I do agree with the fact that these guys primarily desire attention and want to be known and remembered, and that media is focusing entirely on the wrong issue and is only worsening things. Yeah, these guys want attention and love, but itâs not just going to be solved by being more friendly (which is honestly what would more likely come out of an article like this). He even talks about thisâEric Harris had friends, girlfriends, and a seemingly normal life. Kip Kinkel was bullied in school, but had an incredibly loving home life and a long-term girlfriend for a while (who ended things with him because she was intimidated). His older sister turned out fine. There is something more deeply wrong here, because this keeps happening. And since the Elliot case is the most recent and because he sort of belittles Elliotâs own stated reasoning (namely to kill the women who didnât give him the sex and attention he believed he deserved AND to kill the men who he believed took women away from him), Iâll talk about the misogynistic trend.
The article insinuates a detachment from these guysâ actions, their personhood, and societyâthat normal people couldnât be misogynists or like violent video games, and then kill. That somehow itâs a different strain of people - killers - who do these sorts of things. Normal people could never. But the problem is we donât know whoâs ânormalâ and not, so we need to accept everyone just in case. I agree that we need a whole lot more love in this world, but these guys are still RESPONSIBLE for their actionsâit was them doing it. Their choice. And as I mentioned earlier, people reaching out might not always make the difference for them.
The article is stating that the reason Eric went on a killing spree wasnât because he hated women, but because there was something wrong within him - a craving for attention, and the sexism came afterwards. The problem with that logic is, why does it separate certain people? Because he actually acted upon his threats? By this point, buddy, weâve read and seen countless reports, texts, messages, and other forms of evidence showing that there have been a ridiculous amount of cases where individual and grouped men will threaten violence, use coercion, and sexually harass women if they arenât given, essentially to simplify, what they think theyâre due, or if they feel threatened by them. Theyâll do this anonymously in particular, so the question is clearly not exclusive to people who want fame for it, though they are likely vying for attention.
(straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com, http://tedxwomen.org/speakers/anita-sarkeesian-2/, http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/let-s-be-real-online-harassment-isn-t-virtual-for-women, http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA2kHVMak0E, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U and so on and so forth).
^^^So, I have to disagree.Â
Yes, empathy is needed, absolutely so. It is ridiculous how isolated we can make people feel, but action is too. This action is not just a âpet cause,â and you can even see that between the lines of the article. Because all of the cases he uses and most murders and serial killings are perpetrated by men. If their actions are due to something inherent, that would suggest that men have something biologically to make them worse, which I donât want to believe. I do attribute a lot of it to society and increasingly worse depictions of women in media and more violent depictions of men in media. You saw those other articles I posted right? Several cases where teenage girls actually did share threats from guys they had rejected and the police managed to apprehend them with the weapon at hand? There are countless cases of men who have been rejected attacking and even killing the women who rejected them, even if the reason was sound.Â
