Another school shooting, girls targeted again: a preliminary reflection

Third post of the day.

For the second time in a week, a gunman has walked into an American school, forced all of the males out, and then assaulted and killed female students.  It happened today in Pennsylvania, and last week in Colorado.   The Times reports on today's tragedy:

“There was some issue in the past” that had left the gunman with a desire to harm female students, Commissioner Miller said. He said that the murders were premeditated and that the gunman had called his wife — without telling her he was holding hostages in a school — that he would not be coming home.

It's not clear whether or not this shooting was inspired by the events last Wednesday in Colorado, where a male drifter in his fifties molested several girls before murdering one.   School shootings have often happened in clusters in the past, so it seems possible that the two events are related.  While the killers at Columbine High School famously targeted "Christians and jocks", these two shootings have targeted young females.  (It doesn't appear yet that there was a sexual element to today's event, unlike in the Colorado murder last week.)

I'm thinking this afternoon about Commissioner Miller's words about today's killer:

“There was some issue in the past” that had left the gunman with a desire to harm female students. 

As a pro-feminist gender studies prof, if there's one topic that depresses me more than almost any other, it's just how widespread male rage at women seems to be in our culture.   I have no idea what the "issue" was that the Commissioner refers to that would lead the shooter to target elementary-age girls.  I'm not sure what particular perversity led the guy in Colorado last week to sexually molest his victims before killing one of them.  But you don't need a degree in abnormal psych to see that these men were deeply, profoundly, angry at women.  Their victims were kids, but only female kids were selected.  They became the victims of twisted fantasies of disturbed men, men filled with some sick and horrific sense of revenge and "justice."

Do I think there's a legion of men out there whose fantasy lives are similar to those of the murderers in Colorado and Pennsylvania?  Lord God, I hope not.  I know that the misogynistic hatred that many men feel towards all women can be tremendously powerful.  Until this week, I hadn't imagined that adult men would target vulnerable girls in such terrible ways.  And while these men are obviously anomalies, they are not entirely alone.  We live in a culture where rape remains ubiquitous; where sexual harassment is a nearly-universal experience for many women in the workplace; where pornography that features the narrative of teenage girls being raped or overpowered is ever more available and popular.  I don't know what specific factors inspired these two shootings, but I do know that they are, in some as of yet inexplicable way, emblematic of a larger cultural problem.

I suspect a lot more feminist commentary is coming.  We just need more time to mourn and reflect.

I was talking to my wife about the Colorado school shooting the other day.  Without intending bravado, I told her that if a gunman came into my classroom and ordered me out, I wouldn't leave until all my students could go with me.   I asked her if she would want me to leave if we had kids of our own; after all, heroism is easier for the childless!  My wife told me, "No, you should stay, regardless.  There are some things even more important than living for your own children, and if you're a teacher, protecting your classroom is one of them."    She's right on, my wife.

As a teacher and a youth leader, I take protecting young people very seriously.  No one can really know what they would do in such a horrible situation, and it is my sincere hope that none of us ever face it.  But for those of us who teach and give our lives to young people, there is a sense that the classroom is a sacred space.  If someone is coming to hurt one of my kids, they will have to do it quite literally over my dead body.  That is not false bravado; it's the quiet but firm acceptance of the responsibility that my career and my avocation convey.

Comments

[wedge]

Happened three weeks ago here in Montreal as well. The victim also a young woman.

[jt]

I fear that a copycat phenomenon could be occuring here, and that more men will be inspired by these well-publicized events to act out in a similar way (i.e. random massacre of women). It's pretty frightening indeed. God help us all.

[justaguy]

Recognizing your gross hyperbole (e.g., rape is not "ubiquitous," but in fact quite rare in our society) for what it is - and therefore rightfully dismissing it as such - reveals once again the predictable response from feminists when such things happen: Rather than recognizing the reality that these men are extremely disturbed individuals who represent the most rare fringe of males, feminists jump on this like hungry dogs on a steak and use it to advance their campaign to malign and denegrate men. These people are no more representative of men as a group than Lorena Bobbitt, Clara Harris, Aileen Wuornos, et al. are of women as a group. All are profoundly mentally disturbed and should be seen as such. Further, stirring up paranoia and suspicion against men in women contributes absolutely nothing of value to society, especially for relations between men and women (which are already strained to the breaking point) and indeed just might contribute to the problem. Yes, we should be trying to understand why these people are going ballistic, but to use these incidents as a tool to incite suspicion and paranoia of an entire group is shameful. It's akin to what the whites in Atlanta did prior to the 1906 race riots. Hugo, I certainly hope that this is not the direction your hoping to take this topic.

As for your claim that "If someone is coming to hurt one of my kids, they will have to do it quite literally over my dead body," well, talk is cheap. We'll see what happens if - heaven forbid - you get the chance to put your money where your mouth is.

[thechief]

Hugo, I genuinely hope you never have to face a gunman in your classroom. But if you do, and it takes place after you have your own kids, you may find that there AREN'T "some things more important than living for your own children." Take it from somebody who actually has kids, your priorities change after you have one of your own.

Secondly you espouse pacificism, and I assume would oppose concealed carry of weapons (or, as some of us like to think of it, would support victim disarmament). That being the case, harming one of your kids "quite literally over your dead body" would be the easiest thing in the world. Your presence there, impotently insisting that the big meanie stop his evilpatriarchalracistsexist aggression, would only add up to one more dead body in the classroom.

[Anne]

I'd imagine that Bush's upcoming "address" on school violence will lead to increased security in schools - and I'm not against that. Above all, we need to protect the children.

But I wonder when we, as a society, will mature enough to start addressing the disease, not the symptoms?

These people, male, female, young, or old, are all ill. The "school shooter" kids who carry guns in their bookbags, these older men who have the world to choose from and, for whatever psychological reason, select children as their victims - they're all sick. And, yes, maybe there's some copycatting going on, but the fact that shooting up a school strikes all of them as the way to end their pain suggests there's some commonality in the psychology behind what's happening.

I'm not talking about universal access to mental health professionals (although I wouldn't fight it), I'm talking about us, as a society, taking a good look at our consumer-obsessed culture where "success" is measured in terms of your purchasing power and more companies make arrangements for their employees dogs to get care during the workday than for their children.

(thechief? I don't think you should dismiss Jonathan's position too lightly. These mentally ill people who invade a school to prey on children - it's not out of the question that, faced with an adult, someone who doesn't fit the profile they've mentally targeted, they might hesitate, or even draw back. Any moment during which a potential killer is not pulling the trigger is a life saved. I, myself, am childless and not a teacher - but I cannot fathom walking out of a room and leaving a group of children at the mercy of a potential murderer.)

[Hugo]

"Thechief" (what a typical handle for a men's right advocate, I gotta say), one thing I have learned from my years with the Mennonites and the peace church movement. Pacifism isn't passive (they come from different Latin roots.) When we stand with the force of our faith and our convictions, when we stand with Jesus, we may well find miracles. I know full well talk is cheap. I also know I'm a coward. But I've found in my life that faith trumps cowardice, many a time. That's been a great miracle.

Honestly, right now I don't want to discuss these shootings any further -- I'm just praying for the victims and their families.

[Burton]

As a pro-feminist gender studies prof, if there's one topic that depresses me more than almost any other, it's just how widespread male rage at women seems to be in our culture.

And what are some of the reasons for this male rage?

1) Women's sexist double standards. e.g., women who expect men to pick up the check when dating.

2) Women lying about using birth control in order to entrap men into marriage/child support.

3) Women making false charges of rape.

4) Women thinking violence against women is bad but ignoring their own violence againt men (check out V-Day).

5) Women extending the definition of "sexual harassment" to include just about anything they do not like men doing, thereby destroying the careers of many men.

As soon as women are willing to address their own sexism, the violance will stop.

[jt]

As soon as women are willing to address their own sexism, the violance will stop.

Of course ... no wonder prepubescent schoolgirls get shot in the head. It's because those uppity women want high-paying jobs but won't pick up the check.

Seriously, you're an embarrassment to your cause here.

[The Biscuit Queen]

The school shootings are tragedies, like all school shootings. It really is frightening that even in an Amish school this can happen. I imagine that has shaken them to the core.

It is likely either a coincedence or a copy cat that two people targeted girls in one week. If two shooters targeted boys within a week, I doubt there would be much outcry from feminists that there was widespread misandry and violence against boys.

As the first poster said, most HUMANS are generally decent folks. These people are the fringe elements, the incredably disturbed. We should be looking at ways to catch this before a killing spree, but sometimes we just can't.

While Burton may have not phrased things as I would, he is right in a way. Men are increasingly becoming angry with the world, with society, not just at women. Watching everyone from schools, government, law enforcement and the court system excuse women's bad behavior then claim they are powerless is frustrating. Everywhere violence against men is laughed at, romanced, encouraged and excused. Violence against women is condemned (as it should be), and even in the porn industry true violent porn is not the norm. Most men are NOT turned on by rape or assault. That is like saying most porn is pedophilia.

Has anyone here EVER seen a woman kicked in the groin, stabbed, bit or slapped in mainstream media and have it meant as comedy? Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles had an old woman getting punched, and the funny part was that it was meant to show just how low these men sunk, hitting an old woman. Even then they had to stop the punching so she could say "Have you ever seen such cruelty?"

Even for a woman it is frustrating to be treated as a child, like I am incapable of responsibility. If I ran over a man with my car, I should be jailed for murder, not let go and given therapy. If I rape a 14 year old, I should be put in prison for rape, not given custody and child support.

I am not sure if this general anger against society is a reason for these shootings. I don't think they are, I would think that would have been communicated otherwise. But who knows. There is only so far you can push people before they lose it.

That said, these girls did nothing to deserve getting shot. My prayers are with them and thier families.

[The Gonzman]

Well, Hugo - all I can say is if I was ever faced with surely saving the life of an innocent, or rolling the dice on both - I go for the sure bet. You never know when the dice of fate are going to land with both sixes down.

I might roll the dice if my own life was the only thing being bet, but I don't see me as having the right to unilaterally decide to roll the dice with someone else's on the line.

[The Happy Feminist]

Burton, I had no idea that "women" were a monolithic entity rather than individuals. Clearly, in that light, feeling rage towards "women" in general makes perfect sense.

Justaguy says: As for your claim that "If someone is coming to hurt one of my kids, they will have to do it quite literally over my dead body," well, talk is cheap. We'll see what happens if - heaven forbid - you get the chance to put your money where your mouth is.

Well, no kidding. But I think it's an ethically helpful thing to do to think about these situations in advance and to make a commitment in advance as to one's behavior. That way, you aren't considering it for the first time when the gunman shows up.

[nik]

I was really surprised when I heard about this. It is exceptional: in most hostage situations it's normally the women that get released and the men who are slaughtered when the situation degenerates into a bloodbath. Violence in these situations is gendered, but it's normally men who are on the receiving end. I can't help but think that part of the reason girls were targeted is because violence against them in this manner is thought of as so beyond the pale and horrific. If you want to do something really foul, killing lots of schoolgirls is really it. It was also strange to read Hugo channeling the most cliched macho crap at the end of the article.

[Uzzah]

While I tend to agree with a lot of what Burton and Bisquit Queen have to say about male anger, I think the problem with School Killers has more to do with what we've allowed our schools to become.

I'm sure more than a few of you here have not so fond middle and high school memories. Memories of bullys, or of hurts and cruelties dished out in ways that left scars that for some, have taken many years to heal, if indeed they ever do.

In many of these killings, a common theme has been that the kids (and now that they've grown up, adults) that did the killing were picked on unmercifully for years. Is it any surprise that some of these kids have grown up with mental health issues?

Kids can be heartbreakingly cruel and we've all known that for a long time. As a society, we've done absolutely nothing about it. In fact we've encouraged it.

I think framing these killings as some misogynistic statement, does both men and women a disservice, and minimizes the fact that these people were quite insane.

[The Gonzman]

As a former teacher, the end of Hugo's article is far from "cliched macho crap." I give the Doc a great del of grief when I think he has it coming, but that is beyond the pale, and the cheapest of shots I have ever seen. It is what one does when one is a teacher. If you aren't one, you wouldn't understand. If you are one, please get out of the profession, as you're a disgrace to it.

[jodie]

It's real easy to paste a "mentally ill" label on those shooters.

People always want to label evil as "mentally ill" because they don't want to have to realize the depth of depravity that a person can descend to, so that person must be "sick"; those acts couldn't possibly be deliberate.

It also tars all people with mental illnesses, that somehow they could just "snap" and turn from a kindly person to an evil demon.

It doesn't work that way. A mental illness does not make you cruel. And those murders were intensely cold and cruel.

I've worked with people with mental illnesses since 1990; I've never met a person with a mental illness who was capable of this sort of thing.

Both those men were able to negotiate society and jobs to some extent. The first shooter was too old to be newly diagnosed with schizophrenia, and there's no other evidence he may have had it.

The second shooter had a job and was negotiating society at least somewhat; while he may have been delusional (the "rambling" notes that were left), he was on top of things enough to have taken his own kids to the bus stop and then not do this at THEIR school (a school which he had to be more familiar with).

These were planned, deliberate acts which were not intended to do anything but provide some sort of revenge.

The small percentage of patients I've known with mental illnesses who were violent generally did not PLAN to be violent; something in their delusional system frightened them, and in trying to protect themselves, someone got hurt. Or they hurt themselves. Or someone happened to be in the way at a time when the person lost control. Or they trashed a room or put a fist through a wall. They did not purchase guns and ammo and round up a bunch of little girls (or anyone else, for that matter) for the purpose of killling them.

Can't you see the difference?

[nik]

Gonzman - do you think a female teacher would vocalise similar thoughts in the same manner? Do you think what Hugo said plays into no scripts about gender roles? I'm sure you're both sincere, but I don't think your affiliation with those feeling came about in a vacuum.

[Q Grrl]

Burton: you should get help. Now. Seriously.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jamiranda/whyLie.htm

I find it hard to believe that a sane adult would sanction the murder of girls.

Seriously. Get help now.

[The Gonzman]

Nik, I know a female teacher in a bus accident who refused to allow the fire department to rescue her until the children were safe.

You're the one trying to slap the label of "macho" on it, and attach shame to it.

[catty]

Nik, I know both male and female teachers. I have heard female teachers feel the same way with Hugo, it's not a gender thing. I was talking to friends who were (back then during Columbine's shooting) teachers, and this is a teacher's ultimate nightmare. A female colleague of a friend the very same statement about leaving her kids- "over my dead body."

By all means, none of us know what we will *really* do in a situation like that. Sometimes things happen so quickly that you don't have time to do anything but simply react- and not have the ability to think things through or act in that way that you *want* to. I have never met a teacher that didn't feel as Hugo does, and if they do- I agree with Gonzman that they need to leave the profession.

Burton,

so why are women pissed?

1) Men's sexist double standards. e.g., men who expect to get laid but call women with sexual experience whores.

Oh, and how about the men that assume paying for dinner = getting sex.

2) Men refusing to use birth control and dodging child support payments.

3) Men feeling rape is justified due to a woman's sexual history.

4) Men thinking violence against men is bad but ignoring their own violence againt women.

I can tell you, everyone feels bad if a guy gets shot by a mugger, but when a woman is raped, many guys blame the victim unless she's 12 or a virgin. Otherwise, we're suspect and possibly asked for rape.

5) Men denying the existence of "sexual harassment", thereby destroying the careers of many women.

As soon as men are willing to address their own sexism, the violence will stop.

Let's answer your question.

As a pro-feminist gender studies prof, if there's one topic that depresses me more than almost any other, it's just how widespread male rage at women seems to be in our culture.

And what are some of the reasons for this male rage?

1) Women's sexist double standards. e.g., women who expect men to pick up the check when dating.

If you don't want to pick up a check, don't. If you want a type of woman that's willing to pay, then you don't want a repeat date with a woman that doesn't pay, right?

I've always been prepared, and have paid for my date dinners the majority of the time.

2) Women lying about using birth control in order to entrap men into marriage/child support.

If she wants kids or wants marriage and you don't, stop f**king the woman, like now. Get out and find yourself someone that has the same view as you do. I've personally known guys that have been in this situation, and all of them were hanging around for the sex when they knew that the girl wanted marriage and they didn't. Women are wrong for doing "entrapment", but men are also wrong for continuing to use someone for sex, too.

Also, when birth control fails, women get blamed for "entrapment" even if it's not the case.

Yes, and there are also men that bully and beat women to try to get them to abort to have an abortion.

There are also men that refuse to wear condoms and bitch about having to "bag it up" to "get laid." I also don't hear too many men calling for better birth control for men. They consider this birth control thing to be a "woman's business." If this is such an issue, why is it that polls after polls show that men are reluctant to take any time of birth control pills, shots, or implants (like a male Norplant)? It's obviously not a big enough issue. If there was more of a demand for male birth control, there would be more research into it. So where are you in this matter? I've seen more WOMEN call for improved male birth control, and see it as vital and important for men to be able to expand their birth control options.

I know that pregnancy is a big issue for women- the birth control pill is one of the most prescribed medication for women in this country.

3) Women making false charges of rape.

There are false charges that happen with many crimes, not just rape.

4) Women thinking violence against women is bad but ignoring their own violence againt men (check out V-Day).

Women's violence against men pales in comparison to men's violence against women. The majority of women think violence is bad, period- except for cases of self-defense, for both genders.

5) Women extending the definition of "sexual harassment" to include just about anything they do not like men doing, thereby destroying the careers of many men.

If being considerate of the comfort of people you work with, and taking steps to make sure people are you can work in a professional environment is a BAD thing... well, I'd love to slap you back in time and keep you there.

You don't think women's careers were destroyed from men making the workplace an uncomfortable and hostile place?

Oh wait, only men matter... and women need to stay barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, right?

[carlaviii]

>Kids can be heartbreakingly cruel and we've all known that for a long time.

It makes sense to me that to avenge your worst pains, you would do it at the place where you suffered the most (or the closest approximation). For a lot of people, that would be at school.

And actually, I don't think that schoolyard bullying has gotten any worse or better over time. Maybe we should be wondering why people seem more likely to snap in this day and age.

[SamChevre]

Gonzman,

There a key piece of context--about this teacher and this school--that you are missing; it makes the teachers' actions much more comprehensible.

The Amish are absolute pacifists; they take "resist not evil" completely literally. One book you will find in every Amish home is The Martyrs Mirror, a list of tens of thousands of people who died without resisting their persecutors. Dirk Willems, who saved his pursuer from certain death at the cost of his own life, is probably the best known. So the teachers, by their own religious commitments, were utterly helpless.

[Hugo]

Sam, I think you're confusing pacifism with passivity too. I'll post about the distinction soon...

[The Gonzman]

It's just alien to me, Sam. I could no more stand by and watch my most determined foe get killed and do nothing as I could my own flesh and blood, even if they asked me not to. It would haunt me the rest of my life, and I'd feel like their blood was on my hands from a sin of omission.

[thechief]

Pacifist, passive, whatever. There's something we need to realize about pacifists in general, including the Amish: They can afford to be pacifists because somebody else is holding a gun for them. They can afford not to raise their hand against evil because somebody else--a police officer, a soldier--is standing between them and true evil. Somebody else will do the dirty work of keeping them safe, except for those awful situations where the system somehow breaks down, like yesterday in Pennsylvania. Then the pacifists are going to be toast.

"We all sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." George Orwell.

[Hugo]

Chief, I'm going to try and post on this tomorrow. A defense of the basic principles of pacifism does indeed seem in order.