lagilman | #YesAllWomen

People in various social media are throwing words like “mentally ill” around, with the regard to the UCSB killings, making it a singular (dismissible) issue, rather than addressing the underlying social issues of WHY he went after those women. They're saying "oh but" and "Actually," and generally trying to talk over the real problem:

that this isn't the first time a man has killed a woman for saying no. It's not even the first (second, third, tenth) time a man has killed women he didn't know, because another woman said no. Was the shooter mentally ill? Generally, mentally healthy people don't go on shooting rampages. But every time you say "well, he was ill" you're also saying "not my fault, not my responsibility, not my problem."

Except it's every woman's problem. So your dismissal is a dismissal of our right to safety.

Yeah, I get it: it’s easier to say “the guy was mentally ill” rather than face the real issue. The real issue makes a lot of men uncomfortable (see: "not all men"). Guess what? We don’t care if the discussion makes you uncomfortable. No woman should be afraid to say no. No-one should die because a man couldn’t handle “no.”

If violence against women is a sign of mental illness, then this world has an epidemic. And it needs to be treated. Now. Better: yesterday.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

janetl.livejournal.com

Yes!

I'd also like to say that there are violet, misogynist nuts in many countries of the world where they don't have easy access to guns, and fewer women would have died if he had used a less efficient killing machine.

From:

lagilman

Killing someone with a weapon that requires you to actually touch the person you're killing does, I suspect, have a limiting effect on violence, not only because of speed but the fact that you have to -at least in some level - acknowledge that this is something living, not "a target ten feet away."

It wouldn't stop everyone, but it might stop even one.

From:

janetl.livejournal.com

There's both the up-close-and-personal aspect, and the greater effectiveness of a gun. Kip Kinkel took a gun to school, killed 2 and wounded 24. Recently in Pittsburgh, a boy brought a knife to school. He managed to injure about 20 people, but no one died.

But the gun isn't the core of this issue (so to derail) -- it is the culture that supports this young man's belief that women aren't people, but a commodity to which he's entitled.

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

It's a good effort, and I watched a lot of the tweeting throughout the evening.

Ultimately, it's something that needs to continue, a relentless pace, day and night. Considering the time zones and the number of twitter accounts, that shouldn't be a problem.

But the question is what should be done? Clearly, teaching little boys what is appropriate behavior is crucial when they are young enough to learn it. It is a learning experience, after all.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed openly and with some understanding. And it's up to women to lead that discussion.

From:

lagilman

I woke up this morning, looked at Twitter and Tumblr, and had a mild panic attack, so I'm not sure the relentless pace won't be problematic (plus, if you hammer at someone on social media they tune you out) but yeah...

Then again, we've been doing that with gun violence in general, with children dying every year, and people are still insisting we're making the problem up, that there's no need to actually DO anything.

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

Mm. Well, the problem with it is, even if you could get, say a month of posts from women all over the world, and kept the #YesAllWomen hashtag as a TT worldwide the whole while, it could still be ignored if people don't have specific people on their lists posting, and posting when they are reading.

Unlike LJ, people rarely scroll back to read previous tweets, especially if they have a lot of people on their feed. So even that might not work.

It's feeling a little helpless - sexism, gun violence, violence against women, racism... theoretically, it would be easy to make these end. Some common sense, some clear conventions, maybe a law or two but it's about human decision making, not legislation.

The fact that none of these seems to be going away really speaks more to our collective human society, how we teach our children, what expectations we have from our lives, what the Status Quo demands and eventually what the people who do these acts think about their positions and how everyone else should treat them.

The issue I really don't see anyone talking about in these discussions is the "animal" element. Males are born more aggressive. It's a trait. It's biological. And it develops throughout childhood, with the thinking that in a best case, the male would protect, not harm.

Women are typically smaller, less muscular, less able and in some cases less willing to fight back.

How do we, as a species, try to counteract something that is part of our very nature? Yes the rationale is there, yes we are thinking beings, but when the emotions run roughshod over it, is there a way of stopping that runaway train before it comes off the rails?

When we start dealing with the physical aspects and the mental process of who we are as women and men, we will be on a better path to solving this.

From:

danielmedic.livejournal.com

Even if male aggression is biological (and I'm not at all convinced it is; with any behavioral difference between the sexes, there's so much social "noise" than identifying any biological "signal" is a tricky business) ultimately the answer is, so what? A big part of becoming a functional adult human being is learning how to overcome many of our basic biological impulses. Babies are purely biology-driven, and as adorable as they are, they can also be amoral little monsters. As our children grow up, we teach them how to control themselves in all sorts of ways. I don't see any reason we should make an exception for controlling aggression, however much or little of that trait a particular person might naturally have.

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

Well, I'm not trying to excuse the behavior, but I think this is a part of the equation that people aren't addressing when discussing the behavior, and that clearly is a part of the process, if we believe that there is a difference in how men and women behave.

It's not a "so what" circumstance. This does have a bearing on how people behave. It needs to be examined just as much as anything that is being dealt with in this situation should be examined.

As for the "training," it seems that society rather wants males to be more aggressive and women to be more passive. The "boys will be boys" attitude has stood the test of time, and we need to know where the future NFL Linebackers and NHL Hockey forwards are coming from.

I'm certainly not trying to excuse anything. But male humans have hormones that point towards aggression, they often develop physically that permits aggression and that's not really a part of the discussion, where I think it rather has to be.

From:

danielmedic.livejournal.com

It seems to me there are two ways we can go on this: first, expect boys to be more aggressive than girls and treat them differently on that basis; or second, treat each child's level of aggression individually, and try to find ways to teach the more naturally aggressive ones how to control their impulses and redirect them in constructive ways. The first is pretty much what we're doing now, and, well, it doesn't seem to be working that well. "Boys will be boys" has been the excuse for a whole lot of horror.

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

treat each child's level of aggression individually, and try to find ways to teach the more naturally aggressive ones how to control their impulses and redirect them in constructive ways

And you have just touched on why that's just never ever going to happen. When it comes to treating people "individually," that would be like deciding who gets to drink alcohol based on how their personalities are individually rather than the arbitrary age of 21. Are there people who could handle drinking at age 16? Yes. Are there those that shouldn't drink before 30? Absolutely. But we wouldn't handle it that way. It would be just too inconvenient.

And convenience is the watchword when it comes to dealing with circumstances like this, and nobody wants to have to do evaluations on every single child born to test them for aggression, to evaluate the parenting they received, to have to slog through all of those questions, when, in truth, someone could just parrot back the correct answers and then go out and still be the monster.

I'm not trying to be obstinate here. I'm being realistic with how we understand things to work. If you have an answer to this point, I would love to hear it.

From:

danielmedic.livejournal.com

Sure, there are always compromises, "good enough" solutions that don't really satisfy anyone but seem to work reasonably well, and setting an arbitrary age limit for drinking is one of those. With respect to the problem of young males committing acts of violence, the current compromise, of expecting and encouraging different levels of aggression based solely on sex, is clearly not "good enough." (There's also a pretty important difference between setting an age limit that almost everyone can expect to reach, and segregating people based on an inborn biological characteristic that in the vast majority of cases will never change.) My answer is pretty much what I said above, and I disagree that dealing with each child's individual level of aggression is impractical. This doesn't mean formally testing children for aggression; it's more a matter of expecting parents and teachers and other adults involved in shepherding children toward adulthood to pay attention to how those children act and react accordingly. Because again, "boys will be boys" and "oh, you know how boys are" and all the rest of that is pretty much how we got where we are now.

From:

lagilman

*applause*

(I'm having to put out a fire on the FB discussion on this, so thank you for all playing reasonably nicely...)

From:

danielmedic.livejournal.com

There have been some impressive LJ flamewars, of course, but it does seem to encourage civility relative to most other online fora. One of many reasons I miss its glory days.

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

While I agree that there can be some sort of solution, I really don't know what that is. Based on what you're saying here, we know what we've got isn't working, and I agree with that.

I do wonder about a method of putting some sort of plan into place. It basically means, more than anything, training parents in a new way.

"Free to Be, You and Me" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_26FOHoaC78&list=PL1F463FBB39BB53F6) from the 1970s was a bit of the model for what we're talking about here. Eventually, that design didn't work because... why? Parents didn't like it? It was too ahead of its time? Teachers didn't promote it well? The school systems are uneven throughout the country?

And really, that's something we have to examine as well. When it comes to education, there is no base, no standard in every school. This has a bearing on the results. Frustration leads to anger and anger to violence. And there we are.

What I'm saying is that there is no linear solution to this problem, and we have to acknowledge that. We have to acknowledge that there are multiple reasons for these things to occur. We have to come together as a community to start examining all of these aspects.

But that would mean coming together as a community, and in this country, we barely want to talk to each other. We often think other people aren't as intelligent or as worthwhile or as able to contribute. I don't want to go too far off topic here, but that has a huge bearing on what we collectively can do when even getting people to the table to discuss a topic like violence against women. And everybody must be at that table.

I just don't see, without a massive reworking of the status quo of our current society, how we can even send out the invites.

From:

lagilman

"Free to Be You and Me" actually helped make a significant change. But we need to build on change, not assume it will continue without any effort (and despite anti-equality groups like MRA, who want to tear it all down).

Edited Date: 2014-05-25 09:29 pm (UTC)

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

MRA is complete nonsense and the fact that they exist proves that it's all about the status quo, diverting the conversation, and ignoring the issues at hand. They are only there to make a mockery of any forward progress and they need to be called out for the stumbling blockheads that they are.

As much as I like "Free to Be..." (and I like it a lot!) I wonder if it had the impact you are suggesting, though. And I'm a fan of the methods, the presentation, the concepts and the approach it used to try to make people (kids mostly, but adults too) come to understand what a society is supposed to be, and how we can do simple things to make life better for everyone.

I suspect there was some movement at the time of the program/album's release. But it didn't become a perennial special like a Charlie Brown holiday show, so it didn't remain in the public eye for nearly enough time. Maybe it's time for a reboot?

From:

lagilman

Erm, "Free to Be" was a book, first, then a record album. The tv special followed after that by a few years, I think.

According to Wikipedia, there was also a sequel a decade later, it was replayed on HBO and TV Land, and was brought into the school system in the 1980's

It's since been released on DVD.

So I think it had a bit more traction than you're giving it credit for.

It was certainly formative on me, as a kid...

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

Well... I mean "Free to Be a Family" had a much smaller impact than the original TV special. Replaying the series was more a nostalgia element for those that grew up with it rather than the informative intention the program was designed to do.

I don't know the full extent of the success of the concept, and I wasn't really trying to argue that. But we do know that the bulk of those concepts just didn't stick. After a few years, the "pre Free to Be" standards came back and that may have something to do with where we are now as a society. We wouldn't be talking about this had they not.

I think a "Free to Be..." reboot isn't a bad idea. The concepts need to be reworked for the 21st Century. There are a lot of other issues today that didn't exist before, or weren't understood as clearly, like body image, like social media, like bullying and more.

But the same problems the original faced would still exist now, in getting parents and educators to take up the mantel and start changing hearts and minds to make this work and to make these positive changes in how we behave with each other.

I'm not sure how to get around those issues, because they're larger and more complicated than this problem.

From:

lagilman

As I said earlier in this discussion, the only way to change a generation is to change a generation. And then keep changing the next generation. And the next. Assuming "oh well we did it once and it didn't really work so guess that's not effective" isn't helpful in ANYTHING.

So I guess my response to you is: just because it didn't work perfectly the first time doesn't mean look for something else to magically solve it, it means KEEP EDUCATING. And don't accept shit from people who say "it's too hard" or "my child can't learn to not be a little shit, it's his nature."

"This problem" is complicated, and it's huge. And that's all the more reason to keep at it, not get around it. Or we sit back and accept that we're nothing more than - no, we're less than animals.

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

Well, first of all, I'm the one suggesting a "Free to Be" reboot, so I don't know where you're sniping at me about my saying "I guess that's not effective."

What I am saying is that everybody in our country needs to be involved with the process. And, as we stand right now, we aren't going to have everybody involved. That's a function of how our country is currently. That's the bigger problem that informs something like violence against women. That informs institutionalized racism. That informs where we stand, academically in the world.

I'm not looking for something magical. And I'm not the one making excuses for kids that don't behave. What I am suggesting is that there are problems we have to deal with as a society. Those problems are not only not being addressed, they're not being acknowledged. It's like a spider's web. Everything is connected.

And yet, people don't want to hear that they are somehow connected to someone they revile.

So, while we can try to change a generation and keep educating people in the "Free to Be" style, there is a larger lesson being taught by the status quo, which is basically how the original "Free to Be" eroded.

I'm for trying to tackle the problem. I wouldn't have made a single comment in this thread if I wasn't! My fear is that the efforts to try to educate will impact some members of one generation (as they did in the original case), but until we start do deal with this outer core of Status Quo, the impact will be limited, the results will be fleeting and the eventual outcome will remain the same.

From:

lagilman

Your earlier comment about its limited usefulness/reach was what I was responding to - as part of that generation, I'm disagreeing.

I'm just hearing a lot of "well, we backslid and men can't change" and "it's complicated" and it's building into the voice of helpless resignation, and yeah it's complicated and yeah it's hard, and yeah there isn't one single thing that will fix it and the Status continues to Quo.

And?

We impact some one way. We influence another a different way. We continue on, step by step, and don't let them say 'can't.' That's how - that's the only way how - you change society.

From:

penpusher.livejournal.com

Well, to be really clear, "Free to Be, You and Me" was limited in its success for the reasons I cited and those same reasons still exist. We know it wasn't fully successful because we are dealing with problems that would not exist had it worked.

I stated that "Free to Be" did have impact on certain members of the generation that were at the right age to get it. But that group is a fraction of the population. While it may have had a personal impact, the overall impact on our society is not as effective.

My point in stating the things I'm saying are not to resign and not try to get this done. But we have to know what we're fighting against. We have to be aware of what we must negotiate to get through this.

Saying "don't let them say can't" and other maxims are very nice but not really practical in a very down to earth and crucial fight that must be handled brilliantly in order to succeed. I'm suggesting that we need to start working on the issues, start finding solutions to the problems I'm pointing out if we are going to make any kind of lasting headway.

Does that make sense?

From:

lagilman

I guess I'm objecting to your seeming assumption that the work has ever STOPPED.

The fact that groups like the Men's Rights asswipes feel the need to come out is proof that there has been progress, same as the KKK really only gained strength when Blacks gained enough traction to scare them....

Edited Date: 2014-05-26 10:03 am (UTC)

From:

mtlawson.livejournal.com

Well said.

From:

djonn

Disclaimer: I have been essentially detached from news and social media for the last two to three days, and so have not taken in either details of the news event you mention or the ensuing social-media response.

That said: I think that we (for values of "we" encompassing local, state, and national communities, social institutions, and governments) have both a problem with inappropriate behavior towards women (for values ranging across all levels of contact), and a problem with identifying and treating mental illness (particularly the subset of mental illness that tends to produce sociopathically violent behavior). Incidents of sociopathic violence against women call attention indicate points where these problems intersect, and the responses to such events should encourage attention to both helping us treat each other more respectfully in general and doing a better job of addressing societal problems relative to the mentally ill.

From:

lagilman

Every person - and it's almost entirely been men I've seen doing this - saying "yes but it's X AND Y!" has, IMNSO, been missing the point entirely.

I suggest, with all due kindness, that you not weigh in on this particular instance until you've actually gotten up to speed with what happened. And, possibly, read the "#YesAllWomen tag on Twitter.

From:

djonn

Point taken. (And apologies for the wonky formatting upstream; that's what I get for posting at the end of a very long day with tired typing fingers.) I did have a chance today to read a bit about the incident and to look at the #YesAllWomen tag -- and then to spend a bit of time poking at the issues in my own head.

And I find myself re-assessing my instinctive responses, because as much as I'd like to go all analytical on some of the craft-of-rhetoric aspects of the evolving discussion, (a) that would be a side issue, (b) even if the logic were sound, this is the wrong place to raise that set of points, and (c) I had a light-bulb moment late this afternoon.

What occurred to me is that the recent wave of serial/sociopathic mass shooters/bombers (for values of "recent wave" dating roughly back to Columbine or thereabouts) consists just about entirely of males from a fairly compact age range (mid-teens to maybe 30ish). So I tried one of the standard writerly plot experiments -- "okay, let's make the villain from this totally opposite demographic -- say, a vegetarian lesbian cat lady -- now, how would you build that character?"

And I realized in pretty short order that that trick Just Would Not Work.

The trouble wasn't just that I had difficulties in trying to wrap my brain around the idea of a lesbian cat lady going violently postal in the first place (though I did). The thing was, I could tell that even if I did manage to create a background for her that would work in my own head -- and I wasn't sure I could get even that far -- I'd have to do so much tap-dancing and explaining and justifying in the ensuing narrative that no editor or reader would find the results even remotely believable, even if they got past the vast tracts of infodump. I am not any sort of expert on matters LGBT, but I know and interact with enough people who fit that category to recognize that despite all the issues they face, mass violence of the kind we've been seeing is simply not something that's remotely likely to come out of their wheelhouse.

This is, I admit, a weird and oddly angled way to reach the conclusion that there *is* a profoundly anti-female component in the mass-shooter/bomber phenomenon, and by extension that the underlying roots of that attitude both spread more widely and need to be weed-whacked. But it gets me there.