George Sodini, the crazed lone gunman du jour.
The Pennsylvania Gym Shooting—note how quickly these things acquire proper titles—is just another event in a familiar parade of American gore. Another heavily armed loner/psycho lets loose with real fire power. Result—tragedy, carnage, and a blip on a 24 hour cable news cycle.
That the event garnishes that much attention is because the victims were mostly (I haven’t seen the usual photo gallery of victim photos) middle class suburban white women. Their killer was the lone white loon down the block. Black kids sprayed with automatic weapons on the streets of Chicago with similar body counts hardly make it to the front page of the local papers, let along mention by well coifed national news readers.
This event will be somewhat marginalized because it is assumed to be, perhaps, an over aggressive case of domestic violence. By some accounts an intended target, and perhaps one of the victims, was a former girl friend or a woman who had spurned shooter, George Sodini. And domestic violence, however worthy of a passing tsk-tsk or a third-rate basic cable movie staring the second lead of a 1980’s sit-com, is far too routine to hold our interest—or our indignation—for long.
But what if we look at this another way. What if this is the same kind of hate crime as say the Knoxville Church Shooting, the Abortion Doctor Murder, or the Holocaust Museum Shooting? The gunman in this case shared a lonely and alienated life, a history of mental problems, a violent temper, unlimited access to weapons—and most importantly--a clearly defined “enemy” to be destroyed. In each case, and in others like them, the shooters left behind screeds, manifestos or statements elevating their actions in their own eyes to a noble, self-sacrificing blow for vengeance.
In Sodini’s case he left a web page, since taken down by the authorities, that clearly outlined his grievances, his targets, and even the place and method of attack. Sodoni hated women—all women—for a life time of perceived slights and rejections.
What, pray tell, is the difference between misogyny, hatred for liberals, anti-Semitism, anti-abortion fanaticism, homophobia, racism, or any of the other group based hatreds and their attendant ideologies that motivate carnage in America?
Maybe Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Rielly, Ann Coulter, or Michael Savage have not been overtly winking and nodding at violence against women. That might be too much even for them. But all of them let slip the occasional disdain and contempt for uppity women. And the general American culture from slasher films to rap music (not that these folks ever listen to that) to popular country music ballads (which they probably do) enshrines such violence, especially when “the bitches had it coming” for alleged wrongs and slights.
So let’s acknowledge this for what it is: a hate crime. And let us adjust our outrage accordingly.




Gym shooting
(Anonymous)
2009-08-06 01:05 am (UTC)
Joel Monka
Why Women Can't Get Elected to UUA Presidency
2009-08-14 12:21 pm (UTC)
But to get back to your point --- and it's such a good one -- about mysogyny as a hate crime, this would mean stepping away from what is called "exceptional feminism." This idea that women have unique and special "ways of knowing" just flips the old Victorian idea of woman's "innocence" and "purity." Her responsibility those virtues is to stay away from those corrupt male aspects, like self-assertion and individual decision-making. Testosterone as original sin? Sons taught to hate themselves as sinners by -- whom -- over-protected mothers? Fathers hog-tied by their parental generation?
Well, I'm rambling a bit here,but you get my point. Here is where I'll take it, of so many places it could go. Exceptional feminism somehow got merged with Rogerian therapy models in the 1980s to create a model of ministry which has prevented worthy women -- nor four in a row -- from being elected president of our association. I have liked some and disliked others, but thanks to your post, I understand that we are afraid to elect a woman to this office because we cannot let ourselves put a woman into an office so many of us love to hate. We prefer them in quiet pastors' offices, listening and consoling, or in affirmative pulpits, shaping their undoubted wisdom and education around life stories.
When the male ministers did it a hundred years ago, they were considered expansive -- because everyone knew they could kick up the testosterone when they had to.
Women have the same hormone in our mix. What are we going to do about it?
Because whatever I think of them as individuals, my esteemed friend, this cycle of aspiration and rejection is starting to look like a hate crime within our own mix.
Thanks for taking this on.
Interesting...
2009-08-17 03:07 pm (UTC)
I know some women took the rejection of the fourth female candidate as a slap in the face. I admit to being some what mystified by it in that, as you have pointed out yourself, the UU ministry has been largely feminized, not only in sheer numbers, but in a style adopted by many male clergy. While some believe “prestige pulpits” and larger churches are still dominated by men, that, too, is changing. Women now lead many large congregations. And if you surveyed The Guild for the top ten ministers in general esteem of their colleagues and knowledgeable and active UU lay people, the two groups would come up with lists that while different, are probably dominated by women.
So why the glass ceiling? Especially when, like most religions in America, even the pews are disproportionately peopled with women. Hard core feminists might rail against “self-loathing.” But maybe your more subtle take is closer to the mark.
I was not active in the election that brought in John Buehrens to Beacon Hill, although I came to admire him. I was an active supporter of Bill Sinkford and of Peter Morales. I didn’t think I was rejecting the female candidate in either case. In the first case I found Sinkford a more compelling voice for liberal religion in the public arena and was pleased by his open—and in UU circles—daring call to enhance our use of a “language of reverence” that grounds our liberalism firmly in religious impulses. And this year I was simply struck by Peter’s clear eyed assessment of where we are and what we need to do to grow and evolve. And he rooted that plan not in Boston, but in the congregations. And I also felt that he would be independent of the Board enough to put the break on some of the tendencies which you know have alarmed me in the recent past.
So my oh-so-logical head tells me my choices were guided by issues, not gender. But no one knows what dwelleth within the human heart, least of all the host of that throbbing organ.