female. Now, if you want to characterize that as “men are the real victims”, then that’s your characterization. From my perspective, it’s not a choice of women being the “real” victims of homicide or men being the “real” victims of homicide. Women are obviously victims of homicides, but the rate is 20% of the male victim rate.
Fri, 2007-05-04 10:57
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]No. I’m questioning 500_Apples’ claim that there is a “statistical trend” regarding gender of victims of mass homicides.
And, as far as homicides go, men are four times as likely to be the victim of any given act of homicide as a female. Now, if you want to characterize that as “men are the real victims”, then that’s your characterization. From my perspective, it’s not a choice of women being the “real” victims of homicide or men being the “real” victims of homicide. Women are obviously victims of homicides, but the rate is 20% of the male victim rate.[/b]
is it because there are more male gangs?
Fri, 2007-05-04 10:58
#12
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]is it because there are more male gangs?[/b]
That is undoubtedly a significant factor. Although, I don’t know what percentage of the overall homicide rate is due to gang (or drug) violence.
Fri, 2007-05-04 14:03
#13
I think the relevant statistic, if there is one, is the gender of the average mass-killer, not that of the victim. Do you have some numbers on that one? (Sarcasm, no reply intended.)
Fri, 2007-05-04 14:11
#14
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]No. I’m questioning 500_Apples’ claim that there is a “statistical trend” regarding gender of victims of mass homicides.[/b]
No, like always, you are comparing apples and oranges and trying to make them the same damn thing.
Murders are murders
Mass murders are mass murders
Different ideology behind the actions and different cognitive reasons, etc
You cannot take murder rates and then figure the % of mass murders there would be out the murder rates.
Mass murders stand alone for examination, as do the numbers killed as do the gender types.
When looking for a trend, you pretty much need more than 2 occasions and there is a trend occuring in school mass murders, like it or not.
So, what you really are doing is trying to minimize what has and is occuring to mean nothing. As opposed to saying men are more the murder victims this time eh?!
Fri, 2007-05-04 14:23
#15
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]I think the relevant statistic, if there is one, is the gender of the average mass-killer, not that of the victim.[/b]
It's obviously male (almost 90% of all murderers are male and I suspect the percentage of mass murderers who are male is even higher).
Fri, 2007-05-04 14:27
#16
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]You cannot take murder rates and then figure the % of mass murders there would be out the murder rates.[/b]
I agree with you. But, then, I made no such assertion in the first place.
Fri, 2007-05-04 14:36
#17
Sven
There is a statistic in my [url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm]original link[/url] that I overlooked the first time:
When there multiple victims of a murderer, 63.1% of the victims are male and the remaining 36.9% are female.
Of course, this doesn't further break down the statistics into "mass" multiple homicides and "non-mass" mulitple homicides. But, then, what is a "mass" homicide? Three or more victims? Four or more victims? Not sure.
Sat, 2007-05-05 07:22
#18
Maysie
What does everyone think about when the first shootings were framed as being a "domestic dispute" (fuck I hate that phrase) the potential danger was dismissed, but in the August 2006 situation that James Ridgeway mentions in the OP, danger was taken as a given? Because men were more likely to be victims in the August 2006 case, that's what I think.
Men expressing violence against women by killing them is nothing new. Nor is this reality being ignored as a real expression of misogyny new either.
But the fact that violence against women is taken less seriously then violence against men is the issue for me. I agree with Sven on the point that men are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime. And almost all violent crime is done by men, so yes, most violence is done by men to men. This isn't the point of this article and this discussion.
What violence against women is about is how a deeply women-hating society such as ours and the US, minimizes and dismisses how women suffer under patriarchy. From the feminization of poverty, to sexual harassment, to being targetted by ex-partners, to being targetted by mass murderers.
Sat, 2007-05-05 08:58
#19
Well, at first when I heard the "domestic dispute" angle, I thought, well, the whole point is supposed to be risk assessment after the fact, right? And I would have thought also that the motive for killing a girlfriend or a wife or your kids is much different than killing strangers.
So my first thought would be, as well, that if the motive of a killing is a family dysfunction, then it wouldn't occur to me either that this person is now going to go on a serial killing spree.
But I didn't know that mass killing sprees often start out with the killing of people in the killer's family.
Sat, 2007-05-05 13:23
#20
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]But the fact that violence against women is taken less seriously then violence against men is the issue for me. ..What violence against women is about is how a deeply women-hating society such as ours and the US, minimizes and dismisses how women suffer under patriarchy. From the feminization of poverty, to sexual harassment, to being targetted by ex-partners, to being targetted by mass murderers.[/b]
I agree, and thank for taking this thread back, I just wanted to to scream so stayed away.
Sat, 2007-05-05 13:45
#21
[b]I must agree with bigcitygal in this one.[/b]
There was someone out there shooting people and no matter what the reason, poor marks, sexual frustration, or hating women he had not been caught.
That
quote:
they chose not to cancel classes or lock down the campus.
after decidiing it was a [i]domestic dispute[/i] is powerful evidence for her case - particularily as
quote:
They did choose to do so, however, in August 2006, when a man shot a security guard and a sheriff's deputy and escaped from a hospital two miles away.
I could somehow excuse the non-lockdown saying that I could not tell how I would act in a similar situation. These people had [b]practice[/b]. (and that in itself is a sad commentary).
The only conclusion to be drawn that I see is
quote:
The assumption, apparently, is that men who kill their cheating girlfriends are criminals, but they are not crazy, not psychopaths, and not a danger to anyone other than the woman in question. (Or, as one reader commented at Feministe sarcastically, "Like killing your girlfriend is no big deal.")
Sat, 2007-05-05 14:06
#22
I think the initial incident being characterized as a domestic dispute meant that the authorities did tend to think (rightly or wrongly) that it was contained. I do realize that domestic disputes result in far more women being harmed than men but I think it was the fact that it was thought to be a domestic dispute (rather than the victim(s) being female) that was the trigger for their non-action. The hospital example above is quite different, of course. For one thing, the perpetrator was known to be insane.
Sat, 2007-05-05 14:16
#23
Sven
If there is a linkage between domestic disputes and mass homicides, [i]what action can be taken that will prevent, or minimize, subsequent mass homicides?[/i] Each year in North America, I would imagine that there are several million domestic disputes (both reported and unreported).
Sat, 2007-05-05 14:24
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]If there is a linkage between domestic disputes and mass homicides, [i]what action can be taken that will prevent, or minimize, subsequent mass homicides?[/i] Each year in North America, I would imagine that there are several million domestic disputes (both reported and unreported).[/b]
Hopefully, that would be education and counselling for a person convicted of violence in a domestic dispute. Otherwise, we're talking about preventative incarceration or some such and we really don't want to go there.
Sat, 2007-05-05 14:32
#25
quote:
Hopefully, that would be education and counselling for a person convicted of violence in a domestic dispute. Otherwise, we're talking about preventative incarceration or some such and we really don't want to go there.
This winner had both - he was in the middle of a school remember. Perhaps the liberal arts faculity in a Technical Institute does not extoll the benefits of the humanistic renaissance sufficiently?
He did get some councelling, [b]and scared the be-jesus out of the councellors.[/b]
Sat, 2007-05-05 14:39
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Croghan27:
[b]This winner had both - he was in the middle of a school remember.[/b]
I meant "education and counselling" re: domestic violence. The question was how do we stop domestic violence escalating into mass murder, if in fact there is such a correlation.
quote:
[b]He did get some councelling, [b]and scared the be-jesus out of the councellors.[/b][/b]
Apparently, he wasn't scary enough for them to have him committed for a psych assessment. Without that assessment, being "scary" isn't an indictable offence.
Sat, 2007-05-05 15:50
#27
It seems this whole issue around violence in society is not an easy one for people to come to terms with, since there are so many different types and causes of violence, how do we address them all? I’m no expert, and I only have the few things I have read about and some personal experience and observation to go on.
Obviously, no one form of violence is more important than any other, and no type of victim is more important than any other.
However, when you start getting into making statements like this:
quote:
And, as far as homicides go, men are four times as likely to be the victim of any given act of homicide as a female.
and
quote:
What violence against women is about is how a deeply women-hating society such as ours and the US, minimizes and dismisses how women suffer under patriarchy. From the feminization of poverty, to sexual harassment, to being targetted by ex-partners, to being targetted by mass murderers.
It creates confusion—that is if the topic is about violence.
While the above statistic is obviously true—that men are more likely to be murder victims than women, it doesn’t mean that men are overall subject to more violence than women.
First, as far as I can tell, most violence, as intolerable as it is, doesn’t automatically result in death.
Second, violence involving death doesn’t just affect the victim. It creates a huge issue of terror, loss, etc. for the family, neighbourhood, associates, etc.
I also don’t entirely agree with the view that violence against women is taken any less seriously by most people than it is against men; or that it is necessarily always the result of a societal dislike of women (which I don’t think is as universal as some make it out to be).
There is certainly wide spread discrimination against women in many forms out there—some of it, I have learned recently, actually perpetuated by many women in positions of power themselves—such as the banking industry, which is mostly non-union and practices some of the most offensive, insulting sleazy sexist hiring, promotional and training practices out there (and that’s kind of scary in its own way, considering the banks are arguably the most powerful institutions in the economy) and get away with it. But I don’t see where all of society (which obviously would include all men and all women) is fixated on being anti-woman or anti-female. People in general don’t appear to work that way.
It seems more like that violence against women doesn’t get the attention it deserves—not because people out there like it or think it’s acceptable (never net anyone who did)—but because it seems harder to detect. A lot of women are victimized by violence in more isolated surrounding, like the home or by people they often deal with on a regular basis (work colleagues, fellow students, family, etc.).
Most of that type of violence, with obvious exceptions, doesn’t usually result in murder, or it’s often of a sexual nature, etc. SO it becomes more subjective to interpretation, and harder to prove, and because of this, doesn’t get reported as much, because the vic doesn’t feel it’s worth going through the hassle of a trial, being cross-examined by vicious lawyers, etc, and so the perp gets away with it and likely continues to re-offend against others.
A gun fight between gangs in the street, especially with witnesses around, where people are killed is a lot more likely to be noticed by a lot more people, and, in terms of proving it, is a lot less subjective (if you pull a gun a kill someone point blank, it’s a lot harder to try to talk your way out of it than if you grope someone in an elevator).
Or like the traditional tree-jumper rapist, who hangs around in the park wait for women to assault—that gets a lot of attention and, once the perp is caught, is relatively straight-forward. Apparently the majority of rapes and other sexual violence or violence in general against women, seems to occur within what would normally be the vic’s social support network (again, colleagues, family and friends, school mates, etc.), which is what makes it harder to accept and to prove. In a way, that seems more terrifying than being involved in, or in the way of, a gun battle, since the violence is more subtle and in effect turns what is normally a fairly personal community of safety and security into a hot zone of danger.
The question is how does one go about overcoming this.
Sat, 2007-05-05 16:06
#28
Maybe by going to the zoo and hanging out for a while at a primate or monkey exhibit, and watch the humans watching the apes.
Watch the humans laugh when a strong ape or monkey takes food away or a prized resting or play spot from a weaker monkey, and watch the weaker monkey pick an even weaker monkey to take his or her anger out on. The humans laugh because we recognize the behavior.
What we have to tackle is that wee beasty inside our brain that says it's okay for the strong to victimize the weak. Not just in terms of violence, but in all terms.
Then maybe that morality will make it more unthinkable for deranged gunmen to take out their anger on those that are weaker than them.
Sat, 2007-05-05 16:11
#29
quote:
The question is how does one go about overcoming this.
Was not that bigcitygal's origional point? You have to admit there is a problem before you can do something about it.
Perhaps this [b] Seung-Hui Cho [/b] was not motivated by any hate of women, but the response, as demonstrated by her, certainly exacerbated the situation.
Sat, 2007-05-05 17:57
#30
Although, obviously, there are plenty of crimes which are designed to target women (e.g. Lepine), I don't believe this is one of them. That's certainly not to say that our society doesn't have a whole lot of work to do, not at all, just that it doesn't appear that this particular crime was motivated that way.
To digress a little, Sally Satel, a U.S. spokeswoman for the "psychiatric establishment," says she would have wanted this guy put into secure assessment based on the prior stalking charges, his inability to maintain eye contact and his not saying anything in class. Now, remember, those stalking charges weren't actually brought forward, they were dropped, and the law says that, effectively, they don't exist. Is anybody else okay with "secure" assessment for those who have trouble making eye contact and don't speak up in class? And, more importantly, would such secure assessment (and presumably treatment) have prevented this tragedy?
Sun, 2007-05-06 08:50
#31
Maysie
quote:
Steppenwolf: It seems this whole issue around violence in society is not an easy one for people to come to terms with, since there are so many different types and causes of violence, how do we address them all? I’m no expert, and I only have the few things I have read about and some personal experience and observation to go on.
One thing that most forms of violence have in common is the gender of the perpetrator: male. This being the feminist forum and all, why don't we look at, and break down, and resist, and counter, all the ways that our society tells men that use of physical force/coercion, as well as non-physical force/coercion, is okay?
quote:
Obviously, no one form of violence is more important than any other, and no type of victim is more important than any other.
SA, you can't really believe this. Nothing you've posted on babble has made me think you're as naive as this statement indicates. There are absolutely ranking of victims, and who is more and less deserving. Of pity, of understanding, even of financial compensation. The next time a Canadian soldier is killed in Afghanistan, let me know the number of daily newpapers that carry the story on the front page and for how long. The next time a woman is raped and killed let me know how many news reports are devoted to the story and to the many women's organizations providing support and care. If the woman is blond and under 30, let's compare how this is different than if she's 65 and a woman of colour. If we need to take this to another thread, let's do so.
quote:
It seems more like that violence against women doesn’t get the attention it deserves—not because people out there like it or think it’s acceptable (never net anyone who did)—but because it seems harder to detect.
Harder for whom? Women know about violence, since it, or the threat of it, is in our lives, in our stories, and the stories of the women we know. How many babblers have talked about violence we've experienced, as women? From severe to less severe, violence, and violation, and not being believed, add to our experience of what violence is for us as women living in patriarchy.
If a woman tells me she was raped by her boyfriend, but nobody wil believe her because she kept dating him for another few weeks afterwards, I don't find it at all hard to believe her. I do believe her. It happened.
Steppenwolf, if the stats are correct, and that 1 in 2, or 3 in 4 women will experience some form of violence including sexual violence, in her lifetime, that's a fucking huge number. Way more than people who are killed by gangs, or killed in wars overseas, or killed by police violence, all forms of violence that I abhor, but forms of violence that mostly affect men.
So don't tell me it's harder to believe. I think a great deal of mental energy is expended by all of us, to desperately NOT believe the truth of violence against women. From servers getting their butts pinched by customers, to catcalls, to fondling in crowded subways, to stalking, to having lovers/partners throw things when angry, to name-calling, to performing sexual acts in order to not be evicted/arrested, and along the continuum to the more overt violence that you would recognize.
Men see this behaviour. Men participate in this behaviour. Men remain silent about this behaviour. Yeah, a huge amount of mental energy expended to NOT know and to NOT see.
Sun, 2007-05-06 10:10
#32
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Steppenwolf, if the stats are correct, and that 1 in 2, or 3 in 4 women will experience some form of violence including sexual violence, in her lifetime, that's a fucking huge number. Way more than people who are killed by gangs, or killed in wars overseas, or killed by police violence, all forms of violence that I abhor, but forms of violence that mostly affect men.So don't tell me it's harder to believe. I think a great deal of mental energy is expended by all of us, to desperately NOT believe the truth of violence against women. From servers getting their butts pinched by customers, to catcalls, to fondling in crowded subways, to stalking, to having lovers/partners throw things when angry, to name-calling, to performing sexual acts in order to not be evicted/arrested, and along the continuum to the more overt violence that you would recognize.
Men see this behaviour. Men participate in this behaviour. Men remain silent about this behaviour. Yeah, a huge amount of mental energy expended to NOT know and to NOT see.[/b]
Excellently put BCG.
Perhaps there needs to be more exhaustive expositions of violence against women? This would be from overt violent actions in their continuim, like that which you outlined, to non-verbal passive aggressive, or repressed violent posturings of; aloofness, displeasure, dis-satisfaction, and other such socialized societal triggers to which women are ingrained to respond to. Triggers that diminish self, and creates the conditions whereby further acts of overt violence grow.
Sun, 2007-05-06 22:28
#33
[What violence against women is about is how a deeply women-hating society such as ours and the US, minimizes and dismisses how women suffer under patriarchy. From the feminization of poverty, to sexual harassment, to being targetted by ex-partners, to being targetted by mass murderers.]
after carefully reading over the conversation that has been happening in this forum, i think the point has been found, but what now? there is talk about what the issue is and how "bad" it is in society today, but what about what can be done about it? just as some have mentioned, we don't often think we've met someone who is capable of this type of violence, but how the heck can you ever really know? do you really ever really truly know anyone besides those most dear to you, those whom you've made a concerted effort to know and understand inside and out.
what are we going to do about the violence agaist women that is so obviously, undisputibly prevelant in all societies today?? because it is "us", the people who obviously care enough- since we take the time to write and respond here- who have to get involved and come up with solutions to initiate a change- in some cases a complete 180- in the way people think. what do i think a start might be? well, getting an understanding of the human psyche is a good place. understanding what the connecting thread between those who batter/kill women might be. i think it has something to do with a person's guiding fiction. meaning, their perception of the world. the way they internalize the actions/words of others and put a spin on it that is negative or tainted. this goes for the women who may be under constant duress due to the constant battery or expetancy of abuse. their perception may be one of a constant guilt/ashamed, etc. but how do you change a person's perception? it seems to be through education. my own guiding fiction has changed due to exposure. it is possible, but we need to get involved and educate men and women so they have a chance to internalize a new take on an old problem.
Mon, 2007-05-07 09:13
#34
Well, perhaps some of the regulars on this may get mad to see me take up space defending myself, but since I tend to make everybody somewhat made, here goes:
I wrote:
quote:
Obviously, no one form of violence is more important than any other, and no type of victim is more important than any other.
Big City Gal replied:
quote:
SA, you can't really believe this. Nothing you've posted on babble has made me think you're as naive as this statement indicates. There are absolutely ranking of victims, and who is more and less deserving. Of pity, of understanding, even of financial compensation. The next time a Canadian soldier is killed in Afghanistan, let me know the number of daily newpapers that carry the story on the front page and for how long. The next time a woman is raped and killed let me know how many news reports are devoted to the story and to the many women's organizations providing support and care.
When people get really emotional about things, they tend to miss the original point.
BCG, where did you get the idea I was referring to the corporate media by my statement. If you go back and look at that post again, you will see that statement I made reflects my own personal philosophy about violence and its many victims--not what the goddamned corporate media thinks.
And I stand by that view. No victim of violence is more important than any other. Period.
The corporate media obviously has its own priority list of what types of violence and what victims of it get the most attention—and that changes with whatever the managing editor decide will be the focus of sensationalism.
Now, Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan are all the media rage—not because they give a shit about their lives, but because they are fighting for the US government’s agenda of controlling oil resources and getting the new Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline built—the same reason why the Soviet Union and the UK invaded that country before—and that’s Corporate Canada’s super fantasy.
My view has always been that killing people in wars to monopolize markets, labour and resources is a fundamental capitalistic curse and never worth the effort. Period. That’s MY view—not the media’s.
As for being “naive,” no, I don’t think I’m particularly naive. However, as I said in my post, I don’t see myself as an expert on violence, including violence against women, and the views I offered were mostly anecdotal and based on personal experience. That may offend some people here. But the truth is I don’t know necessarily know everything about some of the issues that concern me—including this one, and I come here to learn as much as I do to teach—and I know no one else here is an expert on all of the issues that concern them—much as some might not like to admit that.
quote:
If a woman tells me she was raped by her boyfriend, but nobody wil believe her because she kept dating him for another few weeks afterwards, I don't find it at all hard to believe her. I do believe her. It happened.
See, here we go again. I never said it doesn’t happen or that it’s necessarily harder to believe. I said it’s harder to prove, like in a court of law. In a forum where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty (which I absolutely support with no exception), anything that is seen as subjective or uncertain, which is sadly often the case in such situations, can make it harder to establish. That’s why, as I have read, victims often don’t report incidents or violence, or alleged violence, because they think it’s not worth the hassle of being cross-examined, having to remember every detail, sometimes being unsure themselves of what happened, etc.
You can give yourself the luxury of believing someone’s story on stat, without knowing that person or his/her motivations or knowing whoever they are accusing. Other people can’t.
quote:
Steppenwolf, if the stats are correct, and that 1 in 2, or 3 in 4 women will experience some form of violence including sexual violence, in her lifetime, that's a fucking huge number. Way more than people who are killed by gangs, or killed in wars overseas, or killed by police violence, all forms of violence that I abhor, but forms of violence that mostly affect men.
Once again, I have no reason to dispute that statistic or the huge impact on the women who are victims. My point—and it is MY point, not anyone else’s—is that all those people who are killed in wars, gang fights, etc., which also include women as well as men, are not any less important than the women who are victimized by other forms of violence (whether they are killed or not).
I asked the question of what people can do to overcome this. I would be much more interested in hearing and discussing some of your suggestions, since you obviously have more comprehensive knowledge on this than I do, on what to do about this issue—rather than dismissing me as some sort of mindless media hack.
Mon, 2007-05-07 09:41
#35
Maysie
tiffani, welcome to babble and thanks for your post.
Steppe, thanks also for your response. The context of my above response to you was from some of the language you used, "passive voice" they call it. It kinda gets me riled up.
quote:
What makes it harder to accept.
quote:
SO it becomes more subjective to interpretation, and harder to prove
I wanted to interrogate the use of this language, that's all.
And we can't get into the "proving" discussion, since what's required by law is not helpful in determining what actually happened in cases of violence against women. Although, some progressive women and men become lawyers to have access to the language of the "master's house" (paraphrasing Audre Lorde here), as well access to the mechanisms that keep the system in place.
But the issue of "what can we do" is key. What can we do? I say, everything and anything you can. Multiple points of action. Some people want to become crisis counsellors, some want to start a support group. Some become doctors, or lawyers. Some want to raise money for organizations doing work in the field of VAW. Some want to start organzations. Some want to write songs and poetry and gift them to the world. Some want to become rich and then donate lots of money. Some want to educate boys and men to stop valorizing violence in all forms. Some want to educate women on what abuse is, and why they deserve to liev lives free of violence.
Not only women benefit when VAW is reduced, or stopped, of course.
I say the more ideas the better, surely anyone reading this has more ideas of what they'd find the most helpful entry point into this issue. Don't have money to donate? Donate your time! Don't have time? Donate your expertise for a skill that's needed. Check out websites, the internet is at your fingertips! Tons of info is out there.
I feel very strongly about this (and this applies to other forms of oppression as well). Don't get bogged down in helplessness. Yes the problem is frikking huge, and yes there are more of them (defined as those who don't get it, don't care, or want the status quo to continue) than there are of us. So the fuck what! Take direction from groups who are in leadership positions and see how you can contribute. Even writing letters and signing petitions online is something.
There is no choice but to resist and to attempt to make change happen.
(Hey, should I be a motivational speaker or what? [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] )
[ 07 May 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Mon, 2007-05-07 12:15
#36
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]There is no choice but to resist and to attempt to make change happen. [/b]
This is the focal point, there is no choice but to resist, from the smallest detail to the largest detail within our personal lives and outwardly.
For example, today my daughter actually "got" where, those subtle entrenched societal tiggers of compliance to a patriarchial system arise, and in what form they can take.
Having been raised in entirely feminist household, she chose, for a partner, one who had been raised in a completely patriarchial household. This occurance is something I have struggled to try and understand for 7 years. But that is an aside.
Needless to say, it has been 7 yrs of attempted domination, through covert and overt violent means, and a continuing battle for equality ny my daughter. She just did not get how deeply "the patriarchial verbal cues" effected equality, and how in actual fact they are violence against women, that allows(ed) others forms of violence to take place at a later date.
And it was simply a comment made by her partner about her best friend. He labelled her a "bad mother". Why you ask?
When she is a single parent, because her husband could not keep 'himself' at home. When she is in 2nd year BEcon, at UVic, with a B+ average. When her daughter, is well adjusted, a bit spoiled, involved with everything a child of her age should be, plus more, including being educated in a French Emersion setting, and functions at a Grade 2 level though only 5. She keeps a beautiful home, is an accomplished cook, no processed "quick" foods get put on her table. Is totally responsible, and a productive member of society.
Well, when why daughter demanded why he felt that way, it was because she "scolds" her daughter, for not being ready for school, or some other such little thing. It is the typical case of father spoils rotten, when he a has the child, and the mother has to reset the routine.
But anyhow, right then, my daughter had the realization, that this was one of those subtle verbal violence against women moments, that she had never before realized as such, and could not allow to pass. It was so outrageously wrong, and attacking, against ALL women, it could not be ignored or excused.
It is these type of comments, that set the passive aggressive reality, that unless you comply with what the men in your life think is a good parent/women/person, you too will be labelled as "bad" and burdened with a false sense of self, or falsely impinged with guilt, or should be full of remorse, etc.
Tue, 2007-05-08 12:11
#37
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] ... unless you comply with what the men in your life think is a good parent/women/person, you too will be labelled as "bad" and burdened with a false sense of self, or falsely impinged with guilt, or should be full of remorse, etc.[/b]
I agree with much of what you say, Remind, but it seems to me that much of this type of coercion comes from women, as well as men. What does seem to me very troubling, however, is that these value judgements are almost always directed *at* women, not men.
Tue, 2007-05-08 12:37
#38
Remember the big controversy a few months back about how the all the shootings in Quebec were linked with the purported alienation brought upon by "the decades-long linguistic struggle"?
Here, here's some help from Wikipedia
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Wong_controversy]Wikipedia[/url]
Now the guy who allegedly killed 32 people at Virginia Tech was also an immigrant.
Tue, 2007-05-08 17:38
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Mini Cooper:
[b]Now the guy who allegedly killed 32 people at Virginia Tech was also an immigrant.[/b]
Allegedly? He's dead - he sent a confessional video to NBC. People saw him doing it. There's no trial here - no need for presumption of innocence. Allegedly?
Tue, 2007-05-08 17:50
#40
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]That being said, I also feel they're not correctly identifying the problem. I don't think it's about misogyny per se. It's more the role women play in the psychology of these men. Once males hit puberty, there's a sudden cost to being a social misfit that dwarfs all other previous and future costs - most girls (and later women) have no desire to speak to them or be associated with them. Women come to symbolize everything that's wrong with them.
...What I'm saying is, it's not misogyny itself. It's the fact they begin as social outcasts and continue to be social outcasts. The link with women is that women act as an amplifier due to these men's stunted heterosexuality. The root problem that needs to be dealt with is the lack of social skills. Cho's spurned romantic advances were textbook. What was even more textbook was his social reclusiveness.
[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ][/b]
To me, I read your post (and I've read it several times in the past few days), and see someone suggesting that if a few women had given this killer a chance, maybe he wouldn't have been driven to mass murder. This seems to be a classic blame the women attitude.
Guess what Apples? Women can feel spurned by men too. Women can be anti-social and reclusive. Women can be social outcasts and they can feel that no men are interested and there's someting wrong her them. They can feel hurt and sad and angry at the world. Men don't have exclusive rights over taking rejection too hard.
Now maybe this guy would have turned out better if someone had been nice to him. Maybe not. Maybe he was just a sicko montster. But let's not blame women. Who knows, maybe a good friendship with a guy might have helped him just as much as a girl friend.
Tue, 2007-05-08 18:12
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]To me, I read your post (and I've read it several times in the past few days), and see someone suggesting that if a few women had given this killer a chance, maybe he wouldn't have been driven to mass murder. This seems to be a classic blame the women attitude.
Guess what Apples? Women can feel spurned by men too. Women can be anti-social and reclusive. Women can be social outcasts and they can feel that no men are interested and there's someting wrong her them. They can feel hurt and sad and angry at the world. Men don't have exclusive rights over taking rejection too hard.
Now maybe this guy would have turned out better if someone had been nice to him. Maybe not. Maybe he was just a sicko montster. But let's not blame women. Who knows, maybe a good friendship with a guy might have helped him just as much as a girl friend.[/b]
I thought someome might read it that way. It's too bad, maybe I'm not communicating it properly.
With respect to your first paragraph, about women not giving him a chance, that's kind of non-sequitor isn't it? He likely did not have great success with women. Now, that doesn't mean we should hunt down the women who turned down. It simply means that the reasons he were turned down were unfortunate. As an anaology, imagine someone can't keep a job because they have no manners, and they go bankrupt. You wouldn't blame past hypothetical employers for their bankruptcy. So I'm not blaming the women, I'm merely describing. If I'm "blaming" anything, it's his lack of social skills.
In your second paragraph, you talk about women often feeling rejected as well. I know. For reasons I don't claim to fully understand, women seem statistically more likely to take out anger or resentment on themselves, for example with a higher rate of suicide attempts. Men seem more likely to "snap". In both cases though we have a serious sociological problem of a lot of people growing up with poor social skills and not knowing how to adjust.
As for your last paragraph - I'm not blaming women. And maybe he was a sicko monster, such people will always be with us, though I'm sure a proportion of these nuts didn't start out as sickos and their actions could have been prevented. I actually think a good friendship with a good guy would have been more helpful.
Tue, 2007-05-08 20:23
#42
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]Guess what Apples? Women can feel spurned by men too. Women can be anti-social and reclusive. Women can be social outcasts and they can feel that no men are interested and there's someting wrong her them. They can feel hurt and sad and angry at the world. Men don't have exclusive rights over taking rejection too hard.[/b]
Yet, despite that commonality, women don't commit, relatively speaking, many murders.
Wed, 2007-05-09 10:51
#43
Sorry for the digression but something is really bothering me. The Treatment Advocacy Center (E. Fuller Torrey's brainchild) is stating the Virginia Tech shooter was a paranoid schizophrenic. Since when is it okay to call a mentally ill person a "sicko monster"?
Wed, 2007-05-09 14:09
#44
Ok this is a pretty intense discussion. A couple things to stir it up:
quote:
The Treatment Advocacy Center (E. Fuller Torrey's brainchild) is stating the Virginia Tech shooter was a paranoid schizophrenic. Since when is it okay to call a mentally ill person a "sicko monster"?
Well, considering this paranoid schizophrenic resorted to an act of violence so masssive and reprehensible--not something that people who suffer from that condition generally do--the "sicko monster" title seemingly applies somewhat better than "poor misunderstood heart-broken boy."
quote:
To me, I read your post (and I've read it several times in the past few days), and see someone suggesting that if a few women had given this killer a chance, maybe he wouldn't have been driven to mass murder. This seems to be a classic blame the women attitude.
Agreed. That's like someone running over someone else with their car and then blaming them for being in the way.
quote:
Women can be social outcasts and they can feel that no men are interested and there's someting wrong her them. They can feel hurt and sad and angry at the world. Men don't have exclusive rights over taking rejection too hard.
True. But given that guy's medical condition and pre-disposition for violence, I really doubt that if he hadn't given rejection for a reason for committing mass murder, he would have found some other reason (God, money, aliens via the TV, etc.)
That fact is that type of rejection is a common part of everyday life, and I would dare say a vast majority of men, as well as women, experience it at some point. They don't end up killing people because of it.
quote:
Needless to say, it has been 7 yrs of attempted domination, through covert and overt violent means, and a continuing battle for equality ny my daughter. She just did not get how deeply "the patriarchial verbal cues" effected equality, and how in actual fact they are violence against women, that allows(ed) others forms of violence to take place at a later date.And it was simply a comment made by her partner about her best friend. He labelled her a "bad mother".
Nope. Here’s where I jump off. It’s true there are many forms of violence, including violence against women, that are more covert or non-physical. But I think this is a huge stretch. Worthless gossip about other people’s parenting styles is certainly annoying. But unless it involves blatant slander, as accusing someone of doing or being something they are not, doesn’t constitute violence or “domination” over women.
If it did, it would likely mean the entire world, including men as fathers, would be victims, and we would have to get a UN declaration on it. Can you imagine a UN-sanctioned International Day for the Elimination of Gossip?!
Wed, 2007-05-09 15:47
#45
quote:
Can you imagine a UN-sanctioned International Day for the Elimination of Gossip?!
Hey, I knew a guy who's cousin once said: [b]"It works for me."[/b] (I think.) [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Croghan27 ]
Wed, 2007-05-09 18:43
#46
In my defence, I didn't know that he was diagnosed with any disorder. However, to answer the question - when is it okay to call a mentally ill person a "sicko killer". Answer: When s/he commits mass murder. Not all paranoid schizophrenics are mass murderers and not all mass murderers are paranoid schizophrenics. I wasn't calling him a sicko because he's schizophrenic, but because he's massacred 32 innocent people. I don't suppose anyone has a problem with labeling him a "killer".
I recognize that women don't statistically commit as many murders. My point was that I do not agree that men are driven to murder because they feel rejected by women in particular (as opposed to society in general).
[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]
Wed, 2007-05-09 18:55
#47
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]I recognize that women don't statistically commit as many murders. My point was that I do not agree that men are driven to murder because they feel rejected by women in particular (as opposed to society in general).[/b]
I was agreeing with you, Summer! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
All the feelings of rejection, loneliness, depression, low self-esteem that many of these male killers experience are no doubt equally felt by women. [i]Yet[/i], women seem to have enough self-control to murder at about a 1/10th of the rate of men.
Wed, 2007-05-09 19:15
#48
whoops totally missed that one Sven! [this is where i would put in that blushing embarrassed face, but I don't know how]
Wed, 2007-05-09 20:24
#49
Steppenwolf said:
quote:
[b]Well, considering this paranoid schizophrenic resorted to an act of violence so masssive and reprehensible--not something that people who suffer from that condition generally do--the "sicko monster" title seemingly applies somewhat better than "poor misunderstood heart-broken boy."[/b]
Yes, and, er, if I had in fact referred to him as a "poor misunderstood heart-broken boy" rather than to, oh, I, don't know, what I actually called him which was a "mentally ill person," then, yeah, I guess you'd have a point, so, bravo, Steppenwolf.
Wed, 2007-05-09 20:28
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]In my defence, I didn't know that he was diagnosed with any disorder. However, to answer the question - when is it okay to call a mentally ill person a "sicko killer". Answer: When s/he commits mass murder. Not all paranoid schizophrenics are mass murderers and not all mass murderers are paranoid schizophrenics. I wasn't calling him a sicko because he's schizophrenic, but because he's massacred 32 innocent people. I don't suppose anyone has a problem with labeling him a "killer".I recognize that women don't statistically commit as many murders. My point was that I do not agree that men are driven to murder because they feel rejected by women in particular (as opposed to society in general).
[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Summer ][/b]
Again, to recap, when a mentally ill person commits a horrendous crime, then they're no longer mentally ill, they're now a sicko, a wacko, a monster. Okay, got it.
Wed, 2007-05-09 20:47
#51
We have no problem "labelling" him a killer because he was a killer. The evidence is overwhelming.