I wrote a public Facebook post in the middle of the night to express my middle of the night feeling of horror at the state we’re in. I’ll put it here too, because this is the state we’re in and it is horrifying.
——————–
I’m beyond appalled, horrified, staggered. I don’t have the words to name my thoughts on the fact that we know racist violence when we see it – we don’t get ostensibly-reasonable people trying to argue that white guys dragging a black guy behind a truck to kill him is not about racism. We don’t get ostensibly-reasonable people trying to argue that Matthew Shepard was not beaten to death because of homophobia. Why THE FUCK are we getting so many ostensibly-reasonable people trying to argue that Rodger’s murder-spree was not about misogyny?
Apparently we just really are that…expendable.
———————————————————————
It’s produced an excellent discussion. One comment in particular I got permission to publish here; it’s by Michael Šimková.
I’ve noticed in many spaces heterosexual men claim to hate women and at the same time desire them. That is another contradiction many people seem to intuitively understand and I find mystifying. This murderer actually ranted that he hated women because they would not let him love them. That is certainly not coherent using my understanding of love. My impression is that this makes sense to them because they understand women as a desired object, not a subject, and that is what they call love. It is similar to the feelings you might have about a car that won’t start when you were counting on it to get you somewhere. Many people become irate and scream and bang fruitlessly on the car. They hate the car, yet they still want the car.
That seems to be the standard model for heterosexual men now. To regard uninterested women as broken sex toys, and interested women as functional ones. This Rodgers certainly seems to have seen things that way. Under that paradigm, it makes sense to them to despise the same objects they desire and to vehemently reject the notion that their objects should have autonomy. That is also consistent with the legal status of women in most of the world and of history. Originally rape was a crime against the male owner of a woman, not the victim herself, as it sullied his private property. I still see Marxists argue that capitalists oppress proletarian men by hoarding women and that, come the revolution, women would be redistributed with the rest of the wealth, as there must be a 1-1 ratio of women to men because every man is entitled to a wife.There are endless such examples. All fundamentally seem to be about objectification, which is really nothing new, as feminists have said this for decades only to be decried “because objectification is good” and life would be boring without it.
I think that’s brilliant. Too bad it’s true.
In fact you do get similar arguments made. When there is a blatantly racist murder, lots of nice white people, even if they’re aware of institutional racism and the existence of far-out factions often get all uptight because they feel the moment is being used to bludgeon them with being on a continuum with same. And in the British case of a gang of Muslim men grooming white girls for sex, there was much debate over whether or not it was the right time to discuss the views on gender equality of British muslims in general. The fact is, all these things ARE on a continuum BUT they’re not the same thing AND it may or may not be an effective time to discuss them. I try to let myself be guided by my belief in the effectiveness of the discussion, which depends at least partly on existing tensions between groups and the possibility of deteriration. I’m not sure there’s much room for deterioration here.
Yeah. I just fail to see it as a contradiction. If you place no value on women, and don’t respect them, hate is not an unexpected reaction when men don’t get what they do value from a woman – sex, servitude, and ego-stroking.
Don’t lessen your outrage @ the rampant dismissal of misogyny one whit.
But getting ahead of the facts makes you dismissive of the rampant dismissal of heterosexism.
Don’t do that.
Crip dyke: Whom are you addressing your comment to, and what do you mean to say? I’m asking not to be challenging, but because I literally can’t parse your meaning or even whom you’re speaking to.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Crip Dyke, but you’re saying that this statement
is getting ahead of the facts, since there are indeed ostensibly reasonable people arguing that Matthew Shepard’s murder was not motivated by homoantagonism. And that ignoring the existence of these people is dismissing rampant heterosexism, much like how ignoring the people claiming that the coward’s killing spree was not motivated by misogyny would be ignoring rampant sexism.
I hope that helps, Josh. It made sense to me.
I thought this is way men have treated women throughout history, and it’s only now changing. Remember, these guys are nothing more than reactionaries. They aren’t a new thing. They’re an old, old thing.
I still see Marxists argue that capitalists oppress proletarian men by hoarding women and that, come the revolution, women would be redistributed with the rest of the wealth…
Jeez. I had thought that opinion died about when Wilhelm Reich did. What “Marxist” says that now?
Emotionally crippled men love women for their bodies, but hate the fact that there’s a person attached to those bodies, and they actually have to relate to another human being in order to get laid. Our society does a shitty job of teaching men to feel and respond appropriately to emotions, and that devolves into a whole shitstorm of irrational reactions and unrecognized cognitive dissonance. I am embarrassed by my antics before I finally started crawling up the learning curve, and I really wish I’d figured a lot more out before being a dick to people close to me. I’m glad I never did anything as unforgivable as rape at least.
Sorry, Josh. I was terribly unclear.
I’m always replying to the OP unless I give a commenter nym and/or comment number. But that’s not a reliable indicator, given how many people don’t follow that convention.
And unlike my (i hope) common practice, I didn’t include a quote.
Nonetheless SallyStrange got it right in #5.
I applaud Ophelia’s effort to take on the horrific misogyny avoidance in the consistent, persistent way she’s doing it. I just think that her statement, as reproduced by SallyStrange, is factually wrong and dismissive of how difficult the fight against heterosexism actually is.
Again, all lack of clarity is my problem not anyone else’s. Thanks for giving me a chance to make my intent clear, Josh.
And lovelove. Never read you enough.
I saw plenty of people claim that the Trayvon Martain murder wasn’t even murder and had nothing to do with racism.
I was shocked and appalled at that.
I’m appalled, but no longer shocked when a bigot murders the target/s of their hate and other bigots deny the connection between bigotry and violence.
It’s what they do. They perpetrate the problem while denying it exists.
PEOPLE are ‘entitled’ to their own, autonomous, sexuality. In such a situation ‘sex’ becomes (or remains) a range of personal interactions.
Between patriarchy and capitalism, no such situation is permitted to exist. We seem to grasp the notion that women-as-property are dehumanized and prevented from functioning is independent individuals. We do not seem to grasp that re-ifying ‘sex’ as a commodity has the same effect.
Our ‘normal’ culture treats sex as a Thing that men seek to acquire ‘from’ women. No genuinely ‘normal’ sexuality is possible under such a burden.
I read the article linked by Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden, and found this at the end:
Apparently Jimenez thinks that this discrepancy in sentencing was due to “the distorting effect of the media” mythologizing Shepard and turning his killing into a symbol of anti-gay hatred. I think most of us gathered here can think of another explanation. Need I connect the dots?
I could see the families of the four murdered men in this spree dissatisfied with the explanation for their murders is that the murderer hated women.
@Edward Gemmer, 13
So he hated other men, too, for having relationships with women.
The Nazis did not kill only Jews — does that mean they were not antisemitic? Racists hate white race traitors, does that mean they’re not really racist?
If a family member of mine had been killed by someone who left a book-length screed explaining how he hated women, I’d think misogyny had something to do with it.
YMMV.
@13-I may have missed it but I haven’t seen where the families of the murdered men have made any statement that they are “dissatisfied that the explanation for their murders is that the murderer hated women.” Particularly when the murderer’s own very lengthy explanation for his spree was that he hated women-and the men those women chose instead of him.
Gemmer, Rodgers explicitly and repeatedly explained his motives, so why would the parents of these men have any question about the reasons? It’s not like the explanation of the murders came from the police or DA. He told everyone why. I can’t think of a motive for your speculation other than that you’re a misogynistic asshat, but you’re welcome to try to dissuade me. Perhaps you have examples of other motivations that don’t make you look like such an asshole.
thascius @14,
The important thing is not whether there’s any comment by those families to that effect. Edward can imagine such a comment!
And Edward’s imagination of what a distraught family member’s opinion might be trumps any actual evidence of the murderer’s intentions, such as, you know, the vast paper and video manifestos he left behind.
Edward can also imagine some Romany families being dissatisfied with the idea that the Holocaust was motivated by anti-Semitism, so please ignore all those passages in Mein Kampf and Hitler’s public speeches that might suggest a connection. (And no, I don’t give a flying fuck about Godwin’s Law.)
Yes yes yes. Object, not subject. And that’s what they call love.
Beautifully said, Michael Simkova.
Also, doublereed is right. This isn’t a new thing. It’s an old thing.
I’m quite sure that Rodger regarded the men he killed or wounded—had he thought about it—as “collateral damage.”
Ms. Benson asked I stop commenting about this, and I will, but I don’t want people to think I’m just ignoring them. Obviously, Rodger had all sorts of problems with women. However, I’m just objecting to the idea that his was of thinking or influence can be simply reduced down to “he hated women.” That wasn’t the only factor – there were many factors. His profile matches that of many spree killers – angry, isolated, mentally ill. The misogyny aspect exists, but as more of a describer of his particular issues rather than the root cause of his problems. His roommates weren’t women and don’t appear to be the type of men he hated the most either, though in truth he pretty much hated everyone. But he stabbed his roommates to death not because he hated women, but because he was a sadistic murderer who felt murdering showed his “power” to others. That’s what he claimed in his manifesto, at least.
Gemmer @20:
Yes, we know. Have you not noticed that many of us are also expressing our disgust that it was so easy for him to get his hands on guns? And yet, we also think misogyny was a factor.
Wow, it’s almost like we’re capable of holding two thoughts in our heads at the same time. Almost like we understand the notion of multiple causation.
But surely that can’t be the case. Surely we needed you to come swooping in to reassure us about what the male victims’ families think.
At a minimum, we needed you to set the record straight correct the commenter who said that “the absolute, only, sole, factor at work here was misogyny.” Remind me who said that, though?
And you know this because….?
Amazing how in other threads, you’re very “cautious” and leery of drawing any conclusions, or using words like — gasp! — “entitlement.” Why, you’re the very model of a self-proclaimed “thoughtful, careful skeptic”! (Hint: that isn’t a compliment.)
But when it suits the point you’re trying to make, suddenly you’re qualified to make broad, sweeping conclusions about the exact hierarchy and interaction of all of Rodger’s problems.
Huh. Almost like you’re not sincere about any of this.
I think we’ve had enough of Edward Gemmer. He asked nicely so I gave him a chance, but I don’t want tedium here. Or to quote Miri’s new blog policy –
Yeah.