Montreal Massacre - 20 years on

[Yagathai]

That's certainly a reasonable explanation, but not one to which I subscribe.

[Bellis]

Further to the point that I think King Nobody would be trying to make if he were, well, better at making points that hold up to scrutiny, I should point out that when it comes to sexualized violence in mass media, while women are much more likely to be depicted as the victims of sexualized violence, they are far less likely to be the victims of sexualized violence for comedic effect. The majority of (for example) genital trauma, nipple twisting and forcible sodomy or threat thereof for sake of a joke are portrayed with men as the victim, whereas those same activities when portrayed with women as a victim are treated in a serious and usually condemnatory fashion.

This is a problem. Sexual violence (or the threat thereof) should not be tolerated for comic effect, whether the victim is male or female. It is a huge problem that because of this, male victims of sexual assault or domestic violence are much less likely to come forward than female victims.

That said, I've never seen any posts wishing sexual humiliation or violence on the male characters in the series in the same way we get those suggestions routine with respect to Sansa.

[zollo]

Really? Hmmm...maybe I'm not paying attention. Because I have to admit, the whole western-culture-isn't-sexist-because-men-get-kicked-in-the-nuts-on-TV thing is new to me.

By the way, IMO, it features often in comedy because it's one of the few things that causes extreme pain at a level that wouldn't even come close to causing any lasting effects. This is the stuff of humor. End of story.

Ah, I misunderstood you - I took your post as an acknowledgement of the novelty of the concept of a feminism thread getting its share of "but oh noes will somebody think of the poor men?" - whilst you were actually aiming for the errr... nuts...

[Shryke]

Maybe becuase this kind of violence against men is exagerrated to the point of absurdity, and so is funny, while women being raped or having their bodies inapropriately grabbed by strangers, for example...is not an exageration of anything. (not saying sexual violence against men dosen't exist, but its rarer, maybe rare enough for the potential threat of it not to be something quite reasonably on many mens minds on a daily basis.)

And if you exaggerated threats of a women getting gang-raped, it would suddenly be funny?

Please.

Violence against women is just seen as more serious. It's not something to be publicly joked about on mainstream television. Unless it's women-on-women violence.

[TerraPrime]

So, someone please help me follow King Nobody's argument here.

There are depictions of violence in sexualized context against men in mass media.

Okay.

Then, what?

I'm not seeing the significance here.

That is similar to bringing up the stereotype of "white men can't jump" in a discussion on negative stereotypes on black people. What is the relevance? It really isn't in the same league now, is it?

A far more equalizing counter-example to use as a mass media slant against men, imo, is the continuing reinforcement of women's lives being worth more for saving in any number of disaster movies that trot out the line of "children and women first!"

Incidentally, I'd point out that there are several events in recent political climate in the U.S. that might bear relevance to this discussion. First is the incident of people bringing loaded rifles to Obama's rallies. In that case, the common narrative is that the incessant fanning of the anti-Obama rhetoric contributed to the event. The second one is the murder of the doctor who performed abortions, Dr. Tiller. In this case, it was rather accepted that the suspect committed the murder in no small part due to the rhetoric used against abortion providers, branding them as murderers. If we accept that Lepine's actions against female students at École Polytecnique is not a product of the anti-women rhetoric commonly applied to women in science, then does the same applies to the two recent incidents? Why or why not?

[Shryke]

Incidentally, I'd point out that there are several events in recent political climate in the U.S. that might bear relevance to this discussion. First is the incident of people bringing loaded rifles to Obama's rallies. In that case, the common narrative is that the incessant fanning of the anti-Obama rhetoric contributed to the event. The second one is the murder of the doctor who performed abortions, Dr. Tiller. In this case, it was rather accepted that the suspect committed the murder in no small part due to the rhetoric used against abortion providers, branding them as murderers. If we accept that Lepine's actions against female students at École Polytecnique is not a product of the anti-women rhetoric commonly applied to women in science, then does the same applies to the two recent incidents? Why or why not?

Because an assassination or the implied threat thereof is not a mass shooting.

Do not think of them as the same. Psychologically, they are quite distinct.

[tzanth]

I don't think the fact that he picked specifically women is any sign of a cultural thing at all.

This isn't some sign of our culture being ok with violence against women, any more then that recent Florida shooting is a sign of our culture being ok with violence against office workers.

Look, everywhere, everyday, peolpe are sexist cocknobs, they are racist fucksticks, they are fired, they are bullied, they picked on and all that other bullshit. But in the end, only a few crazy fuckers decide this is a reason to shoot up a bunch of people. It takes a certain kind of crazy motherfucker to do that.

Of course its a cultural thing. Clearly not every racist or sexist individual out there is going to go on a killing spree, but its the constant barrage of messages from such "normal" people that women/others are evil, stealing your jobs, taking your place at school etc. that provide psychos like this guy with a framework in which to act. Its ridiculously naive to try and divorce this guys actions from the wave of counter-feminism that was going on in the late 80s and early 90s.

It's just like datepalms example with the Rabin assassination; when you have a culture which is stating loud and clear that it sees Rabin as a Nazi to be murdered, or women as slaves to be put in the kitchen, its pretty hard to be surprised when violence finely surfaces. Saying that this was only the result of "one crazy person" is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to do something about the real problems of hate in our society. As far as I'm concerned, people that support misogyny, racism, heterosexism etc. are very much complicit when tragedies like this occur.

[Shryke]

Of course its a cultural thing. Clearly not every racist or sexist individual out there is going to go on a killing spree, but its the constant barrage of messages from such "normal" people that women/others are evil, stealing your jobs, taking your place at school etc. that provide psychos like this guy with a framework in which to act. Its ridiculously naive to try and divorce this guys actions from the wave of counter-feminism that was going on in the late 80s and early 90s.

It's just like datepalms example with the Rabin assassination; when you have a culture which is stating loud and clear that it sees Rabin as a Nazi to be murdered, or women as slaves to be put in the kitchen, its pretty hard to be surprised when violence finely surfaces. Saying that this was only the result of "one crazy person" is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to do something about the real problems of hate in our society. As far as I'm concerned, people that support misogyny, racism, heterosexism etc. are very much complicit when tragedies like this occur.

You are arguing against your own point.

Culture provides a framework for their violence, but it is not the impetus.

Essentially, culture didn't cause the violence, it just picked his targets.

So unless you think it would have been better if he'd shot up a bunch of random people rather then a bunch of women, I don't see how culture is to blame.

[Datepalm]

That's certainly a reasonable explanation, but not one to which I subscribe.

Thats...neither here nor there. Just come out and say it, please. What is your opinion?*

And if you exaggerated threats of a women getting gang-raped, it would suddenly be funny?

Women worry about getting raped all the time. Men, don't. Sexual violence against women (ok, against anyone, actually, but I don't think its getting out of the media soon, so percieved, by some, to be:) on any level, is just nevet going to be seen as funny by any woman (and most men, I think) becuase it hits far too close to home, just like portraying being in car crash is not funny - its real, its there, it can happen to you. But portraying a guy getting raped - thats played as just slapstick violence, as 'real' as getting hit by a piano dropping from the sky.

*I want to go on record as saying I believe this debate avoidant attitude to be promoted by the +/- button. As is everything else wrong with the world. :tantrum:

[Bellis]

*I want to go on record as saying I believe this debate avoidant attitude to be promoted by the +/- button. As is everything else wrong with the world. :tantrum:

From what I can see the +/- has not been used once in this thread yet.

Oh wait, I guess I was wrong. Raidne got all this love on page 2.

[Nous]

For events like this, trying to determine whether the particular motives of killers make them more loathsome is very academic. I'd not be quite as disgusted if he'd been an equal-opportunity killer, but that wouldn't make him a better person in any way.

Violence against men is far more socially acceptable that violence against women. You're safer from bystanders in a bar if you hit a man rather than a woman, and you're safer in prison as a killer of men rather than killer of women. Women have a non-combatant status of sorts--doesn't mean that they won't get victimized, just that people disapprove more.

[Shryke]

Women worry about getting raped all the time. Men, don't. Sexual violence against women (ok, against anyone, actually, but I don't think its getting out of the media soon, so percieved, by some, to be:) on any level, is just nevet going to be seen as funny by any woman (and most men, I think) becuase it hits far too close to home, just like portraying being in car crash is not funny - its real, its there, it can happen to you. But portraying a guy getting raped - thats played as just slapstick violence, as 'real' as getting hit by a piano dropping from the sky.

Exactly.

Sexual violence against men isn't funny because of how it's portrayed, it's funny because culturally it's seen as a joke. As something that doesn't happen. Violence against women, however, is viewed as something that exists and is troubling and therefore "not a laughing matter".

Although, obviously, it does actually happens LESS towards men then towards women (AFAIK).

[tzanth]

You are arguing against your own point.

Culture provides a framework for their violence, but it is not the impetus.

Essentially, culture didn't cause the violence, it just picked his targets.

So unless you think it would have been better if he'd shot up a bunch of random people rather then a bunch of women, I don't see how culture is to blame.

Chauvinist culture told him what to do, how to do it, and whom to do it against. Clearly the murder himself is ultimately responsible for his actions, but focusing only on him as some sort of psycho is to ignore the very real role that our misogynistic culture plays in propagating such violence.

[S John]

Of course its a cultural thing. Clearly not every racist or sexist individual out there is going to go on a killing spree, but its the constant barrage of messages from such "normal" people that women/others are evil, stealing your jobs, taking your place at school etc. that provide psychos like this guy with a framework in which to act. Its ridiculously naive to try and divorce this guys actions from the wave of counter-feminism that was going on in the late 80s and early 90s.

It's just like datepalms example with the Rabin assassination; when you have a culture which is stating loud and clear that it sees Rabin as a Nazi to be murdered, or women as slaves to be put in the kitchen, its pretty hard to be surprised when violence finely surfaces. Saying that this was only the result of "one crazy person" is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to do something about the real problems of hate in our society. As far as I'm concerned, people that support misogyny, racism, heterosexism etc. are very much complicit when tragedies like this occur.

See, this is interesting to me. More than a few people on this board found it 'disgusting' when it was implied that the ideas of radical Islam may have played more than a little part in the Ft. Hood shootings. Whats the difference? I feel like its considered acceptable to point the finger in some instances but faux pas in others.... which is why I don't think that blaming cultural influneces for a shooting spree is legitimate. It begins and ends in the mind of a crazy person.

[Guest Raidne]

Incidentally, I'd point out that there are several events in recent political climate in the U.S. that might bear relevance to this discussion. First is the incident of people bringing loaded rifles to Obama's rallies. In that case, the common narrative is that the incessant fanning of the anti-Obama rhetoric contributed to the event.

Not to get into here, but I just don't ascribe to the common narrative there. Those people are 2nd Amendment nuts. That is why they brought loaded rifles.

The second one is the murder of the doctor who performed abortions, Dr. Tiller. In this case, it was rather accepted that the suspect committed the murder in no small part due to the rhetoric used against abortion providers, branding them as murderers.

This is one narrative that I buy. I believe that elements of the anti-abortion movement actually directly promote murdering abortion doctors.

If we accept that Lepine's actions against female students at École Polytecnique is not a product of the anti-women rhetoric commonly applied to women in science, then does the same applies to the two recent incidents? Why or why not?

No, because nobody - even those against women in the sciences - advocates murdering women in the sciences. Not that I'm exactly grateful for the approach that they have taken, which is to label us as inherently less able in the maths and sciences, and then use our resulting anger as perfect example of irrational female behavior.

*I want to go on record as saying I believe this debate avoidant attitude to be promoted by the +/- button. As is everything else wrong with the world. :tantrum:

What Bellis said. I think that's one worry we can just lay to rest already. Speaking of irrational female behavior.

KIDDING!!! Just kidding! But seriously, once we really get into debating, I don't think anybody even really thinks about the plus or minus feature.

[Shryke]

Chauvinist culture told him what to do, how to do it, and whom to do it against. Clearly the murder himself is ultimately responsible for his actions, but focusing only on him as some sort of psycho is to ignore the very real role that our misogynistic culture plays in propagating such violence.

Oh please. Sexist culture doesn't propagate THIS type of violence. It propagates sexism and the inherent violence that entails. Of which a mass shooting is not a part.

Mass Shootings like this are not the same as raped, honour killings, domestic abuse or any of the various other kinds of horrific violence a chauvinistic culture engenders.

Chauvinistic culture didn't turn this guy into a mass murdered. It just gave him a framework on which to hang his mental problems.

[TerraPrime]

Because an assassination or the implied threat thereof is not a mass shooting.

Do not think of them as the same. Psychologically, they are quite distinct.

Really? This is your response? The two situations are not comparable at all because one case led to death of 20 people and the other led to none or one?

Chauvinistic culture didn't turn this guy into a mass murdered. It just gave him a framework on which to hang his mental problems.

I agree.

But then, why is it objectionable to talk about the cultural framework that directed his mental instability? In this specific case, his outlet was misogynistic views about women in science. Therefore, it is appropriate to talk about this issue in connection with this killing, no?

[Datepalm]

Exactly.

Sexual violence against men isn't funny because of how it's portrayed, it's funny because culturally it's seen as a joke. As something that doesn't happen. Violence against women, however, is viewed as something that exists and is troubling and therefore "not a laughing matter".

Although, obviously, it does actually happens LESS towards men then towards women (AFAIK).

Er, yes, we're agreeing, except I think the fact "humor violence" against men still finds an audience, meaning there are people out there who do find it funny, does demonstrate that the kind of widespread fear that exists amongst women of being sexually assaulted dosen't exist amongst men, which is evidence of a sexist society where women are valued less.

[King Nobody]

Really? This is your response? The two situations are not comparable at all because one case led to death of 20 people and the other led to none or one?

I wouldn't say they aren't comparable at all but I definitely think there is quite a difference between a political or ideological assassination, or threat of assassination and a crazy person murdering a bunch of innocent students.

[Shryke]

Really? This is your response? The two situations are not comparable at all because one case led to death of 20 people and the other led to none or one?

Yes. This is fairly basic criminal psychology.

The difference between a serial killer and a "normal" murderer is fairly distinct.

I agree.

But then, why is it objectionable to talk about the cultural framework that directed his mental instability? In this specific case, his outlet was misogynistic views about women in science. Therefore, it is appropriate to talk about this issue in connection with this killing, no?

It's "appropriate" in the same way it's appropriate to talk about Doom in relation to Columbine. I mean, it could come up, but it's missing the point.