Montreal Massacre - 20 years on

[Shryke]

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.

That does not logically follow at all.

The widespread fear of sexual assault exists among women but not among men has NOTHING to do with "women being valued less" and I can't even see how you leap that logical chasm.

Women are assaulted more. Violence against women is seen as worse then violence against men. Men are seen as "capable of defending themselves" (GRR! Manly Men! and all that bullshit)

Hence, sexual assault against women is more feared and seen as more serious and worse.

[Yagathai]

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.

OK, but there are other explanations for that particular data point -- like the Sansa's perceived misbehaviour and SPOILER REDACTED vis-a-vis her family added to the prevalence of rape as a tool of social control (and simple recreation) in the books. I mean, if you write a story about a naughty child and set your story in a spanking paddle factory, certain obvious correlations will be made, you know?

[Blaine]

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?

Because a crazy person can hang a framework on just about anything? What point does it serve blaming culture for what an insane mind interprets it to say to him? One could make the same argument for re-writing Catcher in the Rye or The Most Dangerous Game so it no longer appeals to assassins - but would that stop a single person from killing?

Not that you're advocating book-burning - but I fail to see how culture is to blame for one guy's craziness.

[Errant Bard]

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?

Isn't there a clear distinction between an ideology, and the extreme actions of fanatics of that ideology?

Islam, Catholicism, Communism, Capitalism, Chauvinism or any number of beliefs may preach some distasteful ideas, but when a nutter takes it too far, it is not the ideology's fault, it is the man's. It's just too easy to blame it all on a social construct when there are murders from all horizons of society, each with an agenda based on their own ideology, that a lot of other people share without being murderers.

I'm not saying that I don't find patriarchy and the idea of women as victims in our societies bad, just that one should not push it and make it the root of all evil, when the individual craziness plays the major, determinant role.

[Guest Raidne]

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 don't know how we got from a) to B) here. Yes, people get kicked in/hit in/have projectiles launched at the nuts on America's funniest home videos.

But portraying a guy getting raped is slapstick? I've only seen it on TV or in movies a few times, and it's among the more disturbing, not-at-all funny things I've seen on television.

[Datepalm]

That does not logically follow at all.

The widespread fear of sexual assault exists among women but not among men has NOTHING to do with "women being valued less" and I can't even see how you leap that logical chasm.

Women are assaulted more. Violence against women is seen as worse then violence against men. Men are seen as "capable of defending themselves" (GRR! Manly Men! and all that bullshit)

Because a lot of the violence directed at women is directed against them as women. A man and a woman are equally likely to be mugged in a dark alley. The woman is much likelier to be raped. Only women, to date, have been lined up and shot for being female engineering students.

[Yagathai]

But portraying a guy getting raped is slapstick? I've only seen it on TV or in movies a few times, and it's among the more disturbing, not-at-all funny things I've seen on television.

Oh come on. The number of drop-the-soap jokes, prison comedy scenarios, trapped-in-a-gay-bar scenes, Deliverance-style Dueling Banjo chords and "you've got a pretty mouth" in a given night of programming on television and in film are actually pretty darn high. If you're not seeing them, you're watching a lot of Gossip Girl to the exclusion of everything else.

[Guest Raidne]

Only women, to date, have been lined up and shot for being female engineering students.

Call me crazy, but I think you can put your mind to rest regarding any possbility of it happening in the future, also.

[Yagathai]

Because a lot of the violence directed at women is directed against them as women. A man and a woman are equally likely to be mugged in a dark alley. The woman is much likelier to be raped.

Well yes, and a bank is much likelier to be robbed than a tourism board information kiosk. That not because criminals value banks less than tourism board information kiosks. It's simply that that's where the money is.

[Errant Bard]

Because a lot of the violence directed at women is directed against them as women. A man and a woman are equally likely to be mugged in a dark alley. The woman is much likelier to be raped. Only women, to date, have been lined up and shot for being female engineering students.

I don't get how it ties to any judgement of value.

You might as well say that because between a 100$ bill and a 10$ one, the 100$ is much likelier to be stolen then it follows society values 100$ bills less. Maybe I'm not seeing this in the right optic, I just don't get it.

Oh right, I cannot not be insensitive and miss that: I would be surprised if men were shot for being female engineering students. :P

[Guest Raidne]

Oh come on. The number of drop-the-soap jokes, prison comedy scenarios, trapped-in-a-gay-bar scenes, Deliverance-style Dueling Banjo chords and "you've got a pretty mouth" in a given night of programming on television and in film are actually pretty darn high. If you're not seeing them, you're watching a lot of Gossip Girl to the exclusion of everything else.

Never seen it. But thanks for bringing up Deliverance. *shivers* That one is definitely up there. I've never seen humor of the "oh noes I'm in a gay bar I guess I'm going to be forcibly sodomized" variety. I've heard "you've got a pretty mouth" et al just as often as I've heard similar comments about women. YMMV.

[Shryke]

Well yes, and a bank is much likelier to be robbed than a tourism board information kiosk. That not because criminals value banks less than tourism board information kiosks. It's simply that that's where the money is.

What he said.

You are making a crazy huge illogical leap from "women are more likely to be the target of sexual violence" to "Society values women less".

It doesn't make any sense.

[Bellis]

Well yes, and a bank is much likelier to be robbed than a tourism board information kiosk. That not because criminals value banks less than tourism board information kiosks. It's simply that that's where the money is.

I don't get it.

[Guest Raidne]

I don't get it.

I can't elaborate from my work computer, but actually, on this particular point, I believe it's Shryke and Yags who don't get it.

[Yagathai]

I don't get it.

Banks have money, tourism boards information kiosks don't. Banks get robbed, tourism board information kiosks don't.

Now substitute women for banks, men for tourism board information kiosks, and rape for robbery. What do women have that would be appealing to a rapist that men don't have?

[Datepalm]

Well yes, and a bank is much likelier to be robbed than a tourism board information kiosk. That not because criminals value banks less than tourism board information kiosks. It's simply that that's where the money is.

I'll leave serial rapists/killers out of it, since IIRC, thats not really so much about sex, as such, but take assaults, domestic violence, date rapes, etc, theres nothing stopping a woman getting a gun and threatening men, but the point is, it happens much more rarely, and likewise, no deranged feminist has devalued men to the point of going on a shooting spree of them either.

Was the shooter mostly to blame - sure. But he was also influenced by a culture where there were plenty of messages telling him that women didn't deserve "his" place.

[tzanth]

Bellis, thanks for posting the video. Just finished watching it; very thought provoking. The part where the female news anchor vigorously denied that the massacre was a crime against women was especially shocking. The fact that this was made in the mid 90s makes you wonder about the affect of the internet on the framing of mass media stories like this one.

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.

Of course it does. This guy went out and murdered female engineering students because he saw them as a threat to his chauvinistic worldview. Misogyny was at the very core of this crime. Where else do you think he got such ideas if not from a culture which constantly bombards us with stories and images about violence against women? You seem to agree that sexist culture is intrinsically violent. Why would you accept rape, domestic violence etc. as a part of sexist culture by deny this crime as an extension of such hateful ideology?

[Yagathai]

I'll leave serial rapists/killers out of it, since IIRC, thats not really so much about sex, as such, but take assaults, domestic violence, date rapes, etc, theres nothing stopping a woman getting a gun and threatening men, but the point is, it happens much more rarely, and likewise, no deranged feminist has devalued men to the point of going on a shooting spree of them either.

Was the shooter mostly to blame - sure. But he was also influenced by a culture where there were plenty of messages telling him that women didn't deserve "his" place.

I'll give you that it's much more rare, but certainly your statement that "no deranged feminist has devalued men to the point of going on a shooting spree of them" isn't quite accurate. Just off the top of my head, Aileen Wuornos springs immediately to mind as a female killer motivated by misandry.

[Bellis]

Banks have money, tourism boards information kiosks don't. Banks get robbed, tourism board information kiosks don't.

Now substitute women for banks, men for tourism board information kiosks, and rape for robbery. What do women have that would be appealing to a rapist that men don't have?

You're making a different assumption about the rapist's motivation than I am.

However, a locked bank might be less easy to break into than an unlocked kiosk, but now I'm really mixing metaphors.

Basically women are in general assumed to be easier marks.

[mormont]

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.

Yes. This is fairly basic criminal psychology.

That's twice now you've alluded to some specialist psychological knowledge concerning these issues, but you haven't explained your point or provided sources. Now, since my degree's in psychology and I did a course on criminology as part of it (albeit nearly two decades ago) I find this somewhat frustrating. Could you please elucidate?

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

As I understand it, there is also a difference between a 'serial killer' and a killer of the type being discussed, i.e. a random mass shooter. Not to mention between a politically motivated assassin and a 'normal' murderer: insofar as the latter thing can be said to exist. (If he does, by the way, he is almost certainly a man and he is pretty likely to have murdered a woman known to him.)

OK, but there are other explanations for that particular data point -- like the Sansa's perceived misbehaviour and SPOILER REDACTED vis-a-vis her family added to the prevalence of rape as a tool of social control (and simple recreation) in the books. I mean, if you write a story about a naughty child and set your story in a spanking paddle factory, certain obvious correlations will be made, you know?

The trouble with this explanation is that I seriously can't think of a significant female character in the series about whom I have not read the old 'she should be raped' line. Cersei? Check. Dany? Check. Arya? Yup. Cat? You bet. Arianne? Yes. Brienne? Yep. Even Lyanna, if memory serves. Meanwhile, I can think of only one male character who's had the same.

On your latter point, that would stand up better if a comparable threat were often used for male characters: say, disfiguring injury. That happens a lot to male characters in the series - but strangely very few use it as a tool to express their dislike of that character.