John Russell Houser, who gunned down 11 moviegoers at a showing of Trainwreck in Lafayette, Louisiana Thursday night, killing two young women, was a volatile, violent, woman-hating, anti-Semitic, far-right loser given to dark and bitter diatribes against what he saw as cultural “immorality.”
It’s a safe bet that if Houser had stayed for the entire showing of Trainwreck, instead of pulling out his gun, he would not have enjoyed the film, a comedy about a young woman living an unapologetically “promiscuous” life in New York city, written by and starring Amy Schumer, a feminist comedian famous (or infamous, depending on whom you’re talking to) for her frankly sexual humor.
A more important question: Did Houser deliberately target viewers of Trainwreck as a sick protest against its “permissive” politics? And if so, was he inspired by attacks on the film from right-wing media and misogynists online?
Trainwreck has been a lightning rod for right-wing “moralists” since the first trailer for the film came out five months ago. A glance through the comments to the trailer on YouTube reveals months of sniping at the film by an assortment of angry misogynists decrying Trainwreck as “propaganda” and a celebration of “whores.”
“This is unbelievably degenerate,” one would-be cultural critic on YouTube wrote shortly after the trailer came out. “No respectable man would even touch an overweight whore.”
“Movies like this are the reason people can’t have normal, old fashioned relationships anymore,” another YouTuber complained. “Thank you Hollywood for yet another huge, stinking, steaming pile of crap contribution to society whose sole purpose is to teach women to act like men, be sluts and take relationships for granted.”
Still another attacked the film as subtle “propaganda” encouraging women to “behave like sluts” — even though Schumer’s character repents and gives up her “slutty” ways at the end. As this non-fan of Schumer saw it, the fact that the film has a happy ending
encourages the viewer to partake in her abominable behavior, because the message is that such behavior has no consequences: everything will go your way in the end. This gives young women a license to party, do drugs and whore around in their 20s, because they believe they can count on a Prince Charming to rescue them when the time is right.
The apotheosis of this kind of, er, criticism comes not from some irate, anonymous YouTube commenter but from Armond White, movie reviewer for the paleoconservative National Review, who, in a review last week, blasted Schumer for turning “female sexual prerogative into shamelessness” and promoting “the degradation of sex.”
And he was just getting started:
Trainwreck should be a wake-up call for anyone — especially for any conservative — who thinks pop culture is guileless, harmless fun. …
Not really a sex comedy, Trainwreck is a comedy that uses sex to promote feminist permissiveness.
Like the angry YouTube commenters he almost seems to be cribbing his critique from, White is especially offended that Amy — it’s not clear if he’s talking about Schumer or the character she named after herself, or both — can be so unapologetically sexual without suffering “social stigma.”
As White sees it, Schumer is “a comedy demagogue who okays modern misbehavior.” Apparently confusing Trainwreck with the Chinese Cultural Revolution and Schumer with Madame Mao, White concludes that
Schumer doesn’t simply use humor for social readjustment; like all Comedy Central performers from Jon Stewart on down, she aims to acquire cultural power. … As the latest model of Comedy Central’s stealth comediennes (following Janeane Garofalo and Sarah Silverman), Schumer disguises a noxious cultural agenda as personal fiat.
Now, we don’t know if Houser was directly inspired by White’s antifeminist-diatribe-cum-movie-review; we don’t know if he even read it.
What we do know is that over-the-top attacks on feminism and feminists like his have helped to contribute to a widespread backlash, online and off, against outspoken women, a backlash that has both encouraged and excused attacks on, and outright harassment of, individual women who have challenged male cultural authority — from women daring to offer opinions about video games that offend misogynistic gamers to comedians like Schumer who challenge old-fashioned slut-shaming by joking unapologetically about female “promiscuity.”
No, movie reviews don’t cause terrorism, not by themselves, anyway. But John Russell Houser was a veritable rage bomb that had long been ready to explode, and “cultural critics” like White and his ideological fellow travellers online may well have inspired his choice of targets when he finally did.
—
Please read the newly revised COMMENTS POLICY before commenting.
Hi Carmen
Great points nicely put.
The word “permissive” is associated with Dr. Benjamin Spock, whose book “Baby and Child Care” was the most powerful influence on child-rearing practices for baby boom children like me. He counseled less dogmatic and restrictive practices than had been thought proper previously — for example, he argued that babies should be fed when they were hungry instead of being fed on a strict arbitrary schedule, which had been the conventional wisdom prior to WW II. He counseled parents to feel free to love their children and to be less stern and less concerned about “spoiling” children — contrary to the traditional saying, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. He argued against corporal punishment and against other harsh discipline, such as withdrawing and threatening to withdraw affection when a child misbehaves. During the anti-Vietnam-War protests and the hippie culture and the beginnings of the sexual revolution in the late 60s and early 70s, traditionalists blamed the rebelliousness of youth on Dr. Spock and his “permissive” child-rearing policies. Spock himself was prosecuted in federal court for counseling draft resistance. But Spock’s advice has now become so normalized that the term “permissive” has become almost totally obsolete.
We’ve had a number of comments here about the sexism of Islam and the poor job that the media have done in covering misogynistic crimes. But I’d like to suggest that the fact that nobody in the media wants to talk much about misogyny is largely due to the fact that a serious discussion of misogyny in the US would lead to Christian doctrine, particularly as preached by Fundamentalist churches and popular televangelists. The theme that women’s political and sexual freedom is destroying our society and tempting God to destroy the US is a very common one — see Pat Robertson’s famous remarks treating the 9-11 attacks as God’s punishment for tolerating “the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians”. But if the media pursued that line, they would be viciously attacked verbally and threatened with physical harm, and there would quite possibly even be some murders. Just think of Bill O’Reilly prattling about a War on Christmas because some people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Think of what people like him would be saying if anyone in the major media tried to trace misogynistic crimes to Fundamentalist Christian preaching.
@Carmen Personally I’m not very promiscuous myself, and have turned down offers, not a lot mind you, because it didn’t feel right. Even though in all cases they were pleasant people. Saying that I would never judge another person for their promiscuity or lack thereof. As you’ve sort of said I only think it”s a problem when someone gets involved with someone who doesn’t respect their needs, which unfortunately isn’t always the easiest thing to work out before sex occurs.
@autosama That was interesting to see. Hopefully it does encourage a variation of body types eventually. Also puts me in mind of this letter from the letters page of ‘The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl #3’
Hey guys!
Keep up the good work with Squirrel Girl. It’s refreshing to see a female super hero that has the body type a lot of us girls have. How did you guys come up with the character design?
Can’t wait to read more.
Alexa
ERICA: For the body I didn’t think about it much. I tend to draw super heroines with more physical powers thicker because I honestly have a hard time believing that a 90-pound can take down a 200-pound steroidal dude who has equal fighting ability. So yeah. Her body type in the book is the same as the first finished drawing of her I ever did because that’s how I see Squirrel Girl. Besides have you seen people who do cross-fit? Their thighs are HUUUUGE
I agree with you Carmen, lesbians that I have known that have had quite a lot of casual sex do so because they feel and are safer, really unlikely to get an STI and are more likely to have orgasms. Generally, women try harder with women, and are fully mindful of consent and mutual enjoyment. I have heard some horror stories too, but a tiny % comparative to those who have casual sex with men.
I also agree that ultimately a lot of casual sex becomes hollow and just not much fun. Most of the people I have known who have had a lot of partners have some pretty serious issues with alcohol/ drugs/ self esteem/ commitment.
One very worrying thing I read was that women who do BDSM with any regularity with many male partners are very very likely to suffer rape or sexual assault at some point, not surprisingly leading to many women dropping out of the kink scene.
I can understand why casual sex isn’t the best choice for many people personally, let’s not drift into slut shaming territory here. For some women, casual sex can be fun. I don’t regret any I’ve had.
Hi Level14Boss
It’s interesting what you say about the M-F fighting thing. of course, by definition, when all else is equal one would expect the stringer person to win; and strength is usually (though not always) proportionate to body mass.
Having said that, it’s axiomatic in H2H combat that you don’t play to the opponents strengths (in the ‘abilities’ sense of the word). So the 90lbs fighter would probably rely on speed and manoeuvrability rather than go toe to toe.
I know from personal experience that can be affective. I don’t do the steroids but I do weigh 200lbs (and then some) but I have had quite a few serious injuries from lighter faster girls. I can show you the teeth to prove it; or rather I can’t, just the replacement caps. 🙂
“Did right-wing attacks on ‘Trainwreck’ inspire John Russell Houser’s shooting rampage?”
This is a typical Glenn Beckian question. That is, an absurd, far-flung assertion punctuated with a question mark. The question mark indicates that zero effort has been invested into substantiating the assertion which precedes it.
@Alan Robertshaw. The letter part was supposed to be in quotes but it mucked up. You’re point’s a good one though. I have friend who works as a joiner for the local council who is quite small. I’m 6’3″ and probably about 196lbs and honestly believe she good easily kick my butt if the need arised. Though it never would.
@ level14boss
Yeah, trust me, don’t ever test that theory, you’ll inevitably be proved right! 🙂 Someone who lugs wood around for a living and uses hand tools is essentially doing 8 hour a day fitness training. It’s weird what professions make for good fighters. Some of the hardest kicks I’ve ever received have come from dancers.
Here’s a 5 foot girl putting me out of action for a while:
http://s1122.photobucket.com/user/Alan_Robertshaw/media/received_10151260674485936_zpsqk659px8.jpeg.html?filters%5Buser%5D=142504534&filters%5Brecent%5D=1&sort=1&o=0
@Alan Robertshaw She seems to be gettting right into it. 🙂
@Carmen,
yes I hear you on the pros and cons of casual sex. I haven’t done it for years, partly because I did find some men seem to get off on treating a woman badly after the act, which rather spoils the fun; but predominantly because either a)if the sexual connection is good with a guy I’ll want to do it more often which leads to complications, or b) the sex is disappointing in which case I’ll regret having done it in the first place.
Btw, I don’t think this thread is in danger of slut shaming. I would never judge or lecture a man or woman who enjoys casual sex, but it is refreshing to discuss the pitfalls in a context which is not moralistic.
Re:Jummy,
did somebody order up some word salad? I didn’t order any word salad….
@ level14boss
Oh indeed….
TMI Warning!!!!!
….. one of the many times I’ve had needed a prostate exam. Mind you the doctor said she could have done that whilst checking my tonsils after that excapade. 🙂
In all fairness I had started the exercise by punching her in the back of the head and making her eat sand, so it was fair enough, but that is how you have to train if it’s to be off any use to anyone.
http://s1122.photobucket.com/user/Alan_Robertshaw/media/received_10151260674465936_zpsejngb4hu.jpeg.html?filters%5Buser%5D=142504534&filters%5Brecent%5D=1&sort=1&o=1
[I should perhaps point out we became really good friends]
Why are women who have sex and women who don’t have sex both disparaged? Why are they saying women aren’t supposed to “act like men,” without any supposed realization about what that implies about men?
It’s simple: their real issue is with the woman having a choice. It’s about women being their own people instead of men’s things.
I’m with WWTH here, this is a bit too close to the “There’s something wrong with [slur for women who enjoy sex]” narrative for my tastes.
@carmen
@wwth
What gets me about these people who s***-shame and whine about promiscuity is that they are presuming and speculating about peoples sexlives with no evidence what so ever. Has Amy Schumer had sex? Well, I guess so, she’s an adult woman, any more than that it’s none of my business.
This fuckwit who shot two undeserving people dead in a cinema, what did he really know about their personal lives – nothing except angry presumption.
Tomorrow, I’ll pass many people and will I speculate about what they have done sexually – nah! Does anyone speculate about mine – nah
‘Most of the people I have known who have had a lot of partners have some pretty serious issues with alcohol/ drugs/ self esteem/ commitment.’
To be fair, this does say ‘people’ and not specifically ‘women’. I think it’s possible to say something isn’t a great idea, without passing judgement upon the people who think otherwise. It’s the non-progressives who make everything into a moral issue.
I didn’t get any vibe of shaming from Carmen’s comments. Then again I don’t see anything negative about promiscuity anyway so perhaps I have an unconscious bias.
People engage in sex for all sorts of reasons. I’d have thought that “it’s loads of fun” might be the main one but I have known people who, when going through periods of low self esteem, have perhaps confused sex as a substitute for affection or attention, or had sex with people just to keep them on board as it were. To me, people who do that are taking advantage in the worst possible way by exploiting a vulnerable person. To use an old fashioned word I think it’s totally caddish.
Where there’s mutual consent and enthusiasm though I say fill your boots.
Carmen’s choice is of course entirely their own though, and I respect that.
I should perhaps clarify that it’s the people taking advantage of the vulnerable person that are cads; there’s no stigma attached to the vulnerable person of course.
To be fair I don’t hold it against anyone male or female who engages in regular casual sex (speaking only for myself, I’ll only have sex in the context of serious relationship). I have a dual opinion in that A. I think its one of the only positives that single men have in their situations (single women get the same benefit of course, but I’m of the opinion that they get a couple more) but B. Anytime sex gets reduced to a certain level of casualness I believe something important gets lost, so I’m not sure that this would be a good idea on a widespread level (this contradiction, which I’m well aware of, fortunately I often won’t push my morality on others).
What exactly gets lost? I’m not damaged or defective because I’ve had some casual sex. There’s nothing missing from my body or mind. The ghosts of peni past are not haunting and sullying my vagina.
Contacts get lost. You need to be really careful having casual sex or you have to go back to wearing glasses.
Armond White is famous among film buffs for two things: his cartoonishly pretentious writing and having the opposite of a human’s taste in movies. Hated Black Swan, Zodiac, and There Will Be Blood, loved Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, dislikes every Pixar movie while praising Chicken Little and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole, recommends Resident Evil over 28 Days Later, was literally the only critic on Rotten Tomatoes who gave a thumbs-down to Toy Story 3, and has a nigh-impenetrable explanation for each opinion.
A quick scan of Rotten Tomatoes reveals that he hates almost every female-led comedy with a hint of unladylike raunch, although he did like Lena Dunham’s debut, Tiny Furniture.
Okay, I’ve now wasted way too much time on Rotten Tomatoes reading the pull quotes from Armond’s reviews, because they’re just too funny. His reactions to gay-themed movies are the best. Milk is “A bizarre manipulation of the gay political impulse. ” I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is “a modern classic (despite a cheap-shot plug for Giuliani). By comparison, Hollywood’s most celebrated gay comedies — In and Out, Chuck and Buck, Blades of Glory, even the laughable Brokeback Mountain — were all failures of nerve.”
The man is a national treasure.
Oh my fucking god, who the fuck thinks Chicken Little is a good movie ever for any reason?!
This fucker isn’t a critic, they’re a fucking troll.
“Movies like this are the reason people can’t have normal, old fashioned relationships anymore,” another YouTuber complained.
Mothereffer, the sexual revolution happened back in the 60s. Are you elderly? Are you like Don Draper’s old Colonel Sanders-looking boss? No? Then you never saw these “normal, old-fashioned relationships” (which mostly sucked anyway) and you’ve had your entire life to get used to the fact that women can have sex now.
I have no time for these Minivers Cheevy anymore. I officially lost it when a guy on the Doctor Nerdlove comments was complaining about how he shouldn’t be expected to treat women as people because he didn’t grow up with these newfangled ideas about feminism and equality. In a previous post, he’d mentioned he was 23.