Police in Lafayette, Louisiana are evidently struggling to understand why the outspokenly misogynistic, racist and anti-Semitic John Russell “Rusty” Houser murdered two women and wounded 9 other moviegoers at a showing of “Trainwreck,” a film written by and starring Amy Schumer, a feminist comedian with a Jewish father, known for joking frankly about sex.
[For more, see my latest post on Houser: “Did right-wing attacks on “Trainwreck” inspire John Russell Houser’s shooting rampage?”]
Col. Michael D. Edmonson, superintendent of the Louisiana State Police, wondered aloud about Houser’s motives at a press conference:
Why did he come here? Why did he do that? … We may not find a motive.
It seems to me that Houser’s likely motive is staring them in the face.
Because it turns out that Houser was pretty well-known, at least to regular viewers of one local TV talk show in Columbus, GA, as an angry right-wing fanatic who hated women. As one former host of the show recalled,
He was anti-abortion. … Rusty had an issue with feminine rights. He was opposed to women having a say in anything.
Houser evidently appeared on the live show dozens of times as a “gadfly” whose appearances “would generate calls.”
When Houser’s career as a loudmouthed crank on local TV apparently came to an end years ago, he moved to another medium, leaving a long trail of hateful comments on assorted websites, many of them openly praising Hitler and talking ominously about the future of what he saw as a deeply “immoral” culture.”
In the comments on a news article about an 60-year-old man who’d been murdered, Houser wrote
I am sincerely sorry for the loss of this fellow in the deer processing business. Most people over 50 in certain businesses are just as their parents were,rock solid morally.
I am also sorry for what is to come for the other very few moral souls left in the entire US.
I am not sorry for the 90% immoral population which will be meeting the same fate.
Filth is rampant.That none have stood against it causes me to take rest in the worse than MAD MAX near future which approaches.
In Trainwreck, Amy Schumer plays a New York journalist “riding the cock carousel” — as the odious men I regularly write about on this website like to put it — who eventually falls in love.
It seems highly unlikely that Houser was someone “who just happened to be in this theater,” as the police superintendent put it.
It seems highly likely that a woman-hating neo-Nazi ended up in a theater showing Trainwreck on purpose.
When a religious fanatic blows themselves up at a cafe frequented by members of a rival religious sect, we have no trouble calling this terrorism.
When an outspoken white racist murders nine black churchgoers in Charleston, SC, well, some people (including virtually all of the Republican presidential hopefuls) have trouble calling it terrorism. But most people can see it for what it is.
When misogynists murder women, almost no one calls it terrorism.
Elliot Rodger, who left behind an assortment of misogynistic videos and a book-length diatribe, was a terrorist.
“Rusty” Houser — who left behind no manifesto but who was well-known for his odiously anti-woman and neo-Nazi views — was almost certainly a terrorist as well.
NOTE: According to court filings, Houser had “a history of mental health issues, i.e., manic depression and/or bi-polar disorder.” (Which are actually the same thing.) While this could certainly have had an effect on his state of mind, it says nothing about his motives. Bipolar disorder does not cause people to become misogynistic neo-Nazis who murder women.
EDIT: Added the note above, made tweaks to wording.
—
Please read the newly revised COMMENTS POLICY before commenting.
What indifferentsky said.
@Aunt Edna,
my housemate has a tendency to regard feminism as frivolous, he seems to think it’s all about people getting offended by things they should be ignoring, while more serious things are happening :/
When it comes to the manosphere I can sort of see his point, it is possible to ignore these guys as they’ll never get their agenda heard, they’re too incompetent. BUT, then you get someone like Houser going out and murdering women at a screening of a feminist film, and I’ve seen plenty of manospherians threaten to commit violent acts just like that. That’s when I know we shouldn’t just be ignoring these people.
At the risk of sticking my head out too far, I’d say that we are dogpiling on Rob here. The point was made, he acknowledged it, time to move on, IMO.
The first video I found on youtube about this was CNN news, and several comments said it was a hoax, that this is anti gun propaganda!
Frankly gobsmacked. It never even occurred to me that the hoax card would be played.
I didn’t come in with predetermined odeas. I reacted to you guys as ed on comments you said and I disagreed with. If you want to discuss them I would like to and I’m sorry I lost my cool. Like I said I didn’t mean to say that you guys weren’t good feminist or are wasting your time.
I’m not very good at explaining myself, as you can see from my comments over the last few weeks. I really respect the community here and have been doing my best to join it. I just don’t understand your point of view on this issue and would like to discuss it. I’ve already said sorry several times. So can we please discuss it civilly.
OK, I’ve tried to edit this down so it’s not quite the polemic it was; more some bullet points.
Note: I don’t see any material distinction between MRA; MGTOW etc. so I’ll be using the terms interchangeably.
Terrorism vs Hate Crimes
As discussed above, there’s some issue over the definition of terrorism. A nice succinct one from the FBI is “Ideologically motivated organised crime”. Generally though the law (in England at least) adopts these definitions:
Hate Crime – An offence where the motivation is primarily driven by a hatred towards members or perceived members of a particular group as defined by race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
Note that the ‘protected characteristics’ are inherent ones i.e. not choices. So it’s not a hate crime if the motivation is someone’s politics, philosophical beliefs or religion.
Terrorism – Serious violence or property damage where the motivation is to coerce the Government into changing policy.
There may obviously be some overlap. Some terrorist will also hate their victims, but this isn’t necessarily universal. PIRA didn’t hate people who drank in pubs frequented by British soldiers; they merely wanted (to use their own words) “bomb their way to the conference table”.
The coercion doesn’t have to have a good chance of being successful; it can be enough that the violence is merely in response to a Government’s policy, even if it’s not realistically expected that policy will change so long as the motive is to draw attention to an issue.
MRAs = terrorists?
The key question here is what does the MRA movement want? In the past I’ve expressed the suggestion that they don’t actually *want* anything; their raison d’etre is purely the thrill they get from terrorising women. That’s both the means and the end.
This is for instance why MGTOWs will never actually go their own way. The purpose of the movement is to harass women with vague threats that “you’ll miss us” until women come round to their way of thinking i.e. become doormats.
Clearly however the higher ups in the MRA movement are quite happy to inspire and encourage people who are seeking political change in relation to gender politics. I don’t see this as supporting the political aspect though. I believe their entire motivation is that the acts of these people terrify women and the MRA’s get off on that.
So, to me, that’s a key distinction. I believe the MRA movement is motivated purely by hate rather than seeking political change however they are happy to utilise terrorists (i.e. those misogynists who do seek change) for their own ends.
To me that explains the following:
MRAs and Radicalisation
Notwithstanding that I believe MRA’s are motivated by hate rather than a real wish for change and therefore do not necessarily fit the definition of terrorism, they do share a lot of characteristics with terrorist organisations in relation to their recruitment and radicalisation aspects.
They inspire and motivate the disaffected. Whilst it’s easier to target those who already have misogynist tendencies, and person at a loose end will do. It’s relatively simple to groom such people into thinking that all their troubles are down to women and ‘misandry’.
It’s well known that many radicalised people have no real idea about the cause they’re joining up to (the most common reading material for British jihadis are things like ‘Islam for Dummies’). In effect they’re empty vessels waiting to be filled with poison.
Modern terrorist organisations have as much in common with gangs or cults as they do with say, Comintern. They provide sympathy and a home for the confused and vulnerable; in effect a surrogate family. They then exploit such people for their own ends.
“Lone Wolves”
Although the media sometimes uses ‘lone wolf’ to suggest someone is not a terrorist, in the trade LWs are just a type of terrorist. They’re people who aren’t members of organisations or cells. They may either self radicalise or be groomed. The organisation that grooms will keep their distance though and may provide information but not logistical support.
Prohibitions on Hate Speech
As I hope I’ve demonstrated the grooming aspects of radicalisation can make mere speech as dangerous as the actions (or more so if the speech is the trigger). Clamping down on such speech appears to be problematic though. The Govt here is trying to introduce legislation that will restrict speech that falls short of a call for violence if it stirs up hate against a particular group (or people not part of a particular group). It’s being argued though that the proposals are Islamophobic as whilst the legislation would cover any hate speech, it’s certain preachers who are the mischief that the Act is aimed at. There are also intersectional issues; misogynistic Rap bad, homophobic reggae bad, Tom Jones ok.
Interestingly though some of the MRA postings seen on this site would fall within the remit of the act.
OK, that deer is nicely turquoise now so I’ll shut up.
@Aunt Edna
it’s fine, I kind of don’t comment unless I disagree with something so I expect it. It doesn’t bother me, although it does bug me when it happens to other people. Sorry don’t worry about it ok? 🙂
@Alan Robertshaw
So basically you can say that the difference here is while many cases are colocually theorism they are not legally so, and that is what the government would avoid referring to them as such?
Also what are the deer you always talk about?
OK, Rob. That’s gracious of you. 🙂
We just had a longish debate here about the new posting rules, however, and the subject of dogpiling and other less than helpful group behaviors came up repeatedly, with a suggestion to be mindful enough not to engage in them if possible. So let’s be mindful, is all. 🙂
@ Robjec
Yes; similar to how people may use ‘murder’ in a colloquially sense where, as a matter of law, that particular killing might be a different offence (manslaughter, infanticide, negligent homicide etc.)
The deer thing comes from ‘too long; didn’t read’ = tl;dr = teal deer (I had to look up ‘teal’)
If we don’t, nothing will ever change. Silent acceptance is the greatest enemy of progress.
OK sfhc I can accept that answer.
Although I still think that the news won’t change through direct action but rather by shifting the views of the general demographic enough that it becomes the best business desision. Maybe I’m just cynical about this industry.
Hou guys may want to try to talk about it on a station that live streams reaction tweets if you think it will help. Since even if they don’t aknolage it it may show up in a large public forum.
I mean:
*respect that answer
And the AP article is calling him a “provocateur,” as if he’s just a basic troll JAQ-ing off in comment sections and not a bully with serious anger management issues. Did you guys read what he did to his house after it was foreclosed on? He booby-trapped the gas lines so the new owners would be faced with a fire or an explosion. He’s been a violent and scary person for decades. But the guy who would put him on his public access tv show just laughingly calls him a gadfly, a minor annoyance.
I can think of two examples of the media being effected by criticisms of it. One good. One bad. The good one is more recent. That’s that the video game industry is finally starting to think more about diversity and the way women are portrayed. That wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu et al.
The bad one was the liberal media trope. One prominent conservative – I can’t remember who – admitted that it was a fiction. The media never had a liberal bias. They just complained and complained about it as a way to get the media to become more conservative. And it worked. Nowadays, you see mainstream news organizations giving fair hearing to ridiculous and factually untrue right wing opinions. Like birtherism. Or global warming not being real.
So, I don’t think it’s a waste of time to criticize the media at all. It can definitely effect things. Not necessarily quickly or all at once, but it does happen.
@ Robjec
Gah, sorry, I keep fat-fingering hotkeys and I have no idea what it is.
@ Robjec
Your energy is yours to spend however you see fit. I don’t know you. I wouldn’t presume to tell you what you should care about. Kindly have the same consideration for the rest of us.
And I mean, I dunno, maybe some of us would like it if the media stopped failing marginalized people. Maybe we figure they’re not going to change unless they’re pressured to change. Maybe we can’t put them under pressure to change if we all just throw up our hands and declare it a waste of time. So maybe we come to places like WHTM to talk about it and share information. If you don’t personally give a shit that’s fine. Just get out of the way.
Robjec, there’s another aspect that you might consider as well.
I was a union activist for 30ish years, and a lot of that also involved feminist related things like sexual harassment and equal opportunity policies. The one thing that kept me going over all those years was the occasional conference or weekend meeting away from the workplace. Even away from the supportive union people I knew well and respected. Spending time where there was no need to tackle stroppy managers or soothe disgruntled union members and where everyone was on the same page was like a spa bath for the soul. Even if hours and hours of detailed technical stuff about workplace health and safety might look like tedious torture to an outsider, it was balm to a weary heart.
After two or more days of that, I was reinvigorated and ready for another year or two of doing what needed doing.
For many people commenting here, this blog is the same kind of simultaneous refuge and resource.
@Aunt Edna
Thank you for chiming in. It’s probably because of that long discussion, but I too saw how things became uncomfortably dog-pilish.
I am sorry if I was defensive at first, I think we do agree on the incidents we’re trying to avoid to make this space more welcoming.
@Robjec
I get where you’re coming from, and I’m relieved you didn’t mind the confrontation.
I’d point out it was not the content of your ppst which upset people (I’m betting we mostly agree)but framing it as an “why de we do X instead of why”) which is more into the “each person’s business to mind” territory.
I know you probably didn’t mean it this way, and I have a really low tolerance for people who frame things this way in my life, so I hope this helps you understand why people react deffensivle to it.
@Everyone
i don’t usually pot about these type of articles because all I get us “this is horrible” and “I’m so sorry for the victims, survivors and their families”.
I’ll probably stay clear from this because I’m also in a more downward moment than I could handle and can’t afford more sadness at the moment.
Love to all.
@Alan: I agree that “Delilah” is a catchy song with a hideously sexist message: If I kill “my” woman it’s all her fault. There are many songs like this where sympathy lies with the murderous man and/or blames the insufficiently submissive woman — “Tom Dooley” (“Poor boy, you’re bound too die”) is another. The traditional classic “Frankie and Johnny” reverses the sexes, and may have been popular partly for the “man bites dog” reversal. And there are many songs where men bemoan the wicked woman who left them for purely indecipherable female reasons even though they was absolutely the most blameless husband/boyfriend the world has ever seen.
I think what Robjec is really trying to say is that the media are in the business of making profit first and providing information only to the extent that it does not get in the way of profit. Making people uncomfortable is not profitable. The vast majority of people in the media are poorly paid and thoroughly disposable.
One of the problems that men like me — who are trying to be pro-feminist — face is that we are trying not to be misogynistic but are constantly being obstructed by the misogynistic attitudes that were programmed into us by our socialization when we were young. If you grew up in this (or most any) society, you received a misogynistic indoctrination well before you had the capacity to recognize it for what it was. I keep colliding with attitudes that I acquired without really having had the opportunity to confront them at the beginning. I assume that most or all women struggle with their programming as well.
IMO, one of the reasons we don’t want to face the true influence of misogyny is the deep involvement of some branches of the Christian religion in promulgating it. We have a lot of religious figures who promote a very large portion of Houser’s apparent beliefs — the theme that women’s freedom, particularly sexual freedom, is destroying society is very commonly preached in fundamentalist churches. When Pat Robertson blamed 9-11 on moral decay such as abortion and homosexuality, he was preaching the sort of doctrine that Houser seems to have latched on to. But very few people — particularly politicians and media folks — are willing to poke their heads into the hornets’ nest by implying that there is any possibility that Christian churches might be promoting hatred and murder.
@Alan Robertshaw,
there is an element of terrorism in the manosphere. I can’t go digging for quotes right now, but I often hear rhetoric about ending feminism. When JB is on a roll she always talks about feminism being brought down, though admittedly not by terrorist acts.
The subreddit Philosophy of Rape is terrorist in nature because they believe, however erroneously, that women’s behaviour can be changed through sexual violence, and they do encourage the actual harm of women.
During Paul Elam’s heyday he was encouraging acts of aggression (though not murder) as a means of getting AVFM’s agenda addressed.
Maybe it’s too soon to call MRAs terrorists, but they do go in for terrorizing.
@David As a sufferer of BPD who somehow manages not to be a deranged murderer (except rhetorically at times), I appreciate it that you added that note to the OP. Thank you.
And then there’s the fabulous sendup “Put Another Log On the Fire” by the indomitable Shel Silverstein. (Here’s the Muppet version because why wouldn’t I link to the Muppet version?)
Run For Your Life by The Beatles. Yikes.
@Alan:
This is another (as usual inane and verbose) comment from the pompous and cowardly a/hole Mark Minter that directly advocates violence:
“Only” hate or already terrorism (or incitement to it)?
http://therationalmale.com/2015/07/14/our-sisters-keeper/comment-page-6/#comment-111398
This is just one of hundreds of similar comments that are posted in the ‘sphere every day, directly advocating violence toward women, feminists, and our “feminist” society in general.