Thursday, January 13, 2011

The Giffords shooting: Misogyny has consequences

Reason #1538 it's not such a good idea to spend time online nursing your resentments towards the opposite sex because no one from that sex seems to want to have sex with you: Because that kind of, sort of, makes you a little bit like Jared Loughner.

The Wall Street Journal managed to track down what are apparently some comments Loughner made on a gaming site; they're full of his usual conspiratorial nonsense (his lunatic theories on grammar and currency) but they're also, as the Journal notes, "peppered with displays of misogyny." One posting

titled "Why Rape," ... said women in college enjoyed being raped. "There are Rape victims that are under the influence of a substance. The drinking is leading them to rape. The loneliness will bring you to depression. Being alone for a very long time will inevitably lead you to rape."

This is the dark side of the "incel" mindset. (That is, those who turn their "involuntarily celibate" state into an identity.)

Another time, the Journal reports, Loughner

started a thread titled "Talk, Talk, Talking about Rejection." He solicited stories of rejection by the opposite sex. The next day he wrote, "Its funny...when..they say lets go on a date about 3 times..and they dont....go..." Three days later, he wrote, "Its funny when your 60 wondering......what happen at 21."

There is other evidence that Loughner nursed anger towards and hatred of women and authority figures: he apparently scrawled the phrases "die bitch" and "die cops" on a letter he'd gotten from congresswoman Giffords.

As Amanda Marcotte points out, there are a lot of people out there who've responded with anger at the very notion "that misogyny might play a role in the choice of a young man to shoot a powerful woman in the head ... ."

But the fact is that misogyny has consequences, and one of its most common and most predictable consequences is violence towards women. Misogyny plays a role, as Marcotte notes, even when the perpetrator of this violence is "crazy."

What I’m seeing here is that Loughner, mental illness or no, completely absorbed society’s teachings about male entitlement and female sinfulness, that men have a right to have needs filled at women’s expense, and that women give up their rights to bodily autonomy if they do things deemed unladylike, like have sex or drink alcohol.

And just as those who spew hateful political rhetoric -- filled with talk of guns and targets and "second amendment solutions" to political "problems" -- shouldn't be surprised when someone takes that rhetoric seriously, so those who spew misogyny online shouldn't be surprised when someone acts on that misogyny and attacks a woman. As Marcotte puts it,

just because someone has a mental illness rarely means that he’s completely unaware of the world around him.  Loughner’s ability with a gun or his thoughts on rape didn’t spring fully formed from his brain, but are the product of an individual interacting with a specific environment.

Those who contribute to that toxic environment -- whether they're Sarah Palin talking about "reloading" or some random woman-hater talking gleefully online about bashing "bitches" -- share in the responsibility when someone pulls a gun and shoots down a female politician he's convinced himself is a "bitch." 

--

If you appreciated this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. Thanks!

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

84 comments:

  1. It bears repeating that being mentally ill does not increase the chances of a person becoming a murderer. Attributing Loughner's violence to his being schizophrenic or manic depressive or [pick a diagnosis] is simply not supported by the facts. Being mentally ill didn't hamper him on the journey towards deciding to shoot a Congresswoman in the head. But it's not the deciding factor. Something else (perhaps several something elses) is.

    Like I was saying in the other thread, Witman, the poster whose comment about shooting someone who was working for NOW occasioned David Futrelle's post about increasing civility, exposed himself as someone who was disconnected from reality. He literally believed that women and/or feminists (hard to tell the difference in his thinking) use metaphorical AND literal guns to assault men, and the language they use to describe men is so intensely dehumanizing that he envisioned a genocide against men as a real, if remote and abstract, possibility.

    People who create fantasy worlds for themselves where they are attacked by a secretive conspiracy are building a world in which violence against the group conspiring against them is not only justified but necessary.

    Clearly Loughner engaged in this paranoid fantasy world-building. Unfortunately he mistakenly identified Rep. Giffords as one of the conspirators against him. It could have been anyone, really, but the fact that he chose her instead of literally thousands of other possible targets shows that he was indeed affected by the ideas about politics, and about women, that he was absorbing from the culture.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was with you right up until you quoted this:

    "What I’m seeing here is that Loughner, mental illness or no, completely absorbed society’s teachings about male entitlement and female sinfulness, that men have a right to have needs filled at women’s expense, and that women give up their rights to bodily autonomy if they do things deemed unladylike, like have sex or drink alcohol."

    Then I vomited and gave up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds like Deezee is in withdrawal from something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It bears repeating that being mentally ill does not increase the chances of a person becoming a murderer."

    Overstates the case somewhat. Schizophrenics are overrepesented among murderers - about 4% of murderers are schizophrenic, while a little less than 1% of people overall are schizophrenic.

    However, it's true to say that violence against others is not a symptom of schizophrenia.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sally -

    Could be. I haven't had a conversation with Glen in a while. Thanks for reminding me! You're the best.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would second the rest of Sally's post, though - this process by which people prepare for violence is very important to understand.

    When you see someone giving a list of justifications for violence, and a list of alternatives to violence that are closed to him, you may be dealing with a person who is preparing for a violent act. Rarely does a violent person make big, loud threats before acting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dr Deeze, that was no strawman David offered of his comments. He did say those things. You vomit when faced with David's paragraph, but gunman's paragraph was not vomit inducing? o.0

    You know what, you men? My body is mine completely even DURING sex, so how do you like them apples?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Booboonation -

    Honestly, every time I read anything by you I have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't know why you're talking about strawmen, and I definitely don't know why you're asking me if I give two poops about you being in control of your body at all times. You go girl! Grrrrrrrrrlllllll power!

    And before somebody gets cute and makes the obvious intelligence/reading comprehension pot shot, I'm gonna go ahead and say the deficit is absolutely on booboonation's end. I've even gone to my feminist friends and copy pasted her arguments to them to see if they could make any sense of them, and they could not.

    (Holy shit, Dr. Deezee has feminist friends!? Yes, I have a wide variety of friends who disagree with me on a number of issues.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am one lucky woman, I suppose. I'm so glad my boyfriend recognizes me as an adult individual equal to himself. For some reason, people don't see women that way and think they can go shoot them in the head (or beat them, or rape them, or cat-call them, or make comment on their body or their actions) because women don't do what they want when they want it.

    What a sad world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "you had me until..."
    then you pasted a comment from David...

    and said you wanted to vomit.

    What does, "you had me until..." mean?
    It means you.did.not.like.his.comment.

    I said. home come you didn't like his comment, but you had no problem with the original statement? (that's implied here, am I wrong?)

    Unless I am wrong, you implied that david's paragraph was INCORRECT. If it was, he would be guilty of creating the strawman fallacy while characterizing what someone else said. Otherwise what was your problem with it?

    And yes, you and your friends have comprehension problems. But I don't mind clarifying. People that have issues with all my posts and arguments are clearly lazy readers. You can't have an issue with every one, or even most. I would buy the occasional line not making sense. And I have friends watching this ball game too. You know, it's a shame, you're missing some masterpiece ownage of your behind. I think you're deliberately missing it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Omg, please I just re-read my original comment to you, clear as fucking day. what part of "gunman's paragraph was not vomit inducing" is hard?

    You people are SO dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  12. booboonation said
    "You know what, you men? My body is mine completely even DURING sex, so how do you like them apples?"

    /http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346377/Girlfriend-sets-lovers-genitals-suspected-cheating.html

    Burning jealousy: Girlfriend 'sets lover's genitals on fire because she suspected he was cheating'

    Comment section

    If he was cheating then what wrong did she do? Just teaching him a lesson.
    - Kelly D, Whiteley, 12/1/2011 21:27

    I guess his body wasn't his in his girlfriend's eyes. The mind set of Kelly is every more popular in the western world's
    'hybrid- matriarchal' systems. Feminists wanted the male role. They've become what they hated and now can't see the truth or they conveniently ignore it.

    Is what this woman did o.k. since it was just to a regular men.

    explanation of hybrid matriarchy

    Rich men can get away with murder like O.J., a few select men run everything.

    The average woman has a higher standing in society than the average man. The term dead beat dad is common, and not dead beat mom. I have never heard of a case of a mother being thrown in jail for not paying child support. We live in a matriarchy for the most part and anyone who disagrees is disingenuous.
    _____

    ReplyDelete
  13. Way back in the day, in merry old England, when people would write into the paper and complain about something, all the letters would be in the back of the paper. They nick-named them- The Agony Columns.
    MRA boards fit this description. Updated it would be - The Agony Threads.
    I understand that anger is one of the five stages of healing, but to get stuck there and have everyone around you co-sign your paranoia is extremely dangerous. Thank you for writing about this, David.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes. Exactly. For instance, feminism is obviously responsible for Lorena Bobbitt's actions. Of course, many women cheered her on.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Booboo -

    I thought about giving you a legitimate response, then I read the part about how you think you write clearly and how anyone who can't understand you must be lying, and I realized, it wouldn't be worth the effort. Your solipsism is completely overwhelming.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dr. Deezee said...
    Booboo -
    I thought about giving you a legitimate response, then I read the part about how you think you write clearly ...


    It's simple, easy.

    Feminism has no consideration for men AT ALL. It's a man-hating movement.

    That's a fact proven by many ignorant and arrogant answers from feminists, some of them you can find on this blog.

    Feminism is a movement similar to a religious cult.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yohan, this comment not only isn't related to the topic being discussed, it's not even related to the stuff you quoted from Deezee.

    I think maybe I'll start up a thread just for you, and whenever you feel like posting random assertions about the evils of feminism that aren't actually related to anything being discussed, you can just go there and post them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. MRA's are fed up with this trite, hackneyed, shopworn tactic of throwing the terms misogyny and misogynist into any situation and then proceeding to extrapolate misandrist interpretations about it, as though they are incontrovertible facts. It never ceases to amaze me how much feminists rely on straw men to formulate their arguments. LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm fed up with this trite, hackneyed, shopworn tactic of throwing the terms misandry and misandrist into any situation and then proceeding to extrapolate misogynistic interpretations about it, as though they are incontrovertible facts. It never ceases to amaze me how much MRAs rely on straw men to formulate their arguments. LMAO!

    Loughner posted a comment suggesting that women in college enjoy being raped. If that's not a sign of misogyny, what is it?

    If my argument is misandrist, please explain to me exactly how and why.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lougher's impaired thought processes, and that's an understatement, combined with other distinct possibilities (polysubstance abuse for one), do not indicate a universal hatred of women as the automatic 'given' your article assumes, nor does it merit the primacy of motive your article arrogantly presumes.

    You have no idea what really motivated that clown, and you are grasping at straws when you asert that you do.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey Davey:

    I like the way you tried to turn that fellow's statement around and feed it back to him. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    Jingo Bells!
    Jingo Bells!
    Jingo All The Way!

    ReplyDelete
  22. By the way, do you have permission to link to all these websites in the left-hand column?

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. David "misogyny" doesn't come from where you and the rest of the femicows claim it comes from. Much of it comes from your hate. Your mocking of men for being men. Isn't that what this site is about? Arent these your words *Ahem* "Mister" Feminist?

    "Ah, misogyny! I track down some of the most egregious and/or entertaining examples of man-boobery online (and sometimes off). I find a lot of it on Men's Rights and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) sites. Sometimes I mock."

    You think men will eternally be mocked and disenfranchised and nothing negative will happen?

    And when something negative does happen you and skirt nation screech misogyny, as if your behavior and your laws and your misandry and your biases and your double and triple standards and your insults don't exist and didn't influence anything else.

    You want men to give up their misogyny while women will be fine keeping their misandry, sorry, no fucking dice.

    If you truly want less misogynists change alimony laws, let me see their children, get rid of sex based quotas and affirmative action, stop mocking men in all of your stupid commercials. Start with those things if you truly want to lessen misogyny.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yohan:

    If all feminism is man-hating, then all MRAs and the like are woman hating.

    I'm a feminist and have a boyfriend that I love and who loves me.

    Seriously? Blanket statements are stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Start with those things if you truly want to lessen misogyny.
    Random Brother


    I would not call it misogyny, but deep mistrust against the legal system.

    Misogyny means to hate ALL women, everywhere in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Yohan

    You're right. Your phrasing of what I was trying to say is more appropriate.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Richard
    "You think men will eternally be mocked and disenfranchised and nothing negative will happen?

    And when something negative does happen you and skirt nation screech misogyny, as if your behavior and your laws and your misandry and your biases and your double and triple standards and your insults don't exist and didn't influence anything else"

    Even when that something negative is dwarfed by the injustices done to men as a group.
    Talk about princess whining about a pee 50 mattresses below.

    ReplyDelete
  29. LexieDi said...
    Yohan:
    If all feminism is man-hating, then all MRAs and the like are woman hating.
    I'm a feminist and have a boyfriend that I love and who loves me.
    Seriously? Blanket statements are stupid.


    Your comment is very true,

    Indeed, in feminism, all MRAs are considered to be misogynists.

    This is exactly what feminists - see David's blog - are telling us all the time.

    About myself, I am a straight man, no criminal record, married since 35 years with the same Asian woman, never divorced, 2 daughters university educated in Japan/Canada, 1 fostergirl in Philippines, and I was sharing the same rooms with my mother-in-law for over 20 years until she died.

    Feminists will never ask 'logical follow-up questions' for example 'how come you are one of the MRAs' or 'what was the reason you join the men's rights movement so actively?' or 'what else is in your forums, except talking bad about women?' or something like that.

    Feminists are calling me a women-hater, a misogynist all the time. - But they cannot explain me why.

    It seems to call on any man to be a 'women-hater' is a standard 'shaming language' reply of every Western feminist if a man disagrees with a woman, whatever the reason might be.

    About the feminist ideology itself so far I failed to see anything which might be seen in a positive way by any man.

    Feminism is for some certain women only, it's not even for all women and the guideline is give as little as possible and take as much as you can.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Richard: You think men will eternally be mocked and disenfranchised and nothing negative will happen?

    Time is a mighty factor and the answer to this question.

    We have now clearly 2 main-groups of men in these MRA-forums.

    1st group are men not so young, ALREADY badly cheated by females and by the legal system.
    They have to work and to pay, but they are not silent and are sharing their experiences with other men over the internet.

    For sure, DIVORCE is EXPENSIVE for men, often a financial disaster over many years.

    2nd group are men who are still young, they like the idea to look for a female partner, they are SINGLE but MISTRUSTING and are willing to listen to men already cheated.

    Those men who are using MRA-forums, as far as I can see, are very different from each other. White or black, rich or poor, young or old, aggressive or depressive, never been out of the city where they were born or travelling worldwide, living in the US or in EU, high intelligent or really a poor low-life...

    How will be the future? I think, the number of young, single, mistrusting MEN will rise sharply.

    The solution against feminism might be 'passive resistence' - About marriage and such stuff, say in a polite way to everybody, sorry, but this is too risky for me...

    Nobody can force you as a young man to do what feminists wants you to do.

    It will become more difficult for feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to MRA women logic, shouldn't this guy have had babes crawling all over him?

    Reality Check.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ booboonation

    Now he will. The love letters and the women who think they can fix him will flood into the prison.

    And that's a real reality check.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  33. David Futrelle said...
    Yohan,
    .....
    I think maybe I'll start up a thread just for you, and whenever you feel like posting random assertions about the evils of feminism ...


    I am not the only MRA, who is strongly complaining about your MRA-hater blog.

    David, seriously, one question to you:

    What comments did you really expect on your MRA-hater blog? Honestly?

    Of course you expected comments from feminists, cheering you as their hero. You, the brave man facing the enemy.

    OK, and what else?

    Do you really expect all MRAs to remain 'silent in shame' when they are reading your insulting crap?

    Ordinary men, like we MRAs are not politicians, celebrities or CEOs, and we do not have any privileges for being a man.

    Ordinary men are not richer than ordinary women, and they do not have a higher income than women.

    Men are not only in top-positions, but often also present real low-life and poverty..

    Men who just work and do not own much have not much to offer to a girl.

    They do not have rich parents and are not into thug-life and they often have a very very difficult time to find any nice girl for them.

    Yes, I know you are laughing now, but I was one of these lonely young men a long time ago. I speak out of personal experience. As a former target of scorn.

    But tell me, how can ordinary men offer anything for a girl, if they don't have anything?

    From where should all this money come from for diamond rings, expensive designer gifts, cars, own horse, etc. and all other stuff what girls demand to receive?

    Western feminist society is highly materialistic orientated, women are the most spoiled in the world.

    David, again, honestly, what kind of comments do you expect from me and other MRAs?

    Shall we pray to you as our savior?

    ReplyDelete
  34. booboonation said...
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to MRA women logic, shouldn't this guy have had babes crawling all over him?


    I don't know about USA, but in Europe for sure it's like that...

    Please read, link below
    http://www.thelocal.se/24578/20100125/

    Prison guard pregnant after affair with rapist

    A convicted rapist considered to be one of Sweden’s most dangerous repeat sex offenders is set to become a father following a secret romance with a female prison guard, one of several inmate-guard love affairs reported to have taken place at a prison in central Sweden.
    .....
    According to Aftonbladet, there are at least three additional known love affairs involving female guards and violent male criminals younger than 30-years-old.



    BTW, this is NOT a link from the DAILYMAIL, UK.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @David...

    Others had suggested I may be able to contribute to what you are doing here.

    However, after a bit of a look around, it seems you are actually something of a lightweight.

    I suspect I can achieve far more for women by putting my energies elsewhere.

    Sorry to take up your time.

    ReplyDelete
  36. wow, i've never seen anyone take their ball and go home in their first post. well done sir

    ReplyDelete
  37. Based on Loughner's statements, including the erad3 posts, it seems to me that the misogynistic attitudes that are quoted in the OP reflect his underlying misanthropy and psychopathy. In other words, he had a problem with everyone and everything. Along with the trite, chauvinistic generalizations he put forward about the relationship between the sexes, he also thought that basic shared concepts like the calendar and currency were essentially malicious lies, and had difficulty accepting that reality is fundamentally something different than a dream (and hence, effectively no empathy for real people of either sex). He seemed to be particularly incensed with any kind of authority figure, however minor, and had a weird obsession with NASA (Gifford's husband's employer).

    I have personal experience with people at this level of delusional ideation, suffering from mental disorders such as mania and hypomania. In those states, people are terrifyingly disconnected from basic notions of reality and are capable of bizarre acts of violence. Now, I'm not diagnosing Loughner. The alienation he projects could result from all sorts of causes and triggers, and I'm not a psychologist. But it seems to me that David is making a very small point--hateful attitudes towards people are associated with violence against those people. That's certainly the case. But the guy's attitudes are so bizarre, and so wide-ranging, that I'm really skeptical about all the discussion that is going on right now that tries to pin down a particular kind of hateful rhetoric as having enabled Loughner to pull the trigger. If his mind is really as warped as his writing suggests, I'm not sure what object lesson we can take from his actions--it's not clear what would have to happen to any of us, however obnoxious we might be when discussing our pet issues, to get us to the same point he was at when he committed mass murder.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yohan,
    It seems to me that you are complaining about a, at most, subset of women who expect a man to provide the finer things in life. You then extrapolate that to mean all women based on no evidence other then the echo chamber of the MRM.

    Not all women want men to provide for them. Not even a few women. And I certainly hope you did not raise your daughters to expect some man to take care of them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yohan:

    But tell me, how can ordinary men offer anything for a girl, if they don't have anything?

    From where should all this money come from for diamond rings, expensive designer gifts, cars, own horse, etc. and all other stuff what girls demand to receive?


    Please. Women don't "demand" expensive gifts. Some women might, but most women I know would be perfectly happy to receive a gift that shows thoughtfulness, regardless of the price tag. The real problem here isn't whether you have enough money to give lavish gifts but whether you pay enough attention to a person's interests.

    Anyone who thinks they can give expensive gifts to make up for the fact that they're an asshole has a big problem. That might work in some cases, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Joe,
    But the guy's attitudes are so bizarre, and so wide-ranging, that I'm really skeptical about all the discussion that is going on right now that tries to pin down a particular kind of hateful rhetoric as having enabled Loughner to pull the trigger.

    There are two separate questions here: (1) Why did Loughner go on a shooting spree at all? (2) Why did Loughner target Rep. Giffords? Misogyny may have nothing to do with #1, but it may be a viable explanation for #2.

    Specifically, it's not unreasonable to question whether misogyny played into Loughner's decision to target Rep. Giffords given that he wrote "die bitch" (a gender-specific insult) on a letter from her. Just as it's fair to question whether politics played into his decision given that he shot a public official.

    It is impossible to say that these were the major motivating factors right now. (There were probably a bunch of batshit crazy reasons that factored in, too.) But a lot of folks want to altogether dismiss Loughner's apparent hatred of all/some women, which ignores some key evidence about why he may have chosen the target he did.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sal Bro: The real problem here isn't whether you have enough money to give lavish gifts but whether you pay enough attention to a person's interests.

    I have rarely seen a rich single man without plenty of young women around him. I wonder, who is paying enough attention to whom in such a situation and what these 'interests' might be.

    About demanding and overdemanding from women, it seems for me to be more the norm than the exception in Western society.

    Let me say, it's easier for a man if you have a Ferrari - and sure, I'll bet you, the girl next to him is young and beautiful and his looks and age does not matter anyway.

    And now you tell me, what I say, is not true?

    Even if you find a nice girl as a poor guy and you really think she is nice, another guy is coming along soon and if he has more than you, then she is gone...with him. No question about that. And there is nothing what you can do about.

    That might work in some cases, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

    I don't think so.
    My observation so far is its more the rule rather than the exception.

    There is a lot of money etc. moving on, and it's moving from men to women, hardly from women to men.

    One of the reason I left Western society for always.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Raul Groom...

    wow, i've never seen anyone take their ball and go home in their first post. well done sir

    LOL. Good point. By way of thanks I'll add a second...

    In a way I'm trying to protect David. I suspect he might find me a bit difficult and confusing. A long time MRA who is also a board member with a rape crisis and counselling network which serves an area larger than most US states and which is doing ground breaking work in developing preventative strategies.

    One who marched with feminists, plotted with feminists, grafitti'd for feminists, helped extend maternity leave into the private business sector, voted for affirmative action for women in policy committees which created it in my country, got broad scale publicity for rape activists years before the term "rape activist" was coined. And much more.

    My toenails have done more on behalf of women than David could achieve in a dozen lifetimes.

    He'd be seriously out of his weight class. I see nothing productive coming from my stepping on gnats.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Sal

    You can't overlook his misogyny, and it's a reasonable question as to whether or how much it motivated him targeting Giffords. But I don't see anything that suggests that he liked or supported anyone, at all. Which begs the question: how do we make an argument that a single aspect of Giffords--her sex, the fact that she was a government official, her being married to an astronaut--was the primary one that made her his target? And if he was equally willing to murder all the other victims, including the men and the child, then how much sense does it make to construe the killing as a political act against a group, ostensibly on behalf of some other group?

    Even though the insanity defense (which applies very, very narrowly) might not apply to Loughner, the guy is not right in the head. So what lesson can sane people take from that, other than that we should all watch our mental health and seek treatment if we're having mental problems?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Joe,

    Loughner's political views seemed erratic and did not appear to fall in line with those of any large political group--i.e., there's not a lot of evidence that this was conservative &/or Republican targeting Giffords because she's a "liberal" Democrat (I use quotes because Giffords has been accused of being a liberal but actually seems to be more moderate). But this doesn't exclude the possibility that he had political motivations. He did target a political figure, after all, and prior to the shooting posted politically themed videos on YouTube. His politics were, no doubt, distorted by his delusions, but they could have still been a major influence on his decisions to open fire and target Giffords.

    This is the lesson that I think sane people can take from this incident: When there is a preponderance of violent rhetoric that is directed at a group of people (based on gender or political views or whatever), even if that rhetoric is intended to be metaphorical, there is a small number of deranged people out there who will interpret it literally and act on it.

    A corollary: The ability of deranged people to act violently is aided by their access semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines (or bomb ingredients, or whatever).

    I'm not saying we should necessarily legally limit free speech or access to guns based on these events. But they should factor into discussions & decisions regarding our rights; violent rhetoric should be quickly and loudly denounced when used by prominent political figures; and we certainly shouldn't be surprised when events like this happen.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yohan,

    I have rarely seen a rich single man without plenty of young women around him... Let me say, it's easier for a man if you have a Ferrari - and sure, I'll bet you, the girl next to him is young and beautiful and his looks and age does not matter anyway... And now you tell me, what I say, is not true?

    No, I'm saying that these men--and the women who hang on them--account for a minority of people as a whole. I don't know any women who date a man who drives a car that can be described as anything more than upper middle class. Your observations don't describe a majority of relationships in Western society.

    Sure, lots of things are superficially easier if you have lots of money. And lots of things are more difficult, too, like finding a partner who's interested in the personality (and not just the cash) of a self-absorbed dude who drives a Ferrari.

    Even if you find a nice girl as a poor guy and you really think she is nice, another guy is coming along soon and if he has more than you, then she is gone...with him.

    If your woman leaves you for a guy with "more than you" (money, personality, whatever), then she's a jerk and/or you're a jerk and/or you just weren't compatible with each other. Apparently in your world men don't ever leave women for other women who have "more" and/or all men & women are mutually compatible and interchangeable.

    And there is nothing what you can do about.

    There's a lot you can do. You can try to woo her back, or find a woman who isn't a jerk, or figure out why you're a jerk and then look for someone else. But not taking any responsibility for your situation isn't going to get you very far.

    My observation so far is its more the rule rather than the exception... One of the reason I left Western society for always.

    Yes, because your observations about Western society from OUTSIDE Western society are so credible. Ditto for your experiences with Western society as a (presumably) foreign-born racial &/or ethnic minority. Ever heard of "white privilege"? You (presumably) don't haz it.

    Greg Allen: *yawn* Give us a reason to believe you're everything you claim to be or wank your ego elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Greg:

    It's kind of ironic, you go out into the world and people really surprise you; they're never what you expect.

    The exception is people who think they're really surprising and interesting. Those people are pretty much all the same.

    Weren't you just leaving?

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Sal

    I don't get it. He targeted a political figure, and he had (incoherent) opinions on politics, but it simply doesn't follow from those two facts that he was motivated to kill by violent imagery in political rhetoric. I'm not saying I know what motivated him; in fact, I'm saying that given what we know, it's not clear at all what motivated him, and about the only thing that is clear is that the way he thinks doesn't make any sense to ordinary people.

    I think violent rhetoric is much more dangerous than it would be if our primary concern was that it could push people who are already psychopaths over the edge. I'm much more concerned that a much larger group of perfectly sane people use it to rationalize frequent, ongoing acts of violence, and there I think the causal connection is much clearer.

    The danger in trying to use Loughner as an object lesson is that we really aren't completely out to lunch like he is, and the take-away should not be that violent rhetoric is something that can motivate someone who's not like us, who we can't relate to at all, to commit violence.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Davey:
    I notice your posters do not provide any profiles. Many indentify themselves with a letter or a random collection of numbers and letters, that look like they just wiggled their fingers over the keypad, without even looking.

    How many of these comments are genuine responses? A certain percentage look as though you and a few other die-hards are simply chewing the feminist philosophical cud with one another.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Joe,

    it simply doesn't follow from those two facts that he was motivated to kill by violent imagery in political rhetoric

    Perhaps violent rhetoric wasn't specifically a motivating factor. You're right that no one can prove that at this point. Hopefully interviews with Loughner over the coming weeks can shed some light on this.

    Even if Loughner's politics were whacked, he still appeared to link (nonsensical) political opinions to the act of shooting and/or his choice of target. I'm calling that "political motivation".

    I do disagree that mentally ill folks are so completely unlike mentally sane people that we can't relate to them at all or try to understand their behavior. Loughner wasn't 100% insane--he still interacted with society. He bought guns and drugs and tried to enroll in school and the military. He planned and executed (no pun intended) an assassination plan. He also posted about a distaste for women and about political topics, then proceeded to shoot a female politician. It's reasonable to assume that strong negative opinions about the gender and/or Gifford's political actions played a role in Loughner's decision to target her, and now it's up to investigators to determine whether this is true and to what extent.

    Speculation by onlookers can get irritating, but I don't think it's pointless. It leads to hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence. From that we can figure out what (if any) changes could be made to reduce the future frequency of such events.

    I'm much more concerned that a much larger group of perfectly sane people use it to rationalize frequent, ongoing acts of violence, and there I think the causal connection is much clearer.

    Yes, it's downright scary.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Santo -

    I know, right? Makes it so hard to troll folks.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Yes, because your observations about Western society from OUTSIDE Western society are so credible."---Sal Bro

    What could be construed as a logical fallacy, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Santo-ey:

    You're the second person to show up in the last couple of days who thinks he's very clever for referring to me as "Davey." Maybe you're all the same person. Maybe this is all a dream.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Of course it is all a dream Daffyd.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Davey -

    Every day with you is a dream.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Sal

    First of all, thank you for actually having a real, on-topic discussion with me.

    Leaving aside Loughner, if you don't like violent rhetoric being used to justify violence, then what is your opinion of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? What about NATO's cluster-bombing campaign in Kosovo during the Clinton administration? The loudest voices in our political and pundit classes who have been railing against violent rhetoric this week have supported this kind of killing (and putting US troops in harm's way) all along. That's a much bigger deal to me, and the utter silence on it this week suggests that we have a much more serious problem with violence than most people are willing to admit, even after this latest headline-grabbing tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Yohan:

    You didn't understand me, I guess.

    I don't think all MRAs hate women. I think there are probably plenty of men out there who want to be able to be stay-at-home-dads and not get called names and stuff like that.

    Blanket statements like "All feminists hate men" are stupid. It's like saying "all Germans were Nazis" it's not true and it's stupid to say such things.

    ReplyDelete
  57. It all comes down to this.
    An evil white male empire exists today and all David has as evidence for it's existence is a stoner shooting a woman, a schizoid shooting a woman politician, and a blogger who calls himself evilwhitemalempire.

    ReplyDelete
  58. And let's not forget The Internet Hate Machine. Great evidence for an evil white male empire.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Mr Futrelle...

    Your's is the only new environment I have entered in the past fortnight and also the only one to which I have provided a particular email address.

    I'd appreciate an explanation for the several hundred items of spam that email account has received in the past twelve hours.

    You are the only possible source. Not a good look, mate.

    Readers should take note.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Greg, you are an idiot. This blog is on blogger. Any email you type in to post a comment is not seen by me.

    I was under the impression you were a super genius, so I'm not sure why you might be confused on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Not my field mate.

    I've subscribed thru blogger to post here. With a specific email address.

    Are you telling me blogger is the source?

    I'm serious about tracking this. Your's is the only new place or thing I've done on the net in weeks. THAT I do keep tabs on. If it's not you can you point me in the right direction.

    Let's get the bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  62. To add david. I DO apologise for my bluntless. I was way over-reaction to the f-n spam and was bloody seething.

    I'm not immune to the stuff but it's normally only a couple a day. This is unique for me.

    Hate the bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It makes zero sense to me that blogger would be the source of spam, but, like I said, I have nothing to do with it; if you put in an email address, blogger gets that, not me.

    ReplyDelete
  64. OK David. Thanks for that forebearance.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Men were targeted in assassinations for millennia, yet no one assumed it was because of misandry. Men will continue to be targeted, and again, it will not be assumed to be misandry. The vast, vast majority of political assassinations were and will continue to be men. The majority of murder victims in general are men. This one man's hate is no different than any other assassin’s hate. It may be tailored to a woman as opposed to a man, but it is no less or more dangerous.

    Women, including female politicians, are still far safer than men.

    Political rhetoric had little to nothing to do with this. People were killing those in power long before the internet and CNN.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ biscuit queen

    Very good observation. The gender of the killer and the victim in political cases is irrelevant.

    The best example we have in Asia is the killing of Indira Gandhi, who was assassinated by 2 men.

    Her son, Rajiv Gandhi took over the politicial function and he was killed by a female suicide bomber, 18 other people died as well.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Davey Wavey:

    Do you still write for Salon.com? Or do you work for Amanda Marcoote full-time now?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Yohan and The Bisquit Queen:

    Keep up the good work. Bravo and Kudos!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Oops, my comment was too long, so I need to break it up into 2 parts:

    wytchfinde555,
    What could be construed as a logical fallacy, btw.

    Yes, I worded that poorly. I meant to point out that it is unlikely that Yohan has enough current information about Western relationships to make a judgment about what outcomes are most common among them. Perhaps he can explain the source of his information. (Television and movies are not credible sources, btw.)

    Joe,
    First of all, thank you for actually having a real, on-topic discussion with me.

    My pleasure. :)

    [I]f you don't like violent rhetoric being used to justify violence, then what is your opinion of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? What about NATO's cluster-bombing campaign in Kosovo during the Clinton administration?

    I'm not a fan of war, particularly these wars and the bombing in Kosovo. I think these examples are different, though, because they are inherently violent acts. Speaking about them using violent language is necessary, given their nature. (Ironically, it's common for politicians to use euphemisms to avoid having to bluntly describe the violence involved in war.) This is different from using "reload" as a metaphor for "vote".

    The loudest voices in our political and pundit classes who have been railing against violent rhetoric this week have supported this kind of killing (and putting US troops in harm's way) all along.

    Well, arguably, if these politicians use violent imagery to talk about a war and some soldier is inspired to act on it, they'd consider that a good thing. It's effed up.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The Biscuit Queen,
    Men were targeted in assassinations for millennia, yet no one assumed it was because of misandry.

    Historically, a huge majority of authority figures have been male, which may be reason enough for a majority of assassinated leaders to have been male. Beside that, though, if we'd found "die man scum" written by one of those fabled man-hating feminists who then went on to kill a male politician, we'd be right to question whether the target's sex factored into her act. In this case, Loughner had written about hating women AND THEN shot a female politician. It's not freaking misandry to bring this up as a possible motive when there's evidence suggesting it might be true.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Is it misogyny to wonder that this politician was likely the only one having town hall meetings in the vicinity at the time?

    Seems more likely a cause than her gender.

    How often is a politician in one's town?

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I. M. Salos said...
    Yohan and The Bisquit Queen:
    Keep up the good work. Bravo and Kudos!


    Thank you, it's easy here, just to show some historical facts and to present some economic data, and finally to ask: I am a man, where are my privileges?

    To consider all MRAs worldwide to be bad, because a crazy guy was shooting a female politician somewhere in southern USA is anyway far over the top and cannot be considered as a serious argument.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I never heard that in case the victim was a male politician and the killer was a female (it really happens, a female suicide bomber in Israel, in Pakistan and India etc...) that this could have been done out of misandry.

    Sal Bro said....Historically, a huge majority of authority figures have been male, which may be reason enough for a majority of assassinated leaders to have been male.

    Not really true if you read about history in Europe, there were many highly influencial royals, who were females. Russia, France come to my mind or also Britain.

    http://bedfordstmartins.com/newcatalog.aspx?disc=History&course=European+History&isbn=0312154399
    The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots

    ... this brief narrative with documents explores a variety of important themes in English history, including issues of religion, nationality, sovereignty, gender, and the legitimacy of female rule.

    There are also many other examples of ordinary females being executed in the past (or you might call it better assassinated), like the lynch justice in the US or the witch trials in Europe.

    To call this 'misogyny' is rather pure fantasy of a feminist, bashing men for all and everything.

    The reason why these females were killed were politics, religion, racism etc. but for sure not misogyny.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Now you're just being obtuse. I didn't say misogyny was "more likely" than other plausible motivations. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to dismiss it out of hand given the evidence, unless you're trying to push some pet agenda.

    And Tucson has two congressional representatives, Grijalva (a man) and Giffords (a woman). They're on the same congressional calendar, and both have offices in Tucson. You have heard of Google, I assume.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Sorry, above is in reference to The Biscuit Queen's comment.

    Yohan, I said "majority" of rulers have been male. Your anecdotal evidence fails to address this.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Sal Bro

    To consider only the majority is not enough in history.

    You have to consider how long these women were holding power, how influencial was their personality and for how many victims they are responsible.

    For example Queen Elizabeth I was Queen for 45 years, this is equal to 10 presidents of the United States, who are elected only for 4 years.

    About victims, for example Queen Mary I was Queen only for 5 years, but sent over 300 men AND women into their death alone during the Marian Persecution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Waste
    Queen Mary I did not even spare the life of a blind woman and she was burnt at the stake.
    Lady Jane Grey und her father were also beheaded by the order this nice Queen Mary I.

    -----

    Maria Theresia was ruler over the Habsburg Empire for 40 years, it is said, she was very successful.

    Isabel de Farnesio was Queen Consort of Spain for over 32 years and responsible for the Spain's foreign policy.

    About Eastern Europe, Maria Amalie Auguste was the first Queen of Saxony and Duchess of Warsaw.

    Women for sure were not always powerless, helpless and oppressed, even not during Middle Age 300 to 500 years ago.

    I can give you 100s of names of women in the past who had a lot of political power, were rich and even sent plenty of men and even women into their death.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "The Biscuit Queen said...

    Is it misogyny to wonder that this politician was likely the only one having town hall meetings in the vicinity at the time?

    Seems more likely a cause than her gender."

    From the New York Times:

    Leaving an Impression

    At a small local branch of a major bank, for example, the tellers would have their fingers on the alarm button whenever they saw him approaching.

    It was not just his appearance — the pale shaved head and eyebrows — that unnerved them. It was also the aggressive, often sexist things that he said, including asserting that women should not be allowed to hold positions of power or authority.

    One individual with knowledge of the situation said Mr. Loughner once got into a dispute with a female branch employee after she told him that a request of his would violate bank policy. He brusquely challenged the woman, telling her that she should not have any power.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Here's the URL for the piece. The quoted parts are near the end:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?pagewanted=6&hp

    ReplyDelete
  81. Well, in this case I will admit it seems resentment towards women may have had a play in the shooting.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I challenge you to do so then Yohan.

    I can name the top female rulers in England starting with Matilda, Mary I, Lady Jane Gray, Elizabeth I, Anne, Mary II, Victoria and Elizabeth II.

    Mary was a co-ruler with William III of Orange.

    In the history of the country starting with Edward the Confessor, seven monarchs have been women.

    There have been a few Queen consorts with some power-Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach and well actually that is it unless you consider Elizabeth Woodville to have had power but then that would also mean Anne Boleyn had power. Neither of them truly did.

    In France, women were not even allowed to rule (which is why Eleanor of Aquitaine wound up married to Henry II) due to Salic law.
    Wiki only has 58 queen regents for Europe.

    So I want to see more names.

    ReplyDelete
  83. As more stuff comes out about Loughner it certainly seems like misogyny played a role in his choice of targets.

    It occurs to me that there is no clear line to be drawn between being disconnected from reality and bigotry. Bigotry thrives where people are cut off from the reality of the "other" by rigid social structures (e.g., apartheid)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis