> They’re being talked down to, fired, catcalled, harassed, abused, and raped—and blamed for it, too.
In this sentence, they means "women", but practically the same applies to men as well. All people, really. Employees are getting fired, getting talked down to by their superiors and customers. People are catcalled, insulted, ridiculed, harassed. Recent research indicates that domestic abuse is practically gender-blind. Men are getting raped too, mostly only in prison, but also in real life (but the laws often don't recognize that as rape). And a lot of people are getting killed every day in situations that could be prevented.
It looks like a huge sarcasm how this recent tragic shooting has been converted into a discussion about misogyny, not about guns. You're always going to have crazy people. Woman haters, men haters, children haters, liberal haters, people haters. The common denominator is guns.
Edit: Downvoters, explain? Or are you just expressing your disagreement in the wrong way?
It's an error to think that you can distill any event, much less one like this shooting, to a single root cause. Guns played a role. Misogyny played a role. Racism played a role. Mental illness played a role. And different groups of people interested in each of those aspects have been taking action on each of those fronts (if you think it's been completely coöpted into a discussion about misogyny, you haven't been paying attention).
Because a phenomenon involves another cause or affects another group, is no reason to ignore its effect on, in this case, women.
I think you're right that guns and murder are the main issue in the shooting. But it's not the only issue. The reason that the gun issue has not really gotten as much attention is because after Sandy Hook it seems like there is absolutely nothing you can do in the USA to get the gun laws changed to make them even one iota more restrictive. If the NRA and their supporters isn't moved by the senseless gunning-down of 20 kindergartners and 6 brave teachers, then what would move them? Well, nothing.
The issue of misogyny, however, is somewhere we might be able to make a difference, so it should be addressed. It's a separate issue. Saying it should not be addressed because it's not the issue you care about isn't really fair.
The other issue, insultment, ridicule, and harrassment of all people--not just women and girls--is a third issue. (I don't think being fired because you're a man is a large systemic issue, sorry.) This issue is probably best classified as bullying and, if you don't have kids of school age you might not know this, it is a huge issue in many parts of the US, and is being addressed accordingly. My kids' school has a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying, for example.
I was expecting to see this hashtag show up on HN eventually.
Personally, I don't find it particularly helpful. Tragedies like this always lead to chaotic aftermaths in public discourse, a variety of lopsided and one-dimensional argumentation, as well as the incessant need to pin down one specific cause, when most likely there was none in particular.
Rodger's motivations were fueled by misogyny, but social isolation, mental illness, etc. all played roles. For what it's worth, 4 of his 6 victims (this is excluding himself) were male.
Not to mention, the whole thing feels tasteless. Almost as if the authors are bandwagoning on this little understood tragedy to show off some sort of moral superiority. "We will be vigilant about the voices we choose to amplify, and those we do not." is a truism that applies to virtually all publications, and the rest has hints of tokenism.
The disappointing thing about all this is that we are decades since "second-wave feminism" of the 1960s/1970s. "The Women's Room" came out in '77 for goodness sake.
9 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 30.7 ms ] threadIn this sentence, they means "women", but practically the same applies to men as well. All people, really. Employees are getting fired, getting talked down to by their superiors and customers. People are catcalled, insulted, ridiculed, harassed. Recent research indicates that domestic abuse is practically gender-blind. Men are getting raped too, mostly only in prison, but also in real life (but the laws often don't recognize that as rape). And a lot of people are getting killed every day in situations that could be prevented.
It looks like a huge sarcasm how this recent tragic shooting has been converted into a discussion about misogyny, not about guns. You're always going to have crazy people. Woman haters, men haters, children haters, liberal haters, people haters. The common denominator is guns.
Edit: Downvoters, explain? Or are you just expressing your disagreement in the wrong way?
Because a phenomenon involves another cause or affects another group, is no reason to ignore its effect on, in this case, women.
The issue of misogyny, however, is somewhere we might be able to make a difference, so it should be addressed. It's a separate issue. Saying it should not be addressed because it's not the issue you care about isn't really fair.
The other issue, insultment, ridicule, and harrassment of all people--not just women and girls--is a third issue. (I don't think being fired because you're a man is a large systemic issue, sorry.) This issue is probably best classified as bullying and, if you don't have kids of school age you might not know this, it is a huge issue in many parts of the US, and is being addressed accordingly. My kids' school has a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying, for example.
Will be flagged out of existence by 1:35 PM or so (predicted).
EDIT: At 1:33PM it's dropping fast, currently at #28.
EDIT: And at 1:35PM it's gone, no longer in the top 300 posts. And this comment is receiving heavy downvoting.
Personally, I don't find it particularly helpful. Tragedies like this always lead to chaotic aftermaths in public discourse, a variety of lopsided and one-dimensional argumentation, as well as the incessant need to pin down one specific cause, when most likely there was none in particular.
Rodger's motivations were fueled by misogyny, but social isolation, mental illness, etc. all played roles. For what it's worth, 4 of his 6 victims (this is excluding himself) were male.
Not to mention, the whole thing feels tasteless. Almost as if the authors are bandwagoning on this little understood tragedy to show off some sort of moral superiority. "We will be vigilant about the voices we choose to amplify, and those we do not." is a truism that applies to virtually all publications, and the rest has hints of tokenism.
Nonetheless, I wish them luck.