Misogynists on rampage

Moving this to the feminism forum.

I tend to wonder whether crimes like these come about because "men hate women" or "the media and society devalue women", versus whether men just don't know how to live among women, but heterosexuality forces them to.

In other words, I wonder how many gay men kill women, versus heterosexual men.  A general hatred, or a socially-promoted hatred, would (or should) affect men equally, and if so, you'd expect similar rates of gay and straight men killing women.  If not, then I'd suggest that the pairing of men with women is part of the problem, not specifically hatred of women itself.

To put it another way, if Sodini were gay, and couldn't find any gay men who would date him, would his anger still bubble over to killing women?

The other issue, of course, is that killing a bunch of people is the American answer to everything.  Laid off?  Get a big gun and go shoot as many co-workers as you can.  Fail a course?  Go get a big gun and shoot your professor and as many fellow students as you can.  It really seems to be the U.S. answer to any time one feels hard done by or disrespected (and it's certainly gendered).

Quote:

What does this tell us about a culture that keeps selling to men the dream of universal sexual access to women?

I can only conjecture about this, but I would bet that if Sodoni had a wife or girlfriend he wouldn't demand, nor feel entitled, to sexual access to the other 3 billion women, nor would he have murdered four women. I doubt he expected a harem.

Now I suppose that brings up the question of "entitlement" to a wife or girlfriend, and that's an interesting question. I've known at least one person who's made it into his forties without ever having had a girlfriend, or sex. I know it bothers him, and I know that to some degree he blames women for this and is angry (and for what it's worth, it's my thinking that that anger and resentment is like a smell on him, but I digress). I don't know if it really is "entitlement" to want to pair off as most everyone else seems to.

When we speak of things other than love and companionship, like money or opportunity, we seem to understand that if you deny people those things for their entire lives, they'll resent you for it, and perhaps even attack you for it. I'm most definitely NOT condoning or excusing men who attack women, but I wonder if there might not be any parallels there. We all only get the one life (Buddhists notwithstanding) and if, for some reason, I were destined to spend mine alone and die alone, I don't know how resentful I'd be, or who I'd turn that resentment toward.

In respect to the missives of this very troubled and now dead person, the following stuck out to me:

"Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid."

That some so called "Christians" believe this, and thus condone their own unjust, at best, actions, boggles the mind. That he used this to massacre and terrorize women is troubling.

The man in AB was also "Christian", of the type that betlittles women too.

Actions of this type must be viewed as actions of hate against an identifiable group.

I think you're oversimplifying, Martin. 

There's a difference between not being "sexually serviced to their heart's content" and being so socially backward that you can't find a partner ever.  That doesn't mean, of course, that you have the right to have a relationship with someone, nor does it mean that it justifies going out and killing a bunch of women because none of them paid attention to you. 

That said, there are lots of guys out there who DO believe, somewhere deep down, even if they don't know it and would never admit it even to themselves if it was said plainly, that it is the duty of their partners to sexually service them on demand - or to at least do so on a schedule they consider "normal".  And while most of those who have internalized this expectation don't go on killing sprees, or even rape women, the fact that the expectation is there is enough to make them feel resentful when they don't get what they want.

I'm not sure that Sodini was "responsible for his isolation", any more than I think anyone with psychological or socialization problems is responsible for the effects of it.  How he chooses to deal with that isolation and react to it is, of course, up to him.  Unfortunately, in a society where male aggression is glorified, expectations of sex and relationships are normalized, and individualism and "personal responsibility" is the framework, then people's psychic distress when they can't get what society says they must have gets ignored, people don't get the help they need, and the people who can't cope for whatever reason (like this guy) go undetected until he goes off on a killing spree. 

Because his expectations and resentment of women who don't live up to them is basically normal in our society.  It's his reaction to it that is abnormal.  So the popular thing to do is to focus on the reaction and turn this guy into a monster instead of dealing with the socialization he (and the rest of us) experience.

Excellent post michelle, though I am not sure if it is just not a broadening out of what martin is stating with his succinct "type of honour killing".

The/some men are still feeling defamed, in your situation by the  females, who do not meet their sexual expectations, internalized or not. It is a "problem", for some of them, hence the resentful feeling. They are taking it personally (aka "problem with it") as an action against themselves, as such, "honour" is hurt, especially if they believe other men are getting it more/better than they are and might think less of them, if the truth were known.

In Sodini's case, the resentment is that women are getting it more than him. And that women aren't choosing him.

One of his angriest posts is a response to his realization that there are teenaged females who have had sex more than he has had at the age of 48. Nothing about the young males.

He is watching all these women have sex. He is masturbating compulsively. He is angry that it's supposed to be his job to pick and choose as the man. And yet he sees himself picked over by 38-million women. He has no opportunity to reject. He is rejected. To right this wrong - his wallflower syndrome, his feminized position - he must assert his masculinity and put women in their place symbolically. He has lived alone. He cannot die alone. He must take women in death, as he failed to in life.

writer wrote:

In Sodini's case, the resentment is that women are getting it more than him. And that women aren't choosing him.

One of his angriest posts is a response to his realization that there are teenaged females who have had sex more than he has had at the age of 48. Nothing about the young males.

He is watching all these women have sex. He is masturbating compulsively. He is angry that it's supposed to be his job to pick and choose as the man. And yet he sees himself picked over by 38-million women. He has no opportunity to reject. He is rejected. To right this wrong - his wallflower syndrome, his feminized position - he must assert his masculinity and put women in their place symbolically. He has lived alone. He cannot die alone. He must take women in death, as he failed to in life.

Excellent post writer. I would add to this that many mass murderers often murder those who are up one rung of the class ladder. Women represent the objects that he cannot have. Many mass murderers believe that by killing a certain class's most precious assets (women - as killers see them) they are in an act of rebellion, against society as a whole and in particular against those to whom they seeks to emulate.

Elliot Leyton wrote in Hunting Humans, that the basis or root of the mass murderer's angst is the denial, isolation and rejection they feel from the class they are trying to emulate. While I do not agree that his assesment is completely true, I do believe that men who kill like this have a deep hatred for those who they see as better than them, and will strike out by killing their most precious assests (daughters and wives).

Perhaps it is the very way that society treats women, as objects to be preserved, as agents with no real agency, as objects of desire... that drives these men. They truly believe that if they kill these women, they have gotten one over on society.

The United States has the highest mass murder killings in the entire industrialized world. There is a reason for that. Leyton posits that reason lies in the massive class imbalances. I don't think it is that simple, but I think his argument does have some validity.

"that bizarre notion that 30 million U.S. women rejected him personally and need to pay for it....as if women's lives and interests never entered the picture."

I think there is a sliding scale of male perceptions along these lines.

The journals do shed a lot of insight.

What is clear, is that he felt that life had nothing to offer him, and that his self-worth was dependent on obtaining sex and a relationship. At no point, at least in the excerpts here, does he lament a lack of frienships with other males.

Marc Lepine felt a similar frustration when it came to being rejected by women. I think that many people, particularly in big cities, feel this loneliness, although very few fortunately, decide to end their lives in such a selfish manner.

I hate to blame anyone but the perpetrator in this instance, however:

Our transition from small towns to big cities leaves a lot of people alone. Those that aren't attractive, or funny or interesting are often ignored, forgotten and alone. There is a real lack of community that exists in big cities, that allows people to sink to such depths.

Our society, and our media (shows such as Entourage) place a lot of emphasis on having sex with beautiful people, and some mistake that for a good indicator of success and happiness. This is only one sad consequence of that sentiment, while there are many others that are much broader, although less disproportionate in their suffering.

I don't really see much significance in his religious ramblings, although I am sure that there are many that will find some. They don't really make any sense - much like the ramblings of a man grasping for hope when death is so close.

Thanks for that, Tamar.  Excellent.  And moving.

Keystone, I don't think you were "blaming anyone but the perpetrator".  I thought your post was excellent, and it describes some of the societal factors that go into creating a Sodini, or a Lapine.  Thanks for your post.

I've been reading this thread for the past 2 days, and other comments on the internet about this incident.

I don't have too much to add, but I want to thank writer for her words above, and Tamar as well.

Michelle wrote:

 I'm curious about WHY certain men become murderous misogynists and others don't.

Not only am I also curious about this, I would really like to know what we can do, both as a society, as well as what other men can do about such men.

I think it's been said already, but I'll add my part. Misogyny, thoughts and actions, are on a continuum. At the far end is not "completely free of misogyny, but "struggling to rid one's mind of misogynist assumptions and lies". And men and women internalize misogyny of course. At the other end, the end that GS was on, is one extreme form of what misogyny looks like. We can't just lop off that end and it's all better.

His ramblings are a rather perverse "understanding" of Pauline and Jamesine (?) theology mixed in with Reformation/Catholic Reformation debates.

I wrote this in a discussion I had on my Facebook wall, and feel it applies here:

I do agree they are different, Sodini and Lepine. But I feel they both felt they had rights that were promised them by society, that women had frustrated and refused to grant or allow them access to. They both felt wronged by this, and had to set the record straight.

---

YouTube vid about emotions, in which he refers to his dating guru - and younger women

his dating guru, who preaches about hooking up with young women

fricking religious women-hating nutjobs that seemed to help shape Sodini's world view

Thank you Tamar.

~

Of note,  there is no excuse for his actions, contained within my statements about his "religious beliefs", it is just a component of how he was able to excuse his planned actions. For other men it would/could be a different one.

I agree maysie about the sliding scale, or as you put it, a continuim, of misogynistic thoughts and feelings, and trying to get rid of the extreme end that this man was on, will do nothing.

It is greatly disquieting to realize that the numbers of women killed by men is rising steadily, and this has happened on the backdrop of California striping the funding from their domestic violence programs.

Quote:

I think it is very important to discuss the problem without "buying" Sodini's mindset as one does when writing "When we speak of things other than love and companionship, like money or opportunity, we seem to understand that if you deny people those things for their entire lives, they'll resent you for it, and perhaps even attack you for it."

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "buying" his mindset. And your comment kind of reminds me of people who object to what they believe to be others "buying the terrorists' mindset" when looking at causes of terrorism. Sure, it's gross, but unless you can briefly see the world as they see it, how will you understand their motivations? If they saw the world as you or I do, they wouldn't be killers. 

For the record, I, me, personally, do not believe that this man was hard done by, but clearly he believed he was, 

Quote:

So, let's be clear that no one was "denying" him love and companionship.

We're clear on that. 

It seems to me that he was an older, angrier, more violent version of the younger men who believe that "women don't like nice guys" or "women SAY they like a guy with a sense of humour but really they only like the jerk with the Porsche". Having met a number of such guys in my life, it's seemed to me that they all have a strange sense of the dating game as being like some kind of job application or something; if you have the "qualifications", you're supposed to get the job, and if not then something unfair must have happened... the "game" must be rigged! Nobody ever seems to reflect much further than pointing out that they believe themselves qualified. 

Sodoni himself rants that nobody would tell him what was wrong with him. Did he really believe he could have listened? That he could ever have understood? I'd bet a handful of money that somewhere at some time somebody tried to tell him and he dismissed it. I see this as congruous with a modern inclination toward externalizing all failures. Nobody ever misses out on a promotion because they have poor people skills, it's because the boss gave the promotion to Bob, the ass-kisser! Nobody ever gets a poor mark on an essay because they did poor research and can't write, it's because the teacher has it in for them! And nobody fails at dating because they're so angry and resentful that it leaks from every pore, it's because women have conspired to deny them.

Quote:

I'm curious about WHY certain men become murderous misogynists and others don't.

Here's my totally speculative guess:  isolation.  I think it functions as an echo chamber, magnifying and amplifying these guys' screwed up thinking unopposed.  I'm sure there are many other required factors too, but I think isolation is the deciding factor.

Re: the love guru and the younger women fixation, it jumped off the screen at me when Sodoni said that there are 30 million "desirable" women in the United States.

Isn't that always the way, with the poor lonely hearts?  It's not that everyone rejects them, it's that the cheerleaders and supermodels reject them.  Plain Janes don't even make the equation.  There's something ironic about people who feel unfairly dismissed, dismissing.

 Writer, thanks for posting the link about the last book he read. From what little I gleaned from the part of his writing that was posted I was thinking that more then likely followed that sort of strident sexist theology but since it wasn't there I didn't say anything about it. That article makes it quite clear that it was definately part of it.  Whether he gravitated to it because he already believed that way in a sort of act of  confirmation bias or whether it was  a formative factor,  I suppose would be a question. It sure as hell didn't help.

Read the links of writer's, and  frankly they are even more disquieting about the non-safety of women. From the  so called "Minister/pastor"whack, to the old man pedophiles, one can see the threat to women's safety in all its disgusting  and frightening parameters.

And as it is quite obvious there is a huge market for this shit, one has to expand one's realization of just how many men, come from this internalized position.

How so?  

edited:  I mean, how was he not isolated?  Or how do you figure that isolation wasn't a factor?

"let's also make sure that we're discussing this not as an isolated crime - but as one part of an incredibly dangerous, culture-wide problem."

And as girls and women continue to be even more objectified in men's minds, and not worthy of opinions and perspectives, nor even life, it will get worse.

martin dufresne wrote:

Right. Which, scarily, gives the lie to the "isolation" rationale.

edited to add: I wrote this before you edited this post and think I may have assumed you were referring to something that you were not ie the 'religion' stuff.  I'll just leave it up anyway if that's alright. 

Not necessarily. Without knowing more about his history with religion it's difficult to tell which came first or whether it was some sort of concurrent formation.  Religion can be and for many a draw because it speaks to combat feelings or isolation and not belonging. One of it's main core beliefs is 'you're not alone.'  There is however so many variations particularly in the realm of Christianity there is something for everyone and it's easy enough to find something or someone 'religious' who confirms or explains what one might already be thinking or believing and give whatever it might be cosmic validity.  Sexist, misogynistic already? Well there's a church for you. Homophobe and think gays are a problem? Most definately lots to choose from.  Want to feel okay about you're greed and wealth and need justification or feel comfortable for not sharing? Find you're nearest church that preaches the Prosperity Doctrine. Feeling like all the immigrants are responsible for you not being successful? Attend or read about 'KKK like relgious theology'  Heck just surf the net and it's easy to find anything that will support preconcieved beliefs or worldviews.

 Take for instance the quotes from Writer's link about Thiemes beliefs being based on certain passages. Deplorable, but even with a quick google search there's quite literally hundreds of interpretations of what just that passage means in the whole 'religious' scheme of things.  My point I guess is that someone already perhaps feeling isolated and perhaps that already has real misogynist issues and is feeling maligned is going to gravitate to the ones that 'explain' it in a way that they may already understand and percieve to be reality.  That there might be an interpretation that speaks more about equality or something different entirely isn't necessarily going to interest them or they're not going to bother to look any further.