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.
And yet, some people think that shitty, irresponsible TV host should be allowed to continue in that vein. Because FREEZE PEACH, BAYBAY.
I’ve said it elsewhere, but there’s no reason I can’t repeat it here: There really are no lone wolves. They are pack animals. The whole nature of stochastic terrorism is for one person to make terrorism sound okay, and another to DO the terrorism. Without the atmosphere in which “anything goes”, terrorism can’t flourish. Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute right, even under the First Amendment. Some speech — the kind that inflames hatred and makes terrorism sound normal, even desirable, as a response to “abnormal” and “undesirable” people — is rightly illegal. Like I said earlier: Women’s right to life takes precedence over some crappy show host’s right to be asinine.
PS: “Delilah” sucks. I cringe whenever I hear it. But then, that’s my standard reaction to ALL Tom Jones songs, because they are all atrociously sexist anyway. (Plus I can’t stand his voice. UGH.)
I’ve never listened to Delilah’s lyrics, so I considered myself educated now. Thanks, Alan.
A person experiencing a manic episode can become uncharacteristically violent. I know this first hand, because when I had a manic episode I became violent for pretty much the only time in my life, and later learned that it was not unusual or atypical. Although nobody was seriously hurt but me, it’s still horrifying to remember. One of the reasons I work so hard on treating my mental illness is that I never, ever want anything like that to happen again.
I am in no way suggesting that the killer was experiencing a manic episode–that would be a completely inappropriate armchair diagnosis based on zero facts–but in discussing BPD it is important to acknowledge that violent ideation and behavior are some of the symptoms, and that people who become violent only because of a manic episode deserve compassion and treatment rather than vilification and punishment.
Edit:
one of hundreds of similar comments that are posted in the ‘sphere every
dayweekI consider
edmyself educatedSorry.
On the subject of Delilah:
It was the bizarre choice of song for a woman singer at a charity do for the victims of DV that I was at once. She actually sang the ‘knife in my hand’ line the first time, and then seemed to wake up to what the lyrics were and mumbled through it the second time!
Hey Joe is one of my favourite songs – I have always had this element of cognitive dissonance in my life where I can really love the product of misogyny – even when it is that blatant. But I have ceased to like plenty of sexist things as I get older – although I was very political as a young woman I just let it go more than I do now.
Alpha: Fair enough, but this particular guy’s violent act seems anything but uncharacteristic.
@Alpha von Carousel:
You make good points, and I’m sorry to hear about your past (I hope) troubles.
But (yeah) was your violence directed toward women? Were you a misogynist known for your hateful views of women? The answer, I suspect, is no — correct?
The point is that misogyny does not have anything to do with mental illness.
@ Aunt Edna
Thanks for that link (although I had to force myself to carry on past ‘social Darwinism’).
Been putting my prosecutor head on as an intellectual exercise (not that I do a lot of prosecuting), to see if I could formulate a charge in that case.
Check this:
(1)
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
.
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
.
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
.
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
And this:
(2)
A person commits an offence if—
.
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
.
(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—
.
(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
.
(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.
.
But where the statement is ‘published’ on the internet the publisher must be given two days notice that the statement might fall foul of the Act and it’s only if he refuses to take it down that he can then be prosecuted. There’s also the practical problem of enforcing English law against someone out of the jurisdiction. We claim the power to do so, but would the host country render? Under most extradition treaties the offence must be a crime in both countries and it might not be where he is.
So we have “intimidate a section of the public” (i.e. women) and a political intent (bringing down feminism). If he stood by those words after his warning the offence might be committed. But we hit the practical problems of actually prosecuting. Be an interesting exercise though. In England *anyone* can initiate a prosecution.
Tell you what, if we come across an English example we could maybe give it a go. I’d be up for it.
During a manic episode, delusional ideation generally reflects the sufferer’s existing ideology. So my delusions were had a kind of paranoid, dystopian sci-fi vibe to them, whereas religious people tend to have religious delusions. In one case history I read, a person attacked the singing group The Temptations on the streets of Tokyo because of his Christian beliefs that the devil is trying to tempt people into sin (he got his ass kicked, because one of the guys in The Temptations knew karate).
I’m not entering this discussion to speculate about the motives of the killer. I’m entering it because I don’t want BPD to be characterized as having nothing to do with violence, because then you’re vilifying me for a symptom of my illness. It’s a whitewash of the reality of this complex, hard-to-cope-with disease.
Question: when we say BPD are we talking about bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder?
Anyway, regarding criticizing media: Lately it has become very common for some news orgs to report on online activism, even if that activism is focused on criticizing the media. While most successful online activism is led by an offline component, it is absolutely untrue that it is pointless to criticize media online. For instance, I’ve heard stories on NPR talking about why the #AllLivesMatter hashtag response to #BlackLivesMatter is considered to be silencing and minimizing. Sure, no Fox News watcher is going to be listening to NPR, but social media criticism is becoming a part of the national conversation.
Oh, one more comment on “Delilah”
Isn’t that an exact example of Margaret Atwood’s dictum?
BPD = bipolar. AFAIK borderline does not cause violent behavior, although I believe there is a tendency in borderline towards various kinds of retaliation for perceived slights.
@Aunt Edna: Thanks for posting the Mark Minter link — I wanted to know exactly who he was so that next time his sanctimonious wife posts here I can remind her that maybe she has better things to do than lecture the women here on their relationships.
Thank you for this. It is high time we stopped ignoring the gendered nature of these crimes. I wrote a similar piece regarding the Charleston shootings. Nothing will change until we change the narrative regarding mass shootings. Thank you again for this.
http://dissentandcookies.org/2015/06/21/the-perpetrator-was-caught-but-the-killer-is-still-at-large-rev-dr-william-j-barber-ii-why-we-need-to-stop-blaming-all-the-wrong-things-and-truly-understand-the-root-causes-of-mass-shootin/
Gotcha. I had always read BPD as borderline, but the symptoms you described in your post definitely sounded like bipolar so I wasn’t sure 🙂 Thanks!
@Alan:
Wading through Minter’s pseudo-intellectual hateful nonsense is not for the faint of stomach. It’s best avoided, if one can. Luckily, he sometimes manages to wrap his logorrhea into one almost succinct conclusion typically advocating violence, or rape, or “just” mistreatment of women.
Apart from the question of prosecutability of such statements, there is an issue of their social impact.
Misogynist assholes like Minter are pompous cowards. They like to flap their mouths on the necessity of violence, but prefer that others do it for them. They see themselves, inexplicably, as the “philosophers” (gaah) of the ‘sphere, and their task as formulating its ideology, which, among other things, gives them plausible deniability when it comes to responsibility for misogynist violence. Freeze peach ‘n all.
But they are responsible, since, as Bina, Snork, and others point out, their words seed hate and give permission for putting it in action. I wish we had legal means to make that point.
@Grumpy:
You’re welcome.
If you want to get better acquainted with Minter, search this blog for his name.
Also select quotes not found through the search of WHTM:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/#comment-74576
Or this:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/#comment-74617
There is also a comment from him where he warmly congratulates misogynist harrassers (on Twitter, I think) for their threats of rape and murder directed at some woman/women with opinions, but I cannot find it right now and the prospect of searching for it makes me ill.
But it gives you enough to know who you’re dealing with.
I think a lot of stuff like this could be described as “moral” aggression. From the perpetrator’s perspective, women deserve to be severely punished for failing to conform to certain standards of behavior. That’s basically what a lot of Manospherans think, but they’re content with harassment and intimidation as long as there are no immediate consequences for them (which is why we need laws for prosecuting harassment and hate speech). Every once in awhile there’s someone who doesn’t care about consequences for some reason or another. The root issue is cultural and ideological.
@mildlymagnificent
Yah that makes sense, I’m sorry I didn’t think of that beforehand. It probably would of avoided the while thing.
@luzbelitx
I’ll try to be more careful how I frame things in the future. That wasn’t really my intent but I guess I was tired and upset and I attacked you all too easily so I’m sorry.
@sevenofmine
I know I made a mistake and I’m trying to make up for it. But the way your talking just makes me feel unwelcome and like I don’t belong here, so please tone it down a bit. Not so much for me, but if this is how you talk to anyone who you have a heated discussion on whtm it kind of fits with why a lot of people were saying they don’t feel OK posting the other day. And that’s not really ok. So once again I’m sorry, but if you can’t accept that then I don’t have anything more to say to you.
Here is a shocker. People throughout the history of our species kill one another. Trying to make sense of it for news or gossip or trying to label it for a political reason to further your agenda is your perogative. Its these little gems that make the mammoth hunter propaganda. Men die and are assaulted in greater…much greater numbers than women and yet I don’t see articles searching for or demanding the assailants be called some arbitrary label. My name is Bruno. Not a troll. And I believe is equal rights. Women and men. I challenge you to start doing some exercise in ethics. I want better articles out of you.
@grumpyOSJM
Yes that was exactly what I was getting at.
And about the bipolar discussion, I stayed out of it because it’s not something I suffer from myself, but I have several family members who do. So I have seen it’s effects growing up. Sometimes people who would never harm anyone become suddenly violent. And I have seen the positive effect that treatment has had in their lives.
However I don’t think that it would be right to just say that’s why this happened. I just wanted to say it can lead to violence, and to say otherwise feels like your blaming people for actions they really would of never done otherwise and isn’t right towards them.
@ Robjec
Tone what down? What specifically did I say that you have a problem with? This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in those discussions from the other day: this vague, non-specific, hand-wavey, “you transgressed some invisible boundary in some way I won’t bother to specify but please stop doing it lest I ignore you going forward” nonsense. I’m not a mind reader. I didn’t call you any names. I did use a naughty word. I mean is it supposed to be obvious to me what you’re talking about? Because it’s not.
“He was anti-abortion. … Rusty had an issue with feminine rights. ”
Abortion is not a feminine right. Firstly you are not the only parent and even if you were what right do you have to end a life? You messed up and there are consequences for it. The body is theirs but they have the responsability to take care of the living human being inside.
If you are pro-abortion you might aswell support murdering older fetuses or small children if the child will be retarded.
@ Bruno
Men get killed and assaulted for all sorts of reasons but rarely, if ever, for merely being men.
Women are however assaulted and killed just for being women, or not conforming to some hypothetical standard of how women should behave or look.
It makes sense to give a name to people who kill women for those ‘reasons’ a name so misogynist is as good as any.