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.
@Aunt Edna: Kate Minter comes around here every so often acting like she’s Dear Abby reincarnated, and I had heard that her husband was horrible but I didn’t know how horrible. She’s a conventionally attractive woman who went fishing in the matrimonial pool and hooked a rusty beer can full of toxic sludge — not a good basis for offering unsolicited advice to feminists about their relationships.
@Bruno: The issue here is not violence in general but a specific type of violence which is aimed at punishing women for not submitting to domination by men. “Rusty had an issue with feminine rights. He was opposed to women having a say in anything.” That’s what we were discussing here
“I challenge you to start doing some exercise in ethics. I want better articles out of you.” I can’t recall anyone asking for your opinion on how we could change our website to suit your concern-trolling manfeels. In fact, I have looked in my big bag of fucks and find that I have none to give for your opinion. I want you to stop whining “what about the menz.” Of course you can undoubtedly list all the things you’ve been doing to reduce male violence against men that gives you the chops to butt in here.
@bruno, here is a shocker. This is not a news site. This is a site for mocking and tracking misogyny and misogynists. It even says so at the top.
lmao, that’s cute, bruno. Why don’t you tell us what you really think?
No, seriously. What the hell is your point? You’re attacking our intent, but you haven’t attacked the argument – that these murders were motivated by hatred, and that fact is being glossed over by the powers that be.
You’ve said you’re for equal rights, and that men are far more commonly the victims of murder – but you haven’t even implied what that means. Are you angry that we’re devoting time to a man who murdered women?
I can’t even tell how badly you’ve missed the point because you won’t even say what your argument is.
I challenge you to start practicing your arguments. Make cogent, concise comments that have a point. I want better comments out of you.
You guys failed to please Bruno. Big goof up there! Pleasing Bruno should always be your first objective, that is extremely important!
@Grumpy:
I know. I have exactly as much respect for Kate as I have for her husband. Whatever compassionate impulse I may have toward her is extinguished when I remember that she married this nasty misogynist knowing well what he stands for, and she shares and defends his views every chance she gets. It says it all.
Her showing up on feminist blogs to lecture on love and peace must be some kind of ego-gratifying performance art. Or… something.
“Pleasing Bruno” — wasn’t that some B movie?
@bruno
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Yes men die in greater numbers but here’s the point: it’s not a result of gender driven violence. The above was, and it won’t be the last example of a mass shooter targeting women – because they’re women.
@others
Let’s put the kerfuffle with Robjec to bed, yes? It doesn’t seem productive to start getting into the territory it’s heading into.
@Aunt Edna: They say love is blind, but does it have to be deaf and stupid as well?
Regarding Robjec’s comments and the ensuing kerfluffle:I think it illustrates some of the points we’ve been tossing around in the comments policy discussion.
(1) When what we’re dealing with is not a mockery situation, like one of JB’s or Roosh’s stupid rants, but a terrible outburst of savagery in which two young lives were brutally destroyed, we are all liable to be pretty upset and frustrated, and therefore much more likely to pounce on something that strikes us the wrong way.
(2) Robjec was angry and frustrated and didn’t express himself particularly well, but I thought the gist of what he was saying was fairly clear. He was responding to people being critical of news coverage by suggesting that it was wrong to assume that reporters didn’t see the misogyny — that they just had to pretend that they didn’t see it because it wasn’t to the financial advantage of their employers to report it. In other words, he was saying that we were criticizing the messengers rather that the higher-ups who control the message. I thought that viewpoint had a good deal of truth. The problem was that some people interpreted his comments as criticizing them for criticizing the media in the first place, and so people starting criticizing something that he hadn’t actually meant to imply. He was just saying that it was pointless to criticize people who do not have control over the message, and that it was almost impossible to get at the people who do control it.
A lot of the conflicts that arise here, it seems to me, happen because some comment has been misunderstood — often because the commenter has expressed it poorly — and people start arguing over a statement that has really not been made. I keep repeating that we ought to be willing to take most comments here as made in good faith until proven otherwise, recognize that none of us expresses ourselves clearly at all times, and remember Alan’s comment: “Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.”
@bruno,
If a woman had a long history of publicly talking about hating men and Jews and then went to the screening of a heavily masculinized action movie and shot two men in the back of the head, would you be upset if the MRAs (or WWHHT, for that matter) connected her crime to misandry?
Also, when people commit murder, usually, they almost always have a reason. It’s this nifty legal term referred to as a “motive.” The police like to uncover one, and the prosecutors like to have one if they take a case to trial because their inability to demonstrate that the defendant had a reason to commit the crime can create lots of room for reasonable doubt. Really, saying that it’s propaganda-mongering to try to find a motive is pretty stupid and ignorant on multiple levels.
Well, aren’t you just so special? You poor widdle thing, you wanted “better articles”. Doing what — justifying misogynist violence, just because it’s happened “throughout the history of our species”? Just because men have “always” killed men, do you think that means we therefore shouldn’t object to men killing women? Do you seriously think that glossing this ugly, pointy little fact called MISOGYNY over is somehow magically going to lead to “equality”? If you do, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll sell you for a song.
And oh, what about teh poor wilddle menz. They get killed “in greater numbers” (CITATION NEEDED), so we shouldn’t say boo when a man goes out and “equalizes” things by mass-murdering women who just want to watch a silly little movie.
And yet, even after dropping this dense yet massive stoopid-bomb, you still insist you’re not a troll. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
My name is The Queen of Sheba, by the way.
PS: There is, in fact, a label for men who kill men. They are called MURDERERS, plain and simple.
Hi, I’m new around here, is there a specific thread where I can introduce myself? Thank you!
@Bruno
Really?!
PPS: And yes, men who kill men enjoy male privilege too. Even though there’s no fancy “political” term for them. Murder is a form of power, when all’s said. And he who kills all the corpses, has all the power. Why else do you think mass murder has such allure for those guys, Bruno?
Most murders aren’t motivated by the desire to send a political message, which is why we don’t ascribe them a political label.
Most men don’t kill each other because they want to send a message about how terrible men are.
@deniseeza
Kudos. You said it way better than I did.
Don’t let the “what about the menz troll” make everyone ignore the anti-abortion troll!
@Katz
No worries there. Been typing this up.
@ElliotSan
Bull. Even besides the point that getting *raped* isn’t an effing mistake, no one has the right to use anyone else’s freaking body without consent.
It’s cute how a trolling pile of garbage like you thinks you get to harp on the “but what about the poor widdle disabled people” line. And by “cute,” I mean “disgusting.” The developmentally disabled are not your props, so take your concern trolling and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
@Bruno
Oh no. Your opinions weren’t catered to. My world is crushed.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bAEnWdyXtew/S9J0thrgXoI/AAAAAAAAAoY/Bsx0j9-FL1M/s1600/cute-kitten-crying.jpg
@sevenofmine
it is your general tone. Stiff like get out of the way and things along that naturemy it gives a feeling that either we share your views exactly or are not welcome.
I admit I did the exact same thing but I apologized and tried to make up for it.
And it is hard to define, because it is based on your tone. You just seem angry, and that a Mel’s people feel unwelcome. It’s OK to be angry you should just apologize afterwards.
*males people. Stupid phone.
And @grumpyOSJM
that’s what I was trying to get at but you said it much better then I did. Sorry I caused such a mess :p
Oh joy, we got one of THOSE, too? BRB, gotta go rosin up my trollwhacker…
All right, elliotsan. You’re making the claim that abortion is murder. Demonstrate that life begins at conception or at whatever point in fetal development you’re saying that abortion becomes murder.
@bruno
Men’s privilege just in gender wreaks havoc on all people, men and women. Rape and Murder are power based. I agree with another poster here you see unrest or social uprising in the news and what do you see? Only men. Men start wars men are just violent – we need to address their privilege to kill the earl and innocent
@kwilz79:
This is a very well written, comprehensive piece. I would leave a comment there, but since you no longer allow it, I’ll say it here.