Anatomy of a Massacre: No Shortage of Manliness
Monday, April 23, 2007 at 12:11 pm
- 12 Comments
It is human nature to try to figure out why bad things happen. Long ago, we blamed natural disasters on the capriciousness of the gods. The flood was caused by Poseidon’s wrath, the storm by Thor’s fury. Gifts were given to the gods, sacrifices of fruit, of animals, even of people, in order to placate them and turn their anger into love for their human charges.
Today most of us (Pat Robertson excepted) reject the notion that bad things happen because of an angry and vengeful God. And yet, when tragedy strikes, we still seek to find the pattern underlying the madness, our ultimate failing that led to our punishment by…well, we’re never quite sure, but we’re sure we’re being punished.
After Cho Seung-hui opened fire on his classmates in Blacksburg, Va., it was only natural for us to ask why. The primary answer — that he was a deeply troubled, possibly schizophrenic and certainly psychotic man who was operating outside the bounds of normal society — is unsatisfying and seems to beg more questions than it answers. And so some writers have seized on an explanation that has a mythic history as rich and powerful as any blameworthy figure in human lore: It’s the women’s fault. Not all women, of course, but specifically feminists. These horrid people have, we are told, upset the natural order. They have made women more like men, causing them to demand for themselves the same privileges and prerogatives that men alone have traditionally enjoyed. At the same time, they have demanded that men stop behaving like louts, thus feminizing them, making them more female, robbing them of their manly virtue.
National Review columnist John Derbyshire started the drumbeat by arguing that all of the students should have been armed, the better to kill the shooter. But that wasn’t his main point.
“Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals,” he wrote, “why didn’t anyone rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns, for goodness’ sake — one of them reportedly a .22.”
Nathan Blake, a writer for the weblog Human Events caught Derbyshire’s meaning and amplified it. “Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that.”
Now, you may think that blaming students for not rushing a man with two semi-automatic handguns is, to put it nicely, insane. Especially since there were more than a few examples of bravery that day, from the resident adviser who gave his life trying to protect the first victim of the shooting to the students who held the door shut with their feet while Cho fired away above them. But of course, one should never let facts get in the way of a good session of blaming women. Besides, it wasn’t just the men hand-wringing about those wimpy men; there were also women hand-wringing about those tough women.
Sarah Baxter, writing for the Sunday Times of London, fingered female sexual promiscuity as the reason that Cho Seng-hui went on his rampage, going so far as to quote long-time scold Camile Paglia in her argument.
“The pervasive hook-up culture at college,” wrote Baxter, “where girls are prepared to sleep with boys they barely know or fancy, can be a source of seething resentment and alienation for those who are left out.
“’Young women now seem to want to behave like men and have sex without commitment. The signals they are giving are very confusing, and rage and humiliation build up in boys who are spurned again and again’ [said Paglia].
12 Comments
Comment posted April 23, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
A Communis rixatrix strikes again . . . *The scolds, of course, never really explain why it is that “young women behaving like men” is confusing and enraging — or at least, why young women behaving like men is worse than young men behaving like men. They don’t have to bother. We all know that good girls don’t, and cool boys do–the message is driven into us, all of us, from the moment we become aware of what sex might be.*
Spot is going to send his boys and girls over to read this one.
S
Comment posted April 23, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Say it isn’t so… Are you suggesting that Cho Seung-hui went on his rampage because “we as a society” forgot to tell him that it was okay not to get laid?
Because I really hope you aren’t suggesting that. Because that would be indefensible.
Comment posted April 24, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
indefensible? Didn’t you know that Fecke’s ex-wife’s sister’s neighbor once took a Psychology class. That’s what gives him the wicked skills to know exactly what was going through Cho’s head.
Comment posted April 24, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Let me clarify I mean, isn’t pinning at least part of the blame for Cho Seung-hui’s actions on some nebulous (and not nearly as universal as you seem to think it is) “cool boys do/good girls don’t” societal message sort of the same thing as complaining about the victims being too feminized to fight back? Both of them take the guilt away from where it belongs (on the guy who actually killed all those kids) and put it onto some abstract category (feminism or, in your argument, typical sexual mores). Whenever these sorts of awful events happen, people tend see what they want to see. That doesn’t mean that those things are really there.
For the record, I think John Derbyshire is a worthless pseudo-intellecutal hack. I also think you shouldn’t ape his dim rhetorical moves when trying to put him in his place.
Comment posted April 24, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Wow… Wow, Soros doesn’t get much for his money these days…
Comment posted May 2, 2007 @ 1:54 am
You Know What If Cho Seng Hui had a much stronger, jutting type of jaw and a lot longer hair, he could have gotten it from me.
I would have been happy to give it to him.
A Female admirer
(NOT for his violent crimes though!)
Comment posted April 23, 2007 @ 10:06 am
A Communis rixatrix strikes again . . . *The scolds, of course, never really explain why it is that “young women behaving like men” is confusing and enraging — or at least, why young women behaving like men is worse than young men behaving like men. They don't have to bother. We all know that good girls don't, and cool boys do–the message is driven into us, all of us, from the moment we become aware of what sex might be.*
Spot is going to send his boys and girls over to read this one.
S
Comment posted April 23, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Say it isn't so… Are you suggesting that Cho Seung-hui went on his rampage because “we as a society” forgot to tell him that it was okay not to get laid?
Because I really hope you aren't suggesting that. Because that would be indefensible.
Comment posted April 24, 2007 @ 7:23 am
indefensible? Didn't you know that Fecke's ex-wife's sister's neighbor once took a Psychology class. That's what gives him the wicked skills to know exactly what was going through Cho's head.
Comment posted April 24, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Let me clarify I mean, isn't pinning at least part of the blame for Cho Seung-hui's actions on some nebulous (and not nearly as universal as you seem to think it is) “cool boys do/good girls don't” societal message sort of the same thing as complaining about the victims being too feminized to fight back? Both of them take the guilt away from where it belongs (on the guy who actually killed all those kids) and put it onto some abstract category (feminism or, in your argument, typical sexual mores). Whenever these sorts of awful events happen, people tend see what they want to see. That doesn't mean that those things are really there.
For the record, I think John Derbyshire is a worthless pseudo-intellecutal hack. I also think you shouldn't ape his dim rhetorical moves when trying to put him in his place.
Comment posted April 24, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Wow… Wow, Soros doesn't get much for his money these days…
Comment posted May 1, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
You Know What If Cho Seng Hui had a much stronger, jutting type of jaw and a lot longer hair, he could have gotten it from me.
I would have been happy to give it to him.
A Female admirer
(NOT for his violent crimes though!)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
