Trying to Write after the Newtown Massacre

I have two pieces of writing to finish today, a chapbook manuscript that I want to submit to a contest and a blog post about Alyssa Royse’s in-so-many-ways-shameful “Nice Guys Commit Rape Too” essay on The Good Men Project that life and end-of-semester work kept interrupting, but I cannot bring myself even to look at them. It’s the day after Adam Lanza murdered his mother and twenty-five other people, twenty of them children, and then killed himself and all I’m feeling right now is despair, and horror and shame and grief, and anger and frustration and then more anger and then anxiety and fear. And all those feelings just keep turning around and around and around in my head and in my gut. My wife and I are both teachers. She is teaching pre-K this year; I teach college. In addition to the way in which any parent would identify with the parents of the children Lanza killed–we have one son–the way any brother, sister, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, friend, neighbor must be identifying with all those whose lives have been torn open by the bullets Lanza used to kill twenty children, six adults, and himself, in addition to that, it’s hard not to think what if someone like Lanza chose to target my wife’s school or my campus.

The State University of New York (SUNY), the college system I work for, has an alert system in place (as do university’s throughout the nation) so that if there ever is a shooter on campus, or some other dangerous and lethal situation, I will receive, as will my colleagues and my students, messages on our cell phones telling us what’s going on and what we should do. Emergency procedures are posted in every classroom. Whether and how much these measures will help if a shooter ever comes to my campus, I don’t know–and I hope I never have to find out–but it is good that the people responsible for public safety at my school are being as clear-eyed as possible about these things.

I don’t know if the New York City Department of Education, for which my wife works, has a similar system in place for its employees and students, or if her school has taken any measures on its own to do what it can to protect itself in the event an Adam Lanza ever walks through its doors; but I am very aware that, demographically at least, someone like that is far more likely to appear in the suburb where I work than in the inner city neighborhood where my wife does. In a paper called “Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings,” authors Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel point out that since 1982, the overwhelming majority the “rampage school shootings” that have taken place in rural or suburban United States have involved a “white boy (or boys) [who] brings semi-automatic rifles or assault weapons to school and opens fire seemingly at random.” The paper, which attempts to answer the question of why this is the case, is worth reading, as is “Connecticut Shooting, White Males, and Mass Murder” by William Hamby, who summarizes Kalish and Kimmel’s conclusions: “It’s called ‘aggrieved entitlement.’ According to the authors, it is ‘a gendered emotion, a fusion of…humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back. And its gender is masculine.'”

I am quoting Hamby’s article, and not the Kalish and Kimmel paper itself, because as far as I can remember, Hamby is the first journalist to introduce into a mainstream discussion of incidents like the Newtown massacre the possibility that masculinity and manhood might have something to do with why they happen and it’s that fact that I want to highlight, not Kalish and Kimmel’s analysis. I’m not the first person to have noticed the fact that killers like Lanza are overwhelmingly men and that this fact is the elephant in the room no one seems willing to talk about. Rob Okun, editor and publisher of Voice Male magazine has also written about it (here as well), and the very fact that Kalish and Kimmel wrote their paper suggests that others too have been noticing the lack of this discussion. What I particularly liked about Hamby’s article, however, is the way he connected the idea of men’s aggrieved entitlement as expressed in the shootings Kimmel and Kalish examine to the “less brutal but equally mind-numbing examples [that we all witnessed during the 2012 election season] of [Republican] white men going mad because they are losing their power.” Hamby doesn’t mention specific instances, but Donald Trump’s “birther obsession” with President Obama comes to mind, as do all the ridiculous pronouncements Republican men, like Todd Aiken, Rick Santorum, and Richard Mourdock made about rape.

Rape. Another kind of violence that is committed almost entirely by men and, outside of the prison system, overwhelmingly against women. One of the most shameful things, for example, about the way Todd Aiken tried to distinguish between “legitimate rape” and whatever other kind of rape he obviously thought existed–in addition to his obvious misogyny–is the way this distinction removes manhood and masculinity from the discussion. This too is the problem with Alyssa Royse’s “nice guys” essay, though I am sure she would like to think she disagrees entirely with the likes of Aiken, Santorum, and Mourdock. In blaming “society” for the mixed sexual messages that, in her estimation, make rape pretty much inevitable, she also avoids dealing with the question of a rapist’s gender, and the logic of that avoidance is no different than the logic which focuses exclusively on the need for better gun control laws or better mental health services or better school security procedures in cases like the Newtown massacre: Men may do these things, but the fact that they are men has nothing to do with it. They are simply people whom society has, in one way or another, failed.

While my initial impulse is to agree with Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel’s analysis of rampage shootings and with the way William Hamby brings that analysis to bear on other aspects of our society, I don’t know that they are right in any objective sense of that term. More to the point, even if they are right, I don’t think that fact will make it any easier to figure out what to do, except perhaps make sure that we are directing our efforts in the right direction. What I know now is that I’m glad William Hamby has brought the discussion of Adam Lanza’s gender a little bit further towards the center of the spotlight, because along with the need for better gun control and better mental health services (which we absolutely do need), if we are not also talking about how being a man might have contributed to Adam Lanza’s becoming the person who killed his mother in her own home and then walked into the school where she taught to kill twenty five other people, twenty of them children, and then himself, we are never going to find a solution.

Posted in Men and masculinity | 45 Comments

Hetero-Only Marriage Laws Were Not Created Out Of Malice. But They’re Still Unfair Discrimination.

United Church of Christ lobbyists for gay marriage

Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George (who I’ll call “Girgis” for short) write:

In short, marriage unites a man and woman holistically — emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth — for the whole of life. […]

Nor did animus against any group produce this conclusion, which arose everywhere quite apart from debates about same-sex unions. The conjugal view best fits our social practices and judgments about what marriage is.

I agree with what Girgis says here. The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman (or between a man and multiple women, in many cultures) arose apart from animus against lesbians and gays, because the idea of marriage precedes modern conceptions of homosexuality.

At the same time, I think – and perhaps I’m mistaken – that Girgis, by saying that, intends more than just describing historic sequence. I think they want readers to conclude that because the historic definition of marriage was formed without animus towards lesbians and gays, therefore a modern-day exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has nothing to do with prejudice against lgbt people.

I don’t think that conclusion is warranted.

Imagine a country in which absolutely everyone is Christian or atheist. In fact, in this country, they’ve never even heard of people who aren’t Christian or atheist. ((How is this possible, you ask, since the Bible mentions many people who aren’t Christian or atheist, and as Christians they’ve surely read the Bible? And I answer, oy vey! Stop bothering me with these nit-picks and just go with my silly example for the sake of argument, already!)) This country always schedules elections on Saturday, because the large majority of people have Saturday off from work and Church obligations.

I think it’s fair to say that the decision to hold elections on Saturdays, in this country, has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

But then a population of devout Jews – large enough to constitute two or three percent of the total population – immigrates to that country. Those Jews, whose religion forbids them from handling pen, paper, or machinery before sundown on Saturday, request that elections to be moved to another day of the week, or replaced with a two-day election weekend.

At this point, circumstances have changed. Although the initial decision to hold elections on Saturdays was not antisemitic, to continue holding elections exclusively on Saturdays, thus excluding Jews from being equal members of society, would be antisemitic.

Note that this would be true even if the “traditional election day” defenders included many people who didn’t bear any personal animus against Jews. What makes the law antisemitic is not what’s inside the hearts of the people defending the law (how could we know what’s in their hearts?), but that it discriminates against Jews, and makes Jews into second-class citizens.

Girgis might respond, quoting their essay, that “Equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing.” They could argue that Saturday-only elections, in my fictional country, are antisemitic because they are arbitrary. But the reasons for holding elections on Saturday – “the large majority of people have Saturday off from both work and Church obligations” – are not arbitrary.

The Saturday election policy is prejudiced, not because it is arbitrary, but because it is indifferent to the legitimate needs of Jews.

This points to a problem with Girgis’ view of equality. If equality merely means a lack of arbitrary line-drawing, then all sorts of prejudiced and unjust results will result, as long as they combine non-arbitrary rationals with prejudicial outcomes.

Real equality is not compatible with laws which unjustly make a large group of people into second-class citizens by depriving them of an essential right, whether it’s the right to form a new family through marriage, or the right to vote. ((Note that certain groups, such as convicted criminals, may justly be treated as second-class citizens.))

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 12 Comments

Excellent article on the “standing” issues in the two same-sex marriage cases

Linda Greenhouse, the amazingly good Supreme Court reporter, has a detailed explanation of what the “standing” issues in the two same-sex marriage cases are. If you’ve been confused on this question, I highly recommend reading her article.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage, Supreme Court Issues | Comments Off on Excellent article on the “standing” issues in the two same-sex marriage cases

President Obama’s Worst Betrayal Of Liberals

Robert Kuttner writes about Obama’s bewildering indifference to judicial appointments:

But the common element was that nobody—not the White House chief of staff, not the Senate leadership, not the president himself–made judicial nominations a priority. So nearly four years into a Democratic presidency, the federal bench is almost as conservative as it was at the start of Obama’s term. This was a train-wreck of the first order, with consequences that will reverberate for decades.

Geoffrey Stone, the former dean of the University of Chicago Law School who invited Obama to teach there and who was a close colleague, says. “Even if the President is content to appoint moderate judges, it remains a mystery why the Administration is so far behind in its nomination of judges. Had Obama lost in 2012, this would have been a disaster in terms of missed opportunities. As we move forward, it is essential that the Administration get its act together. There is no excuse for the persistent failure to fill vacancies.”

The whole article is lengthy, infuriating, and worth reading.

To Obama’s credit, he has put more people of color, and more women, on the bench than any prior administration:

What Obama has done is make the federal judiciary much more diverse. Of the 158 judges who have won confirmation, 44% were women, 19% African Americans, 12% Hispanics and 7% Asian Americans — much higher percentages than his predecessors achieved. The White House sees the new level of female and minority judges as a base from which future presidents will feel compelled to build.

But as good as that is, it doesn’t make up for all the vacancies that Obama has not filled, or for leading Democrats’ roll-over-and-die response to GOP opposition.

Obama re-nominated Liu in January 2011. Republicans continued to obstruct. Advocacy groups asked the White House how they could help, and were told to stay away. Liu essentially had to run his own campaign. After the Senate voted to reject cloture in mid-May, Liu, after 15 months of being in limbo, withdrew on May 25, 2011, citing the need to get on with his life. There was almost a passive-aggressive quality to the White House treatment of Liu, as if to admonish the advocacy groups: see what happens when we nominate a liberal. “They just let him hang there,” said one frustrated activist.

After the Republicans’ destruction of Liu, Obama and his staff grew even more gun-shy about nominating liberals. Other nominees, even those who eventually won confirmation, have complained that the White House left them on their own as the process dragged on in some cases for two years or more.

Fortunately, Obama won re-election and now has a chance to make things right, especially with filibuster reform seemingly on the way. But even if Obama throws off his torpor and works to fulfill vacancies – and it’s by no means certain that he will – he’ll probably fill them with moderates. According to The New Yorker, Obama has also not paid enough attention to the crucial age factor:

Starting with President Reagan, Republicans made a priority of nominating young lawyers to the federal bench, because, with life tenure, they could make significant marks on the law. Obama has paid less attention to this important point. (The last judge confirmed for the Ninth Circuit, in June, was Andrew Hurwitz, of Arizona, who is sixty-four years old.)

Because no Republican President would act like Obama has, and because out-of-touch Democratic Senators like Pat Leahy pride themselves on not obstructing Republican judges, the Republican advantage in judicial appointments will probably continue for a generation or more.

This will not harm Obama, Reid or Leahy, but it will harm liberal laws and lawmaking; it will harm women and children and minorities; it will harm civil rights; it will harm innocent people accused of crimes. This issue, more than any other, makes me wonder what President Hilary Clinton might have done differently.

More reading: How Obama has jeopardized the future of liberalism. That blog post was written before Obama’s re-election. Obama has a second chance; let’s hope he uses it.

Posted in Prisons and Justice and Police | 2 Comments

Jokes, Connect-The-Dots, and Microaggressions

(Note: This post is in reference to some stuff going on at Family Scholars Blog. –Amp)

Fannie’s post seems to have reached its maximum number of comments, but I had already written a comment. So I’m starting a new thread to continue that conversation.

Matt made a joke about running away from a link he put down. Fannie said that joke was problematic. David B. commented:

At the same time, I cannot for the life of me find anything objectionable, from any point of view, in what Matt wrote. I mean, not even .000001 percent problematic.

It’s like a connect-the-dot drawing. You don’t see a puppy dog by taking the perspective of one individual dot. “That’s just a dot. There’s no puppy dog there, no matter how I look at it.” That’s true. But when you look at the pattern as a whole, the puppy dog is there.

What’s problematic isn’t in what Matt wrote. If Matt’s comment stood alone, not fitting into a wider pattern, I doubt Fannie or anyone else would have given it a second thought. But it does exist in a context: this same joke (or minor variations) has been made across thousands of conversations. And when the same joke is heard a lot of times, that pattern cumulatively sends a message.

What is that message? Hugo Schwyzer, who teaches gender studies and so witnesses this sort of behavior a lot, wrote:

All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive “man-bashers.” […] Joking about getting beaten up (or putting on the football helmet) sends a message to young women in the classroom: “Tone it down. Take care of the men and their feelings. Don’t scare them off, because too much impassioned feminism is scary for guys.” And you know, as silly as it is, the joking about man-bashing almost always works! Time and again, I’ve seen it work to silence women in the classroom, or at least cause them to worry about how to phrase things “just right” so as to protect the guys and their feelings.

This comes back to “centering” (something Fannie’s talked about before). If we “center” Matthew’s view, and put ourselves in his shoes, it’s hard to see anything at all wrong with Matthew’s joke, and it’s unfair for Matthew to be made to feel uncomfortable because he told a joke. What’s important becomes “did Matthew intend to give offense?” And the answer is no, Matthew (who is a nice guy) had no such intent.

But when we center Fannie’s position, we see that there’s a pattern here, of the same joke being told by different people over and over and over again, always implying that by disagreeing with feminists (or gay people, or black people, etc etc) the speaker has put themself at risk of violence. And the question isn’t “what did Matthew intend,” but “what message is this pattern sending to women?”

Another word for this sort of pattern is microaggressions. “Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.” (Bold added by me).

My co-blogger Mandolin (at my home blog) wrote a blog post on this subject, in which she pointed out that the metaphors seem to get even more violent when both race and sex are involved in the discussion.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 16 Comments

Fiscal Cliff Funnies

Comic about the fiscal cliff and entitlementsI’ve said it before, but you can’t cut workers’ wages and benefits — and generally destabilize their lives six ways from Sunday — at the same time that you slash the social safety net. That’s simply uncouth.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on Fiscal Cliff Funnies

Podcast interview

Here’s a nice interview I did with Tom Racine of the Tall Tale Radio podcast.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on Podcast interview

To Conservatives Who Thought Nate Silver Was An Idiot

Regarding the reliability of climate modeling, maybe you’re right, despite your lack of expertise, and despite the fact that the last time you made a testable prediction about statistical modeling, you revealed yourself to be a great deal less accurate than the much-despised Nate Silver.

Maybe the 98% or so of actual climate scientists who agree about human-caused global warming are engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy to deceive the public so that they can get some government grants, as some conservatives have claimed. Or maybe the overwhelming scientific consensus is simply mistaken. It’s possible.

But it’s also possible – and, frankly, seems much more likely – that science is correct, and people like you and James Inhofe – people who, while extremely intelligent, aren’t experts on climate science – are suffering a horrible case of confirmation bias.

Think of how certain you, and most Conservatives, were that Nate Silver was a fool. “The models are wrong!” you said, absolutely, positively wrong. That was an error with no real consequences for anyone, because election forecasts are trivial. (We could do without election forecasts entirely and be better off for it.)

Unlike Birthers and election forcasts, there will almost certainly be terrible consequences for ignoring reality when it comes to climate. If the scientists are right, extreme weather events will happen more often, as will droughts; people will suffer and die, economies will crash, food chains will break, homes will be destroyed. In response to this, conservatives say it’s worth risking all that in order to avoid the possibility of slower economic growth caused by inefficient spending and regulations.

If you think that there’s even a 50% chance that the experts are right and you (and others, including a handful of scientists, almost none of whom are experts on climate) are mistaken, then I don’t see how obstructing climate mitigation policy is reasonable, or justifiable, or anything other than horribly irresponsible. And seriously: There’s a way, way, WAY more than 50% chance that the experts are right and you are mistaken.

Posted in Environmental issues | 37 Comments

Dramatic Reading of Tony Harris’ Misogynistic Rant

Made me giggle.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals | Comments Off on Dramatic Reading of Tony Harris’ Misogynistic Rant

The Terror of Black American Motherhood

The Terror of Black American Motherhood

In case you were wondering why I haven’t said as much about Jordan Davis as I did about Trayvon Martin? I can’t formulate anything that isn’t blubbering. My son is 13, 5 ft 7 & just over 100lbs. It’s all I can do to let him out of my house alone. Being the mother of a young black man in America is hard frightening work in general, much less when you know that they can be killed for the crime of being black and outside. No one tells you when you give birth to a tiny person like this:

That the day they look like this:

is the day people start reaching for guns & not patience. I’m haunted by the possibility that he won’t come home one day because he scared a white man just by breathing. And the worst part? No one will see the baby that I lost, they’ll be too busy trying to make him a monster to justify his murder.

The Terror of Black American Motherhood — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 6 Comments