We can all raise our voices to echo her “no”
Glosswitch in the Independent:
If only Shana Fisher had said yes. This is the implication of countless headlines following Dimitrios Pagourtzis’ decision to slaughter her along with nine of her teachers and classmates.
According to a Facebook post by Fisher’s mother, Fisher “had four months of problems from this boy” where “he kept making advances on her and she repeatedly told him no. He continued to get more aggressive”. So a girl endures several months of harassment, until her harasser kills her. How are we supposed to see this?
“Spurned advances spark Texas shooting.” “Texas school shooter ‘killed girl who turned down his advances’.” “Spurned advances provoked incident at Santa Fe high school.”
What I’m saying. The Danish cartoonists who drew Mohammed didn’t “provoke” riots; the cartoonists and writers at Charlie Hebdo didn’t “provoke” their own murders; Salman Rushdie didn’t “provoke” the fatwa on him; my dear friend Taslima Nasreen didn’t “provoke” the riots and treats that target her; the atheist bloggers murdered in Bangladesh didn’t “provoke” their own murders; Shana Fisher didn’t “provoke” that murderous boy.
The message, in case you’ve missed it, is that Fisher’s rejection – her “spurning” – of Pagourtzis is what caused his murderous rampage…
There’s something truly depressing about finding the world view of a killer reflected in the reporting of his crimes. Then again, belief that women and girls exist to tend to the sexual and emotional needs of men and boys is everywhere. It does not confine itself to those murky message boards where incels, MRAs, PUAs or whatever the latest misogyny hate tribe call themselves have decided to congregate.
If it did it wouldn’t keep turning up in headlines.
Male pride rests on the delusion that females can always be dominated (or “persuaded”, as it is so often recast). It is a delusion that is poisoning the minds of boys, creating a sense of grievance – and actual pain – where there should be none. For all the bullshit we hear from the Jordan Petersons of this world, there is no possible social arrangement in which men and boys can be guaranteed the willing, uncontested sexual and emotional labour of women and girls. You can brainwash, harass and threaten girls all you want, but even in the most extreme of circumstances they will carry on having minds of their own. It’s far easier and kinder to change the expectations of boys.
I believe this can be done, but not in a world which seeks to guilt-trip dead girls for their failure to pander to the male ego. And what, one wonders, would have happened had Shana Fisher said yes? How long can a woman serve as a buffer to absorb male disappointment with the world? And when she starts to flag, isn’t she always the first to go?
…
There is nothing Shana Fisher could have given that would have been enough. We can, however, challenge the rage and entitlement she faced. We can all raise our voices to echo her “no”.
NO.
It seems to be the very first instinct of the media, whenever a white male goes on a murderous rampage.
Find a woman to blame.
Never blame the white male; never blame easy access to weapons of mass destruction; never blame toxic masculinity reflected in the self-same media, or promoted in everything from films to computer games.
No. Find a woman to blame. Even if she’s one of the first victims.
If there is no immediately obvious way that a woman can plausibly be blamed, then suggest that the killer has/had a mental illness and therefore is somehow helpless and that his victims should have been nicer to him. Under no circumstances admit that white male killers are responsible for their own actions and NEVER admit that are an inevitable product of a society which glorifies white male violence.
I think that is probably true of some males. But I doubt that it is most, or even many. These losers are exceptional losers, and that is why they make it into the papers. EVERYTHING NORMAL TODAY IN DOWNTOWN SLEEPYVILLE was never a headline to sell many copies.
Well now wait. Think carefully. She’s not saying all men want to dominate women – she’s saying male pride (read: self-esteem, self-respect) rests on the delusion that females can always be dominated or “persuaded”. Are you sure most men don’t actually think females can always be persuaded if the man tries hard enough?
Her point is that the culture tells us that on every hand, even in headlines on mass murders by men. I think it tends to be a mistake to think one is immune to pervasive cultural messages. I know damn well I’m not.
#Not All Men? It is surprising where I find sleeper cells of this idea, places where it isn’t expected. Most of the men who surprise me with their expectations are in turn unaware themselves that they have these ideas, these expectations. It is just part of who they are, who they’ve been, and the world they see around them. They don’t even spot the messages, the implications, or the reactions of their own being. They think they are enlightened, liberal, feminist, and they mostly are. Until one day, their expectations flare up and engulf some woman who innocently made a move that they did not like.
Adult, human pride ought to give a strong place to the ability to accept a ‘no’ gracefully. It ought to feature an understanding that, if you’re not able to accept your partner’s right to dissent from whatever you propose, you’re not entitled to ask it. It ought to ground itself in the commitment to treat people as autonomous peers.
When someone can’t manage that, they’re dangerous. When dangerous people get violent, they’re not responding appropriately or in some way to elicit sympathy. When they’re resorting to slaps and bullets, they’re terrorists. It’s important to understand terrorists – in order to stop them.
We don’t go around conceding they’ve got some points. We don’t blame it on sexual liberation or consider the redistribution of female bodies. We don’t try to find a balance as some requirement of objective journalism. Maybe someone, somewhere shares some views with someone who’s tried to support those views with mass shootings. Fine. But the terrorist isn’t due our respect and thoughtful consideration, and when the view comes down to “bitches need killin'”, neither does it.
Omar: Do you realize just how pervasive the ‘women as prizes’ messaging is in our culture? Do you really believe you–or any man, really, myself included–to be utterly immune to such a non-stop barrage of subtext (and, really, a big part of the issue IS that it’s subtext, most of the time–blatant subtext, perhaps, but never overtly stated, and thus more difficult to call out or instinctively confront).
Weeds grow in crappy soil. It doesn’t matter that ‘not all men’ (or even ‘most men’) don’t find rejection a source of anger and frustration directed at the person who turned them down; it’s enough that, in some cases, the cultural messaging trains some men to take to heart the notion that, since any woman can be persuaded, a man who cannot persuade a woman to (date/have sex/get married) is intrinsically a ‘loser’. Get enough guys who take that lesson to heart, and you eventually end up with one who reacts with violence.
(I avoid referring to the shooters as ‘losers’ these days, precisely because it’s impossible to keep clear that you’re saying they are losers for resorting to violence because they didn’t bed a girl, and not losers for failing to bed a girl in the first place.)
OB at #3:
That may be true of her own experience. But in my experience, speaking personally and from reflecting on the manifested behaviour of those I have associated with, pride, both male and female rests on doing things well, and on being congratulated for it. Painting a room or a picture and standing back to admire it: that sort of thing. What I read her as saying is that male pride (read: self-esteem, self-respect) rests SOLELY on “the delusion that females can always be dominated or persuaded” sexually.
I don’t think she’s right there.
Omar, is this going to be another of those discussions where your personal experience trumps the personal experience and thoughtful analysis of everyone else on the blog?
Omar,
“But in my experience, speaking personally and from reflecting on the manifested behaviour of those I have associated with, pride, both male and female rests on doing things well, and on being congratulated for it.”
Especially as being a now middle-aged female, my ‘doing things well’ or setting boundaries on the exploitation of my labour is considered severely inappropriate and deserving of hostile retaliation, now by younger women as well as men of all ages. Not all younger women, and not all men. But enough of them that the course of my life is impacted on a daily basis by their prideful rage.
I wish your experience was my experience, too. But it is not.
Well, yes. The immediate outcome could well have been different, but at the considerable expense of Shana Fisher’s own self-esteem, then and for the rest of her life, and of a confirmation in the mind of this addled young man that this was the way to go in future, possibly leading him one day to go one teensy step too far and finishing up either murdering and/or being murdered himself.
Those who cook up such headlines, always with paper sales in mind, have to anticipate the likely response of their readership-in-its-wisdom. “Spurned advances provoked…” can be read two ways: “spurned advances provoked…” (as in caused…) or “spurned advances provoked “ (as in were the last events in a causal chain of life experiences, heritage and possibly genetics that resulted in this outcome. They triggered it, but the fundamental cause lay deeper.) Either way, the headline writer is playing to the prejudice of the paper’s readership, and is not improving things in the longer term.
Except that in the context of those bog-standard Islamic cultures, that is precisely what they did: among people who believe in heavenly rewards for themselves if they kill in the name of God.
But is that the full story? If that were the case, then arguably the law would not come down so hard on rape and sexual assault, and also probably murder as a consequence of sexual rejection. It would be more ‘understanding’.
But what if that were recast to say “female pride rests on the delusion that men can always be played for suckers because it is so easy for women to use sex, or the promise, possibility or whatever thereof, as a means to manipulate them. It is a delusion that can poison the minds of girls and young women, creating a sense of superiority and contempt – and actual pleasure and a revelling in it – where there should be none.”
The odd item has been written about it, such as at https://www.elitedaily.com/dating/gentlemen/women-men. I think that there might be one or two feminist objections to that. But, then again, I dunno. Maybe not.
(NB: I am speaking partly hypothetically there, based on the occasional bit of reading, and the hearing of a complaint here or there: plus direct personal experience of certain others who were putty in the hands of the women involved, and ruthlessly used in the advancement of those womens’ own agendas. IMHO.)
Rob at #8
As long as I have been coming to this site, it has been run very capably by OB in that spirit of free enquiry that goes all the way back to the ancient Ionian Greeks. But now it is starting to take on certain aspects of a fundamentalist church, with certain parishioners (such as your good and thoughtfully analytical self) militant in maintaining received doctrine, and being ever vigilant for even the slightest whiff of heresy. And as with any religious congregation, it does not matter so much what we believe (total vs partial immersion at baptisms, say) as the fact that we all believe it together. The congregation worships itself, and its most important holy icon and attraction is its own unity of thought and belief.
So Shana, shackled to an abusive, violent misogynist creep ‘boyfriend’ is supposed to be the price of peace? So he can kill her, and his in-laws in a drunken rage ten years from now? Or maybe he gets to raise a house full of sons in his image?
Our sexual culture is almost entirely toxic. Slut-shaming, body shaming, ‘mean girl’ back-stabbing, self-commodifying fake sexuality. As distasteful as these are, the hatred is still focused on women. The most warped fantasy seductress isn’t killing men or boys.
Boys are raised to think that ‘confidence’ and ‘persistence’ are they ticket out of celibacy. And the culture actually rewards just those styles of behavior. Just look at the gallery of thugs in the White House, in the clergy, in law-enforcement, in the legislature.
‘then arguably the law would not come down so hard on rape and sexual assault…. It would be more ‘understanding’’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brock-turner-stanford-rapist-swimmer-freed-three-months-jail-sexual-assault-a7222916.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/david-becker-massachusetts-sexual-assault.html
guest appears to have had the same idea I did when I read these words. In short, WTF? Oh, yes, occasionally you’ll get a high profile case where rape is penalized, but the bulk of rape cases go unreported, and those that are reported rarely reach trial (if they are even charged, it is usually settled on a lesser charge), and those that reach trial often go free. When punishment is meted out, it is frequently minor (see guest’s first link: Brock Turner).
Our society goes into a paroxysm of outrage over violent stranger rape of a good, wholesome Christian white girl. If the girl has any “flaws” – such as, she is already sexually active, she has had anything to drink, she flirts, she dresses in a way that society disapproves, she is lesbian or trans, she is unattractive, she is non-Christian, or she is non-white – the Miss Grundy’s of our societal tut-tutting brigade are out in force to explain why this isn’t “rape rape” or “legitimate rape” or even rape at all – she just regretted it the next day. I know, Omar, you’ve been on this site long enough to have seen documentation of all this happening, so your statement appears to be a willful misstatement of fact to suit your own interpretation that we are somehow being obtuse or dogmatic here. No one here has been dogmatic at you; we present rational arguments, and you get all nitpicky over a word or an idea. No, not all men, of course. That has been acknowledged here, but is rather irrelevant to this discussion, especially since (see my comment at #4 and other comments) many men do hold these attitudes unconsciously, even though it does not lead to an actual violation of the woman’s right to say no or her right to life.
Oh, and when some young man actually is convicted of rape and serves time, there is a large and vocal group of people who will bemoan the way his life has been ruined. His life, the life of the one who committed sexual violence against a woman, is ruined by the consequences of his action, but it is often seen as the consequences of the victim actually standing up and daring to say “rape”. Poor young man, kicked off the football team, expelled from school, having to go to jail, when all he did was act in a way that men act when there are pretty women around.
Yes, the defenders of men are often in the “All Men” mode – oh, this is just part of being a man, the poor dears can’t help themselves – and yet a woman who challenges the underlying cause of male entitlement is seen as the one who is accusing all men unfairly, and must be challenged on every single word choice that comes out of her mouth on the topic, so people will know that this sense of male entitlement is not actually true in the experience of men.
Omar –
Well no shit. But that’s hardly a reason for headline-writers to echo that view, is it.
At this point you seem to be just hunting for random things to contradict, by way of rebuking me for setting up a fundamentalist church here.
There’s no excuse for this level of obtuseness, Omar. You’ve been a reader here long enough that you are capable of understanding that these expectations and double-standards for women are real. You’ve read here long enough that you can’t plausibly believe that “the law comes down hard on rapists.”
I simply don’t believe you that you “disagree” or “don’t know.” Not after the years of reading and commenting you’ve done here. I think you don’t like that it’s true, and that you think continuing to cite “my own experience” is somehow going to change the situation.
I think you’re a provocateur, and I don’t credit you with good faith.
Omar, I don’t really care how long you’ve been coming here. I value robust and intelligent discussion. I also value respect and good faith in those discussions. There are several commentators who I have disagreed with over the years. I still place value on their viewpoint and agree with them on other issues. Where I have commented it has been to address points they raise. Where they have replied it has been to counter the arguments I have raised. The resulting discussions have had an arc and a purpose. The end result has been understanding, if not agreement.
With you that has gone pear shaped. On certain topics your responses become verbose, diffuse and non-substantive in respect to the points raised by others. Because of that strong pattern of behaviour I have long since decided you don’t argue in good faith. It appears I’m not alone. As a result I’m not interested in engaging with you. That might be a shame, because you might have something to say, but I just don’t value your comments, even those I agree with.
Any interest group risks becoming an echo chamber if it goes long enough. We all hold responsibility for that. Mind you, it doesn’t mean we have to argue against things we actually believe, just for the sake of conformity. There are a couple of commentators I really miss who threw their toys out of the cot because they didn’t like what was said. At least they weren’t the types to just argue for the sake of it.
Omar, to clarify, I’m not suggesting you should depart the blog or remain silent. It’s Ophelia’s blog, not mine. It would be exceptionally rude and presumptuous of me to suggest that. What I am saying is that I wish you argued your positions with clarity, kept to the point and directly addressed other peoples clear points in a like minded manner. You don’t. If you don’t, people will tend not to engage with you. Then you’re left holding the field in an echo chamber of one. If that were me I’d find it pretty unsatisfying.
OB at #3: “Are you sure most men don’t actually think females can always be persuaded if the man tries hard enough?”
I can only speak from my own direct experience, conversations with others, and reading. My answer: No.
Iknklast at #4: “Not All Men? “
For you, I take it, it’s all men; and if you like, guilty till proven innocent. Something tells me that I would never persuade you otherwise, so I won’t try.
John the Drunkard at #11:
Your post might have been addressed to me; or else cross-posted. Dunno.
Guest at #12
To the Law, stranger rape is more straight forward than is rape behind closed doors, between two people, one of whom might or might not have been consenting; and where it is her word against his. I have seen a memorable radical feminist argument that it is better for 12 innocent men to go to jail than for one guilty man to go free: the exact reverse of the Law’s frequently professed caution.
Iknklast at #13 “…your statement appears to be a willful misstatement of fact to suit your own interpretation that we are somehow being obtuse or dogmatic here. No one here has been dogmatic at you; we present rational arguments, and you get all nitpicky over a word or an idea”.
Please: one example of each.
OB at #14:
In other words, I “seem” to be a troll. I was responding to your own statement that
I read that as “all male pride”. My response: wrong.
Josh Slocum at #15
Well, thanks Josh. That makes me in your eyes both a troll, and a liar. And a Merry Christmas to you, too.
Rob at #16
“…I have long since decided you don’t argue in good faith. It appears I’m not alone…”
At this point, let me add a short statement, which some who have not yet made up their minds may read.
A wise woman I once knew (sadly and unfortunately, she died a few years ago) told me something I have really taken to heart: never assume that your reality is another’s reality. And vice versa. I recommend it to all. But I do not claim that my reality has been somehow exceptional, or worthy of any special consideration.
Nevertheless, it probably helps if you know where people are coming from.
As a boy, I idolised my own father. I was effectively an only child, as my only sibling was severely mentally retarded, and had to attend a special school, and then be taken into care away from home. I am not self-pitying or looking for sympathy here, as I know a lot of people have had it a lot worse.
Then, when I was 10 years old, my father decided that he wanted out. He wanted a divorce as well, (he had a new woman in his life and wanted to set up with her.) And in that period (the 1950s) that was most unfashionable, unheard of, and highly frowned upon everywhere.
I was very upset by this news. My mother and father argued mightily whenever he came home, and during these hostilities I retreated to my room. Then one night the violence started, and I had to witness my father beating up my mother. I tried to intervene, but was useless at it. Afterwards I told my father that he should not have hit my mother, and he agreed, and appeared full of remorse. Except that it happened again; and again; and again, with me coming home from (primary) school to find my mother sporting a pair of black eyes, bloody nose, and facial bruising. Maybe body bruising as well. Again, and again, and again.
Then it was into the divorce court.
Through all that, I steadily lost all respect for my father, and I mean all. For me there is nothing more contemptible than a man who raises his hand against a woman or is a rapist or sexual assaulter: no excuses; no exceptions.
My mother sought advice and help from the parson of our local church, who was useless: he came from a (literally) cloistered world. There was not much in the way of support services and counselling around than either. So the solution my mother found was grog. From Friday afternoon till Sunday midnight or later, she would get plastered: as drunk as a proverbial skunk. And then she would take it all out verbally on me, in endless variations of “don’t you dare turn out a [insert purple language and epithets here] like your father!” Weeknights were different: she would just drink enough to get tipsy before launching into the standard tirade.
So I achieved emotional and physical independence early, and became what I am today (a provocateur, troll, shit-stirring troublemaker who does not discuss matters in good faith, etc, etc) despite all that; or perhaps because of it.
Actually, there is nothing that rouses me to anger quicker than male violence against women. I will not tolerate it under any circumstances, and any man who engages in it when I’m around had better look out. And I have got 30 years of martial arts training, and enough Dan grades, to be convincing.
However, I have heard stories of abused women who side with their abuser when some outsider intervenes in a violent dispute. They know that if they don’t, they will get it worse later. If they have no recourse to the police or the Law, they have nothing.
As for the rest of it, I dunno. I give no apologies, and I seek none.
As I said, and believe it or not, I am not self-pitying or looking for sympathy here, as I know a lot of people have had it a lot worse in their formative years.
Strange to hear this…I believe this is exactly what I said earlier. Let me check. Oh, yes…it appears I did.
Also, no, I did not say it was “all men”. I do not believe it is “all men”. For instance, I am fortunate to be married to a wonderful man who is NOT like this, and who is as horrified as I am by the way this is being presented. I am fortunate to be the mother of a wonderful man who argues with my family every day on this topic, but is severely outnumbered. I have known many other wonderful men that are not the way that is described here.
What I actually did say was:
This does not say all men, but does reference the reality that there are many men who do hold these positions without knowing it. The messages are so pervasive, and so internalized, that many men are unaware of their attitudes because they are simply normal to them. So before you accuse me of saying “Yes, ALL men”, please read what I wrote a couple more times, if necessary. I would never dream of saying “Yes, ALL men” because it would be (1) untrue; and (2) an insult to men that I care for very deeply.
Sleeper cells does not imply ALL; it just implies that the problem is larger than just the MRAs, PUAs, incels, and other overt and ugly misogynists, and that it exists even within men that consider themselves feminists. In short, Omar, I did not mean you, because I do not know you well enough to make such a call.
Omar at 18. I’ll keep this brief. You are not alone in such childhood experiences. I can from personal experience sympathise. The fractures of those experiences are inter-generational in families.
That aside, you may be independent of thought (I don’t think anyone here is not), but I still don’t consider that you argue in good faith or to the point. No apology offered.
Once a person has given reason to suspect that they are not arguing in good faith, their life-story-telling holds the possibility of an attempt to manipulate. Manipulative people are often willing to wear a story they heard elsewhere as their own if they think it will gain them sympathy and forbearance.
Samantha:
That is to say ‘once a person has given reason to suspect that they are not arguing in good faith, their life-story-telling holds the possibility of an attempt to manipulate. Manipulative people are often willing to lie, if they think it will gain them sympathy and forbearance.’
Well of course ‘reasons to suspect’ are pretty subjective, but never let that stop you from jumping to conclusions. Otherwise (Heaven forbid!) you could well finish up taking someone’s narrative, statement or whatever at face value. Better not. Proceeding that way, you might err on the side of caution.
The motto Ophelia chose for her blog is discussing all the things. Maybe that should be amended to discussing all the things except those which have been settled once and for all.
Goodnight, and good luck.
Omar, on this blog there have been any number of disagreements. A couple of notable ones have been with regular commentators who were, and still are, in good standing as far as I’m aware/concerned, arguing in favour of legalised prostitution (in one case) and porn use (in the other). Disagreement was visceral. Arguments (both sides) were generally sharp, clear and to the point. When the heat died and the arguments ran their natural course, people moved on. Views around a number of issues surrounding trans people have also been mixed and strongly held.
What’s different about you? In recent times you have regularly given multiple people reason to feel you are not arguing in good faith on a number of topics. When they’ve expressed this view you have continued with that behaviour. That’s you. No one else. It’s not the disagreement that pissed people off as much as the way you would coat yourself in oil to slide away from another’s point, play the victim, and introduce new and irrelevant material. We’ll still discuss ‘all the things’ with or without you.
If there’s one thing I hate more than a flouncer who tries to portray themselves as a victim and poorly treated, it’s one who doesn’t stick the landing. Speaking for no-one else, please stick the fucking landing.
Rob:
Your contribution at #23 is noted.