you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Male Terrorism: Today’s News — Gunman Shoots 10 Girls in Amish School, Five Dead

 Parents gather at the school

A 32-year old milkman nursing some kind of grievance going back 20 years, according to suicide notes he left his wife and three children,  today walked into a one-room Amish school which serves children from 6-14 years of age, sent all the boy students out of the room, sent a pregnant adult woman and three adult women with infants out of the room, then lined the girls up at the blackboard, bound their feet and shot them all in the head execution style.  At least three of the girls are dead and seven have been hospitalized.  The gunman then killed himself.

Heart

Discussion

76 thoughts on “Male Terrorism: Today’s News — Gunman Shoots 10 Girls in Amish School, Five Dead

  1. I just saw this. There are no words. WTF! This all-out war on girls by grown men!

    Posted by Sophia | October 2, 2006, 8:04 pm
  2. It’s strange you should say that. I was just talking to my partner the other day about the differences in “subjugation techniques” between the largely muslim countries – which I would call “all-out war” – and the US; which I would call “terrorism”.

    These two recent school attacks are essentially terrorism (in their effect); and yet there’s no clear-cut agenda behind them, which ostensibly defies the definition of terrorism. Obviously the murderers have their private agendas, but once again mainstream media fails to raise the question of what insidious social factors might be at work.

    God forbid we introduce that kind of public dialogue. Domestic terrorism only needs to be addressed if we’re dealing with neo-nazis or anyone resembling a middle-easterner. Terrorism in effect is terrorism indeed, but some questions are evidently not worth asking the average American.

    Posted by John | October 2, 2006, 9:13 pm
  3. This is unspeakable. When are people going to start making the connections?

    Posted by delphyne | October 3, 2006, 1:39 am
  4. I’ve been heartsick since last week, first for Colorado and now this. Killing children is never right. Going after the girls for some perceived wrong done by someone else — unspeakable. Yet here it is, again and again.

    Posted by onejewishdyke | October 3, 2006, 5:07 am
  5. This is absolutely hearbreaking.

    What Delphyne said: the connections are clear and obvious, yet no-one will make them.

    Posted by Laurelin | October 3, 2006, 8:50 am
  6. All of this is becoming pure horror. When females are exclusively targeted its not terrorism or a war on women and girls but just some whacko gone wild, or war, or cultural or anything but what it really is, gendercide. Have the ‘witch hunts’ really ended?

    Posted by sparklematrix | October 3, 2006, 9:53 am
  7. My heart is literally hurting after this newest story. I can’t decide if I’m enraged or if I just want to hide somewhere for awhile.

    I wish I could add more than just stunned ramblings. Heart, thank you for these latest posts they are valuable and needed

    Posted by bitingbeaver | October 3, 2006, 10:54 am
  8. Two more of the girls died in the hospital(s) overnight.

    I’m sick to death of the media and the police and all of their “motive” shit. CLUE, idiots: It starts with “m” and ends with “y”

    Posted by Melissa | October 3, 2006, 11:49 am
  9. John: God forbid we introduce that kind of public dialogue. Domestic terrorism only needs to be addressed if we’re dealing with neo-nazis or anyone resembling a middle-easterner. Terrorism in effect is terrorism indeed, but some questions are evidently not worth asking the average American.

    Exactly. Now Bush says he is planning some kind of conference on “school violence.” Note the spin: “Spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush is “troubled” by the shootings. She added the killing of innocent children “breaks America’s collective heart.”” It isn’t the killing of innocent “children.” It is the killing of little girls and young women by MEN. These are not “school shootings.” This is men, killing girls and young women. Does anybody see any girls or young women shooting anybody in the schools? Hell no. But all of that must be carefully obfuscated and concealed so people don’t begin to look really closely at *who* is doing what to *whom*.

    So true, Melissa re “motive.” The HELL. (Although I don’t know what starts with “m” and “y”, heh, “money”? I think I am missing something!) The motive is, HATRED. That is the motive! Argh.

    And enough already with the condescending, patronizing, romanticizing of the Amish, i.e., “The real world crashes in on utopia,” or some bullshit. Wrong. The Amish know all about the real world. They live in the real world. They do business in the real world, and they are shrewd business people. They do not inhabit utopia, that’s for sure– far from it, at least the women and children don’t. The Amish community has its own troubles as every patriarchal community does, the Amish are not some other kind of human being, different. They have made different decisions about their lives than most Americans but those decisions were informed decisions. They aren’t some sort of “other” kind of human being.

    UGH. I cannot tolerate the way the mainstream news media reports things!

    Hugs to all my wimmin, bb, sparkle, Sophia, delphyne, laurelin, onejewishdyke, Melissa. Too devastating. 😦 And so frustrating the way so many still won’t actually *look* at what is happening, won’t make the connections which MUST be made if anything is ever to change. 😦

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 3, 2006, 12:09 pm
  10. “Although I don’t know what starts with “m” and “y”, heh, “money”? I think I am missing something!) The motive is, HATRED. That is the motive! Argh.”

    Yes, sorry, I was going for “misogyny”.

    Posted by Melissa | October 3, 2006, 12:14 pm
  11. You know, again, this was a guy who was so far as anybody knew just a normal guy. He was a great father, according to his wife, nobody ever saw him angry, he was hardworking, he had never been in any trouble, there was no indication he was capable of this. When are people going to face up to the fact that these incidents are not some aberration, that the men who engage in them are not some different kind of human being than most men are? Just like the 168 guys got right in line to send horrifyingly violent e-mails to the theoretical woman who posted the ad on Craig’s List, and they appear, for all the world to be just regular guys we all know and encounter every day, this guy seemed like a normal, regular guy we encounter everyday until he walked into the school and shot 10 little girls.

    It’s interesting, in the following article about the gunman, the only person who has anything negative to say about him is the 15 year old girl who babysat his children sometimes. She said he was quiet, and he wouldn’t look you in the eyes. Everybody else just had glowing reports about him.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06276/727001-85.stm

    Heart

    Posted by Heart | October 3, 2006, 12:30 pm
  12. Melissa, doh! 😮 I haven’t had my requisite number of cups of coffee yet.

    Misogyny is so, so right. 😦

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 3, 2006, 12:33 pm
  13. On another board, someone quoted someone else as saying “sometimes I wonder if men are even human”. Right now, that haunts me. Human history is very full of examples that horrible brutality and out right evil are exactly par for the course for us. But we are left with facing on who most of the cuplability lies. And it is not on six to 14 year old Amish girls.

    Once again, I am suffocated by sorrow. And I feel powerless to do anything. (Is that not the ultimate goal of patriarchy?)

    Posted by Lya Kahlo | October 3, 2006, 12:33 pm
  14. At the very least, “hate crime” should surface in the media accounts to denote an attack that punished and killed on the basis of animus toward a particular group.

    Or, is violence against women too ordinary to be a “hate crime”?

    Posted by Kieran | October 3, 2006, 2:45 pm
  15. This from one article:

    “Roberts’s relatives said they were stunned by his violent outburst. His wife issued a written statement offering sympathy to the families of his victims, and said that she could not reconcile the day’s events with the man she had loved. She described Roberts as a devoted father who played with his three children and “never once refused to help change a diaper”.
    “The man that did this thing is not the Charles I was married to for nearly 10 years,” Mrs Roberts said.
    Once the police entered the building they found a cache of weapons and supplies that indicated Roberts had prepared for a long siege.
    They included the nine millimetre semi-automatic pistol, two shotguns, a stun gun, two knives, two cans of gunpowder and 600 rounds of ammunition.
    In a toolbox near his body, police discovered bolts he had used to barricade the school doors, pliers and wires he had used to bind the girls’ legs. A bucket he brought into the building contained earplugs, toilet paper and a clean change of clothing, the police said.
    Roberts lived about two kilometres from the school in the town of Bart. Neighbours said he was jovial and generally well-liked, and they were struggling to understand what had driven him to violence.
    “I am dying to know what kind of insult from a girl 20 years ago could have led to this,” said Mary Miller, who lived on his street.”
    Roberts’s co-workers had noticed changes in his behaviour over the past months, police said. While he had been known as an upbeat and outgoing person, earlier this year he began to appear sullen, his co-workers told the police. Then, late last week, he changed again and seemed much happier at work, Mr Miller said. “We think that’s when he decided to do what he did,” Mr Miller said. “It’s like his worries and burdens were lifted from him.”
    Most of Roberts’s weapons appeared to be legal, police said. He had bought the nine millimetre semi-automatic, which he fired at least 13 times during his rampage, eight kilometres from the schoolhouse in 2004. Ammunition and other supplies had been bought locally over several months.
    Just moments before the shooting, Roberts called his wife on a mobile and told her: “The police are here. I’m not coming home.”

    What I see here is, you’ve got a wife and family and neighbors who think he’s the greatest and yet he meticulously planned this crime. The people who think they know him cannot fathom that he did this. But this is always the way with these guys. Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer who killed more than 50 girls and women after raping them over decades, was a family man, with a young son, hard working, homeowner. Nobody would have guessed that every so often, he raped and murdered a woman and dumped her body in the woods.
    And as we are all saying here, nobody would call that a hate crime. Nobody would call it terrorism. But that’s *exactly* what it is.
    I also note in that excerpt that one young woman sees fairly clearly, as I think we all probably do. The media talks about something that happened 20 years ago that he is getting revenge for. The woman quoted says, “what kind of insult from a woman could cause this?” Because we all know that it’s something like that. Some probably little girl — because the gunman was only 32, so if this happened 20 years ago, he was only 12 years old — made fun of him or embarrassed him or something like that.
    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 3, 2006, 4:24 pm
  16. ***Some probably little girl — because the gunman was only 32, so if this happened 20 years ago, he was only 12 years old — made fun of him or embarrassed him or something like that.***

    As if no little boy ever did the same to any girl.

    And, yes, this *is* all out war on girls and women – it has been so for thousands of years now.

    Posted by Branjor | October 3, 2006, 4:38 pm
  17. I’ve just got told on one message board (the Guardian’s) that calling this act misogynistic trivialises it.

    Sometimes I just want to cry.

    Posted by delphyne | October 3, 2006, 5:04 pm
  18. Well, it looks as though this guys issue was, he molested relatives when he was young and he wanted to molest girls again. There is no evidence he actually molested anyone.

    These are little, little girls, dear goddess, under 10 years old most of them.

    http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/police-say-amish-school-killer-longed-to/20061002123109990024?ncid=NWS00010000000001

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 3, 2006, 5:32 pm
  19. Once again, I am suffocated by sorrow. And I feel powerless to do anything. (Is that not the ultimate goal of patriarchy?)

    That is exactly how I have felt for a very long time.

    Has anyone seen this update?

    Posted by Jodie A.C | October 3, 2006, 5:43 pm
  20. Trivializes it how? Because only when we can relate horrific acts to what happens to boys/men is it real? If it happens to women, specifically becuase they are women, there is no appropriate social marker for the horror of it all?

    That mentality alone points to the systematic nature of this brutality.

    Pointing out that hatred of women is hatred of women trivializes our collective horror? What the hell. Some days I could just become the alpha she-bitch I feel inside and start taking ripping hunks of flesh out of our society’s denial. But damn.

    Posted by Q Grrl | October 3, 2006, 5:55 pm
  21. I haven’t been able to even comment on the last few entries to this blog and the sickening Holocaust of girls/women that continues on a daily basis as men continue to nut up all over the landscape over the rebellion of women that occured in the 60’s/70’s and delivered to patriarchy, its death blow. All stops are now being pulled out to get women back into the box. But we’re not going back. So it’s going to get a lot worse before the dragon finally dies and it finally starts to get better.

    probably little girl — because the gunman was only 32, so if this happened 20 years ago, he was only 12 years old — made fun of him or embarrassed him or something like that.

    It isn’t likely he escaped childhood without ridicule or embarrassment from the boys, which is common. But he didn’t kill any boys. So my guess is he had a crush on a girl and she rejected him. A commonality that seems to be shared among many torturers and murderers of girls/women. Which says volumes about boys’/mens’ sense of entitlement.

    I was just talking to my partner the other day about the differences in “subjugation techniques” between the largely muslim countries – which I would call “all-out war” – and the US; which I would call “terrorism”.

    There is no difference. The war against women has been being waged for at least the last 5,000 years. It has been going on for so long that you are oblivious to it and don’t even notice it.

    As for the Middle East, Bush and the brotherhood were so impressed with the way they saw women treated and controlled, that they thought they’d try to implement the same thing here.

    As my ex once said to me, “Take a good look at the Middle East and the Taliban. That is not an aberration. That is how men are. Now what are you going to do about it?”

    Until we have an answer and a viable solution to that question, women are going to be in some deep doo-doo.

    Posted by Luckynkl | October 3, 2006, 6:05 pm
  22. “Trivializes it how? Because only when we can relate horrific acts to what happens to boys/men is it real? If it happens to women, specifically becuase they are women, there is no appropriate social marker for the horror of it all? ”

    On another board, a scenario of rape was presented. Some called it consentual because after extensive coercion, the girl “gave in”. Some others said that to call it rape “trivialized” real rape.

    To me, it seems that people will call “trivial” whatever may lump them into an unfavorable group. I.e. if a boy has coerced a woman into sex in the past, even if he feels bad about it he doesn’t want to be called a rapist, so to do so “trivializes” it.

    Same here. Misogyny is an epidemic, most people (male or female) are sick with it. But no one wants to admit that. So, to use the word “trivializes” the situation here.

    I wonder what these people would say if he had killed just the boys?

    Posted by Lya Kahlo | October 3, 2006, 6:19 pm
  23. “Nobody would call it terrorism. But that’s *exactly* what it is.”

    I was in NYC September 11, 2001 and also for the June 2000Puerto Rican Parade sexual assaults. Nobody ever asked me which made me more afraid to walk the streets of New York in broad daylight.

    Posted by Sam | October 3, 2006, 6:23 pm
  24. I wonder what these people would say if he had killed just the boys?

    Boys aren’t killed just because they’re boys. Girls are killed just because they’re girls.

    Let’s not pretend it’s the same thing, ok? It isn’t.

    Posted by Luckynkl | October 3, 2006, 6:44 pm
  25. Luckynkl Says:
    “A commonality that seems to be shared among many torturers and murderers of girls/women. Which says volumes about boys’/mens’ sense of entitlement.”

    Ehh, no. This says something about those murderers and torturers sense of entitlement. Not?

    Posted by Andrea Golfo | October 3, 2006, 7:55 pm
  26. This was headline news over here at tea time last night and has been the top story on the all the main channels through late night, breakfast and lunch today.

    It is remarkable, but not really surprising, in watching the media analysis, how they will scrape around for any and all “explanation” for this hate crime – gun culture, a mysterious grudge, decline in family morals, trauma over the loss of a baby, mental illness, evil – anything to pretend that it’s somehow a unique crime – anything rather than confront the truth of a hate crime born out of a deeply misogynist society, committed by a man who is just like they are.

    The only thing missing from the usual diatribe we get when men murder girls and women is the deflection of blame onto the victim. Some small mercy maybe for the families, that even in the screwed up world we live in, these particular victims will not be slandered like that.

    Posted by therealUK | October 3, 2006, 8:27 pm
  27. Ehh, no. This says something about those murderers and torturers sense of entitlement. Not?

    Isn’t that what I just said? *All* males have been raised with a sense of entitlement. Torturers and murderers just have the ultimate degree of it. So all we’re talking about here is degree. But can you be just a little bit pregnant?

    Posted by Luckynkl | October 3, 2006, 8:47 pm
  28. Andrea Golfo said:
    “Ehh, no. This says something about those murderers and torturers sense of entitlement. Not? ”

    Not. Not when you look at who is murdered and tortured and who is doing the murdering and torturing. By and large you find men/boys murdering and torturing women/girls. So, it isn’t such a huge leap to say that the behavior of the male murderers/torturers of female persons does speak volumes about male entitlement where women are concerned.

    One of the major points Heart has been making through these series of entries is that these “murderer/torturers” aren’t some aberrant species, but just regular dudes, the kind you live with for years, the kind you share office space with, the ones you KNOW. Only, you don’t know this about them…that they would take the lives of women/girls if they decide it serves them.

    Posted by Sophia | October 3, 2006, 9:06 pm
  29. Here’s an interesting comment I found on another blog that ties into the subject at hand. What’s ironic is this commenter isn’t even talking about this shooting incident. She is talking about a board where people gather to discuss the game “The Sims.”

    Now the thing that bonded all of these people together is the Sims2 game. I was amazed as I read post after post about how the men would make neighborhoods completely devoid of women and how if any women happened to stray into the neighborhood, or if even worse tried to flirt with one of the men there they were instantly killed. Now I know it is just a game, but something disturbs me about people whose dream world would be a world where women don’t exsist or are killed if they happen to stumble into it by accident.

    Yep, it’s just a game for all those regular, every day dudes out there. But, you know how it is. Boys will be boys. No big deal. Boys just hate and kill women when they play.

    Posted by Luckynkl | October 3, 2006, 10:13 pm
  30. A pattern in rural school shootings: girls as targets
    Monday’s deadly shooting in Nickel Mines, Pa., was the fourth such incident in five weeks.
    By Gail Russell Chaddock and Mark Clayton | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

    NICKEL MINES, PA., AND BOSTON – The scene Monday at the buff-colored, one-room schoolhouse in the gentle heart of Amish country was wrenching, but also distressingly familiar.

    One of four fatal school shootings to beset rural America in just over a month, the rampage that killed five young girls raises anew a host of old concerns – about campus security in countryside settings, access to guns by unstable individuals, and “copycat” violence advanced by media attention.

    They are startling incidents against the backdrop of declining numbers of school fatalities. But this premeditated attack, like another one five days earlier in which a drifter corraled teenage girls, killing one, at the high school in Bailey, Colo., have an unusual and disturbing feature: girls as targets.

    “The predominant pattern in school shootings of the past three decades is that girls are the victims,” says Katherine Newman, a Princeton University sociologist whose recent book examines the roots of “rampage” shootings in rural schools.

    Dr. Newman has researched 21 school shootings since the 1970s. Though it’s impossible to know whether girls were randomly victimized in those cases, she says, “in every case in the US since the early 1970s we do note this pattern” of girls being the majority of victims.

    The two cases are reminiscent of a 1989 shooting in Canada, when a jobless hospital worker killed 14 female engineering students at the University of Montreal, accusing them of stealing jobs from men, says Martin Schwartz, an Ohio University sociologist and an expert on violence against women. He sees such incidents as related to a culture of violence against women, “a mutation – something beyond.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1004/p01s01-usgn.html

    Posted by womensspace | October 3, 2006, 11:41 pm
  31. Ah, sorry. Now I understand.

    You see this extreme case as belonging on a continuum of normal male behaviour.

    I think it is not just different by degree, but qualitatively different. I see that you consider grooping and rape to be identical from another comment further up. When seen that way I suppose I can understand your argument.

    But is equalling groope with rape not wrong. I mean then also males could claim to be raped by females, which they cannot now?

    Surely these are horrendous tragedies. I think we should mourn for all these girls. I know I have been for all day.

    I will not use this shamelesly to pull some agende. These victims deserve better than to be put in front of any kind of political move. Whatever that move is. They should never be used as means.

    Posted by Andrea Golfo | October 3, 2006, 11:59 pm
  32. I smell a troll.

    Posted by Luckynkl | October 4, 2006, 7:43 am
  33. “I will not use this shamelesly to pull some agende. These victims deserve better than to be put in front of any kind of political move. Whatever that move is. They should never be used as means.”

    Injecting “shame” into the argument is bizarre. All sorts of tragedies beget political moves. It’s hard to think of a single one throughout history that hasn’t! Mostly those moves have been to keep things the same — yes, THAT counts as a move, too. Yet it’s somehow gross if women would do that on behalf of other women? Well, most people seem to think so.

    Posted by anon | October 4, 2006, 8:27 am
  34. “I will not use this shamelesly to pull some agende.”

    Ah, yes. Better to pretend it isn’t exactly terrorism against women. That’ll stop it

    oh wait. . . .

    Posted by Lya Kahlo | October 4, 2006, 11:30 am
  35. These articles by Heart on this blog are for the purpose of TRANSCENDING the kind of ignorance posted by AG and sparking women to ACTION in defense of female lives. Anything less would be a profound dishonor to the memory of these girls.

    It is the dismissing of this tragedy as an aberration – not the recognition of it as part of the systemic gynocide it is – which is a dishonor to these girls’ memories.

    Male sense of entitlement is pretty much the same for most men – WAY out of proportion to what they are really entitled to, the only difference being how far different men go in acting it out. All men do not *have* to kill women simply because many do. Those many secure the rights of ALL men over women by keeping women in their “place”, fearful, subservient and eager to please – and ALL MEN KNOW THAT.

    Why, when we hear about these massacres, are we not surprised? Because we KNOW, from our everyday experiences with men, what men are capable of. Compare that to how surprised we would be if we started hearing reports of grown women going into schools and selectively torturing and murdering little boys only.

    Anyway, we now know that the creep molested little girls in the past and WANTED TO DO IT AGAIN. We now know the motive for his crime – he felt ENTITLED to sex from these little girls in that schoolhouse!

    Posted by Branjor | October 4, 2006, 1:53 pm
  36. I’m wondering what this punk’s wife must have gone through before this. There’s no way a coward of such paramount selfishness would spare the woman he believed he owned any hell. Of course she would defend him, because all his crimes will be assumed by her. A wife absorbs blame for an asshole’s excesses. Yeah I’m sure he never said no when she asked him to change diapers, and I’m sure she knew not to ask very often.

    A woman knows the punk she is married to. Yes he was the same one who brutally and cowardly put his desire to rape young girls before their right to live. But his wife can’t admit that because she will be judged by his actions.

    Posted by saltyC | October 4, 2006, 2:43 pm
  37. “I will not use this shamelesly to pull some agende. These victims deserve better than to be put in front of any kind of political move. Whatever that move is. They should never be used as means. ”

    Yet that’s EXACTLY what the man did when he shot them. Nice double standard ya got there bub.

    Posted by Q Grrl | October 4, 2006, 2:49 pm
  38. Antiprincess, yeah, I heard that Fred Phelps planned to show up at the funeral. The thing is, the Amish won’t care, they will just view him as a crazed fundamentalist. They want nothing to do with conservative Christianity/fundamentalism and shun members who visit churches like that or become interested in that type of Christianity. The Amish are pacifists, and as such, they will respond to Phelps as they respond to any violent person: they will be kind to him, will pray for him, and will go on about their business. There’s really nothing anyone outside their community can do to hurt them in that particular way. They view themselves as trusting in divine providence and so whatever comes their way, they accept it.

    True what you say salty. The thing about the shooter is, he and his wife were conservative Christians. While he was IN the school, killing girls, his wife was holding a prayer meeting she regularly held where mothers prayed for children in schools. I shit you not. The whole family, as is true of most conservative Christians, was most likely in denial. They just kept “trusting God,” and trying to “be obedient” and “have faith…” until this happened. People who are messed up mentally and emotionally don’t get help because secular help is viewed askance; they are urged to get “Christian counseling,” which doesn’t help.

    I read a page of this guy’s letter to his wife. One thing he said was, he hated his life and hated God in large part because of the death of a baby a while back. She was born premature and lived only 20 minutes. He said he couldn’t get past it, everytime they did anything together as a family, he kept thinking what it would be like if his daughter was there. Given what I know about fundies, I’m betting he viewed the death of his baby as God’s judgment or punishment for his having molested little girls when he was a child. Then this circular thinking deal set in where he probably thought something like, “Well, yes, I did molest those girls, but I was only 12, and I asked forgiveness, and if God is merciful, why didn’t he forgive me, and why did he kill my child?” This kind of thinking drives some people to horrible acts. They feel hopeless, despairing, they hate themselves, God, everybody, they feel completely alone and lost. Depending on the kind of church he went to, he may have been getting regular doses of hellfire and damnation sermons too.

    I don’t think Andrea Golfo is a troll– I think maybe English is not her first language? Andrea, I don’t think rape and groping are the same thing, though both are violations and both terrorize women. As to men claiming rape because women grope them– well, women don’t grope men. And the reason they don’t is, one reason, women have been terrorized enough by men that they would be very fearful to. But even if a woman did grope a man, it would not have the same significance in the context of patriarchal culture as the same act has when it is a man perpetrating it.

    I understand what you mean about not using these girls’ horrifying deaths as so much grist for some political mill. I hope that is not what I am doing. If you look around you will see very, very few people stating what is true: that girls and women are being terrorized in all of these many ways by men. This is reported as a “school shooting” and there is all of this questioning about why and motives, when the motives are very clear: these men hated girls, hated women, and so they raped or intended to rape them and kill them. I like what branjor said, that to say anything less is to dishonor the memory of these girls. As Q grrl said, too, the men who committed these acts committed hate crimes, political crimes against women, femicide, gynocide. This we say as woman-centered women who view these girls as members of our tribe, the tribe of women, the people of women. We mourn and grieve the loss of our own.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 4, 2006, 6:59 pm
  39. “The thing about the shooter is, he and his wife were conservative Christians.”

    My first thought after reading this was “It figures”. Does that make me a bad person, or just jaded given how much of this we see?

    “Given what I know about fundies, I’m betting he viewed the death of his baby as God’s judgment or punishment for his having molested little girls when he was a child. Then this circular thinking deal set in where he probably thought something like, “Well, yes, I did molest those girls, but I was only 12, and I asked forgiveness, and if God is merciful, why didn’t he forgive me, and why did he kill my child?” This kind of thinking drives some people to horrible acts. They feel hopeless, despairing, they hate themselves, God, everybody, they feel completely alone and lost. Depending on the kind of church he went to, he may have been getting regular doses of hellfire and damnation sermons too.”

    Having once been a theist myself, I know that whenever something went wrong in my life I viewed it as punishment. It’s a horrible thing to believe that god has something out for you, or that god planned for your life to suck. I can completely see how that might drive people to do horrible things. But even “positive” faith can lead people do to horrible things – suidice bombers think they will be rewarded, not punished, for their creation of murder and mayhem. Apologies if I offend anyone, however I am of the opinion that faith is a negative thing. And I see little from theists of late that would sway that opinion.

    Posted by Lya Kahlo | October 4, 2006, 7:37 pm
  40. I don’t believe counseling works with guys like this either.

    I think what he was really upset about was not getting away with molesting. He called his wife and told her a sob story to make himself feel sorry for himself, make it looked like he cared. Abusers always focus on their feelings of hurt, when that’s irrelevant. Also, abusers are liars so we shouldn’t really listen to what they say.

    And yes she was in denial because deep down she knew he was irredeemable scum. I think the Christian message of hope is what’s wrong here. No, he won’t get better, he won’t be redeemed, he’s hopeless. It won’t get better, until he’s gone.

    Posted by saltyC | October 4, 2006, 7:39 pm
  41. Although I won’t argue with what you’ve said there, Lya Kahlo, I think there are sometimes when faith is a good thing and that is when it inspires people to seek their own liberation or liberation for marginalized people, thinking now about the suffragists, many of whom were motivated by their faith (i.e., Susan B. Anthony), and the abolitionists, who were likewise motivated by their faith. I don’t think faith is the problem, I think that fundamentalism is the problem. There are many, many people of faith who oppose, challenge and fight fundamentalism in all of its forms, and they do so because of their own faith. Fundamentalism is in my opinion a kind of a coup. It so obscures what is beautiful about faith, by presenting itself as what faith is and means, that it results in destroying not only the faith of individuals but any interest in exploring matters of faith, religion, spirituality. People understandly throw their hands up in the air and say screw this, this is hopeless!

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 4, 2006, 7:44 pm
  42. Salty, kind of like that idiot Mark Foley. Now his predation and sexual abuse of minor boys becomes all about his having been abused when he was a teenager. Of course he says he’s not trying to avoid responsibility for, what, at least a decade of predation, but of COURSE he’s trying to avoid responsibility. You’re so right about the way abusers make everything about them, make themselves to be the victims, but are the first to speak disparagingly of real victims.
    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 4, 2006, 7:48 pm
  43. The victims in these attacks have already been “used” politically – against us. My daughter has additional fears that will never be part of my son’s day-to-day reality, or mine for that matter (there is a large difference between fearing for others and fearing for your own personal safety). That privilege is a FACT, not a political agenda. The omission of the obvious in media coverage is both conspicuous and insulting.

    I don’t expect the media to then contemplate the fact that privilege equals POWER and go on to explore the ramifications across the sociopolitical sphere, but to intentionally evade the very clear social emergency of hate crimes/terrorism against women is just sick.

    Posted by John | October 4, 2006, 8:11 pm
  44. No, seriously.

    I do think that this thing is so extreme and unusual that any generalization based on it becomes absurd.

    A part from that I agree with most here about the war on women and terrorism on women. That is why you will not see me disagreeing on other threads.

    This guy was a lunatic.

    What happened with Marc Lepine on the other hand seems to have been motivated be misogyny. But this guy? Attacking the Amish? Also he seems to have had issues because he lost his daughter, being angry with good – he does not seem to be the mysogynist – not in the way Marc Lepine seemed to be.

    Posted by Andrea Golfo | October 4, 2006, 10:29 pm
  45. You are making the mistake of believing this monster’s story. He only seems to have issues around losing his daughter because that is what he said. Are you going to take his word? Idiot Cops are going fishing for red herrings because he threw them out for them.

    He attacked the Amish because he knew they couldn’t stop him. They don’t believe in guns. Men hurt women because they can, and because they hate. Not because they have “issues”. For every man who follows through on his fantasy, there are untold numbers who would like to.

    He purposefully attacked girls, is it really that hard to see the motive? If it had been a white guy attacking arabs would you say he does not seem to be anti-arab?

    Posted by saltyC | October 5, 2006, 1:20 am
  46. “Given what I know about fundies, I’m betting he viewed the death of his baby as God’s judgment or punishment for his having molested little girls when he was a child.”

    Except now it seems he didn’t molest them, apparently.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_re_us/amish_school_shooting;_ylt=ArwuhXyVohEJrEjUQjOflkdL.IcA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

    ‘Two relatives of the man who attacked an Amish school said they were not molested by him 20 years ago as he had claimed, investigators said Wednesday … “Both of them have no recollection of being sexually assaulted by Roberts,” state police Trooper Linette Quinn said. “They were absolutely sure they had no contact with Roberts.”‘

    I say Andrea has it right – this guy’s a lunatic.

    Posted by tsm | October 5, 2006, 1:31 am
  47. I don’t think men have to be conscious, intentional misogynists in order to terrorize women. In fact, I think there are very few Marc Lepines– men who consciously, intentionally hate women and decide to terrorize them.
    When someone is robbing a certain neighborhood, he is terrorizing the neighborhood. That might not be his purpose or his intent– he might just want to rob people. But the effect of what he does is terrorism because before, people in the neighborhood weren’t scared all the time, looking behind them, listening for every noise but now they are.
    I think when men murder women, rape women, incest them, that is terrorism in a similar way. If you asked them, they would tell you about all the women they treat well and care for, and that the only reason they murdered their wife or these women or raped them or whatever was because of (some reason that makes sense to them). Not because they hate women. But the terrorizing in and of itself evidences the hatred, regardless of what the guy says his intention is, in the same way that, for example, someone who uses racist hate speech or engages in racist actions evidences his racism, even if he tells you he’s not a racist because after all, he was nice to his maid and the doorman and the janitor. However nice he might have been to these people, his racist acts would still be terrorism against the race he was targeting, would still have the same effects, would still serve the purpose of shoring up his power as a white man, would still benefit all white men.
    Same thing with sexual terrorism. It doesn’t matter if a rapist or murderer was nice to his mom, his wife and his kids. His raping and murdering still terrorizes women and evidences his misogyny. It doesn’t matter what the Amish murderer says about God, his fantasies, vengeance, molesting relatives, none of it. It is irrelevant that he entered an Amish schoolhouse. He did that because it was easy; these little girls were sitting ducks. His father served the Amish in his business; this guy knew the Amish were pacifists and would not resist him.
    He entered that school with a long board with 10 eyehole screws screwed into it, and with cords. He held 10 girls hostage. The eyehole screws were 10 inches apart, just the right amount of space to tie the hands of 10 little girls to each eyehole screw after he’d pounded the board into the wall (he brought plenty of tools), and then sexually assault all of them. His plans were foiled when police approached and told him to put down the gun. He panicked and started shooting.
    But this was a predatory, murdering, terrorist. It doesn’t matter what he said about anything. It matters what he DID. It’s what he did that made him a sexual terrorist and a hater of women.
    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 5, 2006, 5:27 am
  48. This man didn’t attack the Amish. This man attacked girls. I just don’t see any Amish connection. And the lack of it suggests we are thinking of these girls as property. Amish men’s property. As if the crime was committed against Amish men. To distract from the fact that it was a hate crime based on sex.

    My guess is that Roberts chose this school because of its size and location. It’s not a big school. It’s a little itty bitty out of the way schoolhouse. By the looks of it, a one or two room schoolhouse. Which presented Roberts an easy opportunity to commit a sex crime with little interference. The fact that they were Amish is irrelevant.

    I also take exception to the way it is assumed that Roberts’ wife “knew” how Roberts was. Lots of men lead double lives that wives, family and friends are totally unaware of. It’s hardly uncommon. So it is wrong to assume that Ms. Roberts “knew.” Or that Roberts acted anything out on her or in her presence. Do you really think Roberts discussed his fetish for little girls with his wife?! Pedophiles are often sly, slick and secretive. In fact, it’s the norm.

    I spoke a little bit about degree in a previous post. I wanted to clarify my point because I think it was misunderstood. I have a lot of experience with so-called lunatics. They are not lunatics. They’re every day guys that can go from 0 to 60 degrees in 3 seconds. It’s not like they stay at any one degree. They escalate. Usually in cycles, as most anyone that’s dealt with domestic violence knows.

    Crazy isn’t what’s going on in these men’s heads. It’s is a sense of entitlement. These men feel entitled to abuse, rape, torture and kill women and give themselves permission to do it. Men learn their values and attitudes towards girls/women through other men. Being we live in a woman-hating, rape culture, that pretty much indicts the entire male population. As Andrea Dworkin put it: “… the fact of the matter is, that if you live in a society that is saturated with this kind of woman hating, you live in a society that has marked you as a target for rape, for battery, for prostitution or for death.”

    Posted by Luckynkl | October 5, 2006, 7:53 am
  49. Heart, your last comment, absolutely brilliant, every single word.

    Head nods also to:
    John: “My daughter has additional fears that will never be part of my son’s day-to-day reality..”
    SaltyC: “abusers are liars so we shouldn’t really listen to what they say.”

    Abusers, either domestic abusers or rapists, continually ‘justify’ what they’ve done. Everyone else (even including the victim) is responsible for HIS actions, but NEVER HIM. Newsflash sunshine, the abuser CHOOSES to do it. And we are meant to feel sorry for the perp? Not in a million lifetimes.

    Abusers/rapists are all about me, me, me and me. What I want, and I don’t care who is in my way to get what I want.

    But when they get caught, it’s the booze, it’s the victim (who either angered him, or teased him with that provocative outfit), it’s his loss of job or other pressures, it’s his abuse as a child, it’s…, it’s…, it’s…

    it’s bollocks.

    And about the last one, abuse as a child, anyone who has been the victim of anything should know BETTER than to inflict that same pain onto another, as they themselves know what it is like. I think this excuse has been used as Trendy Excuse No. 27, and in reality, most of them probably haven’t been abused at all. The men I’ve personally known that were sexually abused as teens/kids, were in the kill-all-the-paedophiles camp, not signing up to ‘join in the fun’. If I burn myself with a hot iron, I don’t then run around burning everyone else with a hot iron.

    And in the FFS comments:
    Andrea G: “he seems to have had issues because he lost his daughter”

    What kind of bullshit excuse is that? Killing other kids because you lost your own. On what level does that make sense? This creep came armed with a sexual assault kit, so he was going to have some ‘fun’ before he went out. This creep used every and any excuse he could.

    How can you tell when he was lying? He opened his mouth.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 5, 2006, 9:50 am
  50. saltyC,

    I am not believing what this monster says. I am aknowledging the epistemological fact that the only thing we can know about what is going on inside his head comes from him. Sure he could be lying. He could be lying about feeling pain for loosing his daughter, he could be lying about being angry with god, he could be lying about having molested before. But still, his account about what went on inside his brain is the best we will ever have.

    You seem to be commiting the Marxist fallacy of false consciousness.

    The problem is, like this, we can never progress. There is no way you people can go into the mind of this guy and see what truly motivated him. Therefore, it seems to me, you tend to fill this episteological whole with your own favorite explanation.

    There is also the problem of reducing all the different factors that might have played a role to only one thing – hatred of women.

    Misogyny may or may not have played a major role, but to assume the it was the main factor, the only factor, is simply guesswork.

    If we want, and believe me we do, to reduce violence in the world we need to understand all the factors playing a role in causing violence.

    Misogyny is one, yes. But there are others too.

    Womensspace,

    I pretty much agree with most of what you write in the above comment. The best insight being that what matters is what he DID.

    What I still do not understand is the implication that this is somewhat an extension of normal male behaviour?

    Yesterday alone, I read about two fathers who killed other men they suspected of molesting their daughters.

    There is nothing to get men more angry than other men molesting children, especially girls judging by the two stories, both about fathers to girls.

    In prison, where you have violent men of all stripes, the ones lowest in the hierarchy are child molesters, child killers and rapists. They routinely get beaten, raped and killed by other inmates, or tattoed on their foreheads with revenge prison tattoes as happened recently on a man who had killed a girl.

    The idea that men generally somehow approve of this is, to me, preposterous.

    Posted by Andrea Golfo | October 5, 2006, 10:00 am
  51. I meant, men do *not* approve of what this monster did to these girls.

    They may well be approving of what happens to male child molesters in prison. Sorry for being unclear.

    Posted by Andrea Golfo | October 5, 2006, 10:04 am
  52. Heart, I’ve posted your comment on our communal “Speakout on Male Sexual Violence” Blog
    http://untilmenstopraping.blogspot.com/

    I hope this is ok. It was such a brilliant comment, I thought it worthy of highlighting. (Haven’t quite figured out all the ping-back thingy-me-bobs!)

    Stormy

    Posted by stormcloud | October 5, 2006, 10:19 am
  53. ***He only seems to have issues around losing his daughter because that is what he said.***

    Huh – just a thought. Given what he did, I wonder if his real issue with losing his baby daughter wasn’t just that he would have one less little girl around to molest. Not that it matters, it just seems to fit with his character.

    Some people lose children and do good to honor those children’s memories – try to help other children, give to children’s charities, start a scholarship fund in the child’s name, whatever. What does this monster do? He lines up 10 little girls in front of a blackboard and shoots them all through the head execution style. Really honors that child’s memory. NOT.

    Posted by Branjor | October 5, 2006, 11:30 am
  54. Susan B. Anthony was a theist? I have to say I’m skeptical about that as I’ seen plenty of quotes attributed to her that wre very critical of Christianity. She may have been a Deist, perhaps?

    That aside.

    The man walked into an Amish school with the clear intention of molesting and then killing the girls in it and himself. He chose the Amish school because he knew their security would be lax, if not non-existant.

    How anyone can claim that this isn’t a blatant case of misogyny mystifies me. He wanted to victimize only girls and he did. What about that isn’t crystal clear?

    Posted by Lya Kahlo | October 5, 2006, 11:40 am
  55. Andrea Golfo– I don’t think most men approve of what this man did. That’s not the issue. I think that they *benefit* from what he, and all sexual terrorists, do to women. To the degree that women are afraid of men, to that degree they will be less likely to challenge all of the mechanisms of their own subordination– they’ll be afraid to. And because they are afraid to, the systems and the structures of sexual inequality do not change, and so, men continue to be able to objectify and exploit women and get away with it, hinder women’s access to power and get away with it, commit crimes against women, including individually, and get away with it. Terrorism subjugates, subordinates, by creating fear in its targets so that they will comply, won’t resist the power which terrorizes them. That’s why, again, it doesn’t matter how we might parseout the terrorists’ intentions or what was in their minds — that’s interesting and has value, I’m talking about for the sake of this discussion — what matters for the sake of this discussion is that when men sexually terrorize women because we’re women, we are less likely to resist or challenge what men do to us. When we dismiss the acts of guys like the Amish gunman as the acts of a lunatic, we participate in what amounts to systemic, structural terrorism against us *by failing to see it for what it is*. Structural and systemic oppressions are invisible in the sense that they are built in. Most people are not aware of the ways that they participate in these oppressions. It works that way because of what we see here and in the media and in society generally– people waving off what the Colorado and Pennsylvania murderers did as aberrant, the work of lunatics, “drifters”, without recognizing the *effect*, on *all* women, of what these “lunatics” and “drifters” do. In order to begin to effectively challenge male power, we have to analyze the way it operates, not only the overt, obvious ways, but the built-in, less obvious ways.

    Stormy, sure, you can post my comment, and thanks. 🙂

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 5, 2006, 12:12 pm
  56. Luckyl said:
    “Crazy isn’t what’s going on in these men’s heads. It’s is a sense of entitlement. These men feel entitled to abuse, rape, torture and kill women and give themselves permission to do it.”

    I couldn’t agree more. And then come the lame excuses when they get caught.

    AndreaG:
    I think you underestimate what goes on in the heads of ‘normal’ men. Given the chance, more would act out their fantasies/fetishes (see Russell). The only thing that usually stops (some/most of) them is the fear of being caught. Unfortunately, it is because rape/DV usually doesn’t even get to court, that it is so rampant (ie little chance of being punished).

    No, I don’t think men are inherently bad, but they certainly have been socialised into a male supremacist culture fuelled by porn and violence.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 5, 2006, 12:21 pm
  57. ***In order to begin to effectively challenge male power, we have to analyze the way it operates, not only the overt, obvious ways, but the built-in, less obvious ways.***

    And by this I mean that men can rape, batter, incest, assault, and people, as we see here, even, will focus strictly on the motives of that one man, without seeing what he is doing as one of millions of similar acts which create specific effects in the real world, i.e., which subordinate women by instilling fear in women, no matter *what* his individual motives, thoughts, intentions might have been.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 5, 2006, 12:21 pm
  58. Heart, brilliance yet again (12:21), and:

    “Structural and systemic oppressions are invisible in the sense that they are built in. Most people are not aware of the ways that they participate in these oppressions.”

    It always bugs me the way the media go on about ‘lone lunatic’ and distance themselves from men and male culture of violence. We have to look at the big picture of what these supposed random acts represent.

    And we do participate in this oppression if we buy into the ‘lone lunatic’ theory. Hence, we must see it for what it truly is. Quite frankly, I don’t give a flying fig what this creep’s (individual) motives were or weren’t, but look at the society that created him and MAINTAINS him (that’s the media and their distancing dance).

    Posted by stormcloud | October 5, 2006, 12:34 pm
  59. Luckynkl, please excuse the typo in the 2nd last comment.
    I had the rather large cat ‘helping’ me. He wasn’t helping much, and has now gone off in a huff after being told off.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 5, 2006, 12:38 pm
  60. The thing is, we cut our eye teeth on how important it is to *not notice* the way men terrorize women. In my post of a few days ago, I included three examples of male terrorism. One was a situation in which a man killed his wife and wounded his son in the presence of his daughters. The issue isn’t just the loss of the mother or the lunacy of the father, the issue is, that here children and all people learn or are reminded that a *father killed a mother*. Killing mothers is what some — quite a few — fathers do to them. This is what children see, hear, learn, know. Raping women, killing women, is what *men do to women*. We all learn this, know this, we are surrounded by it all of our lives. Because most women and children are dependent on men, because most women love men, because all of us are dependent, in some way, on a male supremacist culture, we (generic “we”) resist seeing these acts for the terrorism and femicide that they are. But if we named these acts as terrorism, as femicide, then maybe we could begin to address them societally, culturally, legally.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | October 5, 2006, 1:09 pm
  61. I am reminded of the story of an American woman, who had left her husband five years earlier. She had remarried, had the two children living with her, and was pregnant with a third child with the new husband.

    The ex-husband stalked her, broke into her house one afternoon and raped and beat her – she died a few days later in hospital.

    Her son couldn’t bear what had happened to his mother at the hands of his father and committed suicide less than a year later (he was about 12 or 14 I think).

    Unfortunately, to raise one’s consciousness and see these acts both on an individual and wider level, is not pleasant. It certainly doesn’t bring any peace of mind. I am certainly not happy to be ‘living amongst the enemy’, to be reminded of the misogyny everywhere that sells magazines/newspapers, to see it in advertisements – everywhere I go I am reminded that I am a 2nd class citizen who will be ‘put in her place’ if I get ‘uppity’ about my role in this society of men. And your ‘average’ bloke is more than happy to act as ‘unofficial policeman’ to enforce this status quo.

    I realise that whilst not all men are rapists etc, the ones that stay silent and do nothing whilst their ‘brothers’ wreak havoc on the female half of the population are complicit, and are therefore worthy of equal blame.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 5, 2006, 1:38 pm
  62. Luckynkl,
    I said something to the effect that she wasn’t being truthful when she was going on about what a wonderful father and husband he was. I agree that she might not have known he was a pedophile. But I can’t imagine that he didn’t put her through hell in other ways, just going by his humongous sense of entitlement.

    Andrea Golfo,

    Yes, fortunately most men would kill a molester if they had a chance. Unfortunately, in the U.S. they are coddled by the criminal justice system: given suspended sentences, or parole. And if they do any jail time, they are separated from the other prisoners, and let out early. The system protects them in ways it doesn’t protect children.

    But most men who punish pedophiles still see women and children as below them, they just see pedophiles as going too far. Kind of the way most pig farmers would be outraged by a farmer who needlessly abuses his pigs. They wouldn’t want to free the pigs, just punish the farmer who goes too far.

    Posted by saltyC | October 5, 2006, 2:27 pm
  63. Let me clarify: I don’t mean to criticize the puke’s wife. I’m just wondering what her life with him was really like, because I also defended the man who made my life hell as a survival tactic.

    Posted by saltyC | October 5, 2006, 2:29 pm
  64. SaltyC, you are probably right, chances are that she didn’t know. (Although perhaps she is secretly relieved that he’s gone, that level of jerkdom and entitlement doesn’t just come out of the blue.)

    I guess that she’ll be the one facing all the anger from the community in his stead.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 5, 2006, 5:31 pm
  65. From his suicide note: “I don’t know how you put up with me all those years. I am not worthy of you, you are the perfect wife you deserve so much better.”

    From his wife: ““My husband was loving, supportive, thoughtful — all the things you’d always want, and more.”

    I guess she “put up with him all those years” because he was “perfect”? All I know is, the guy has a guilty conscience and a 7 year-old daughter (the one that lived). And so angry that he didn’t have multiple daughters that he planned to sexually assault and murder multiple little girls around the ages of his living daughter and the age his dead daughter would have been.

    And I also know that if he was abusing his 7 year-old daughter as he claimed to have abused other relatives when he was younger, there’s no way he and his wife would still be together unless she was very well versed in denial.

    Don’t tell us the guy was “perfect”, that’s over the top. Deception to that degree in a marriage requires cooperation.

    This guy didn’t “go postal”, after all, which is the typical mass-muder scenario (something traumatic happens, they “snap” and go on a rampage); and mass murders are almost never sexually motivated (and when they are, it’s by the sickest individuals).

    Even his coworkers noticed he was being weird days before the attacks.

    All this beside the fact they were fundies. I was a fundie once, too. And one thing I know about fundies is – especially very active ones with leadership roles like his wife has – their spouses are always “perfect”. To hear them tell it.

    Posted by John | October 5, 2006, 7:14 pm
  66. Re: Men punishing other men who rape or kill girl children– Men do tend to get violent over property violations.

    Posted by Melissa | October 5, 2006, 9:43 pm
  67. Oh and the two female relatives he claims to have molested and who now say they were not– they were, what, 3, 4, 5 at the time? It’s entirely possible they have no recollection of the abuse or even being around him because they were so young. And no, I’m not calling them liars.

    Posted by Melissa | October 5, 2006, 9:51 pm
  68. “From his suicide note: “I don’t know how you put up with me all those years. I am not worthy of you, you are the perfect wife you deserve so much better.”

    From his wife: ““My husband was loving, supportive, thoughtful — all the things you’d always want, and more.”

    I guess she “put up with him all those years” because he was “perfect”? ”

    Please don’t think of this as defending that worthless puke at all. But the ““I don’t know how you put up with me all those years. ” etc could be depression talking – not neccessarily indicative of anything in reality.

    Posted by Lya Kahlo | October 6, 2006, 11:54 am
  69. i’m fascinated not by any one thing, like the rumors of grudges, perversion or not — as some reports, indicate to the contrary, the similar case on a bus, this idea it is a war on womanhood or on girls, my feeling in the gut of my stomach, it is much more than that, with reports of people literally going postal, a few years ago, and more recently more and more children dying by thier own fathers or mothers hands, and people who felt sort of possessed as with the string of copycat columbine style assassins, is it possible normal people are being used, to create fear, through drugs and/or hypnosis etc..,considering so many relatives and friends never seen this coming, so is it really how it appears to be in this age of deception, for police and prison, and military style post 911 need for more protection, and less freedom. just a thought from a cynical mind

    Posted by mark | October 15, 2006, 3:23 am
  70. i cant believe how people can be so cold and heartless…..like a prescious child wether it be a boy or girl could deserve such fate…..i love both my children and i would die for them before i would stand by and let some ball less prick shoot them if he wanted to die go for it but he is lucky he killed himself because if i had anything to do with it i would have made him suffer for a long time and what is crazy is that he prob. felt powerful at that moment knowing those girls were frightened. but any man or woman who abuses or murders anyone less powerful than themselves are just scum of the earth and weak. and to the girls who didnt make it rest in peace and for the ones who were lucky to be alive god bless the rest of your lives

    Posted by jessica bush | January 30, 2008, 4:40 pm
  71. There is a war on women. It goes on daily. It’s not about “lone gunman” theories, it’s about men who threaten, harass, and get in the way of women’s freedom.

    It’s about millions of women terrorized in their “marriages” to men. It’s about how women are afraid for their lives if they do speak up.

    Now when do you hear hundreds of stories about women who beat, terrorize and rape men? When do you see millions of women get tickets for boxing matches, in which one man bashes another in “sport?”

    Sports, bashing, pornography, talk hate radio– all of these things are very obvious and in your face. And still we don’t see the media go on about the male terrorist structure to subjugate women. I don’t think men think of themselves as terrorists.

    True story of reversal: I have a very big dog with a big bark. A delivery man came to the door, and left the package outside, because he said he was afraid of the dog. After he left, a smile crossed my face, since at the time, I was not about to open my door to a man because I feared him. Not a BIG fear, just caution. What if men lived in fear of being killed by women every day of his life? What if everytime a man stepped out of line with a sexist comment, some women blew him away with a gun?

    What if movies showed men being killed, beated and sexually tortured by women, and this was the plot line of all the Law and Order type shows out there?

    What if men had to live in constant fear of women invading their homes and killing them? What if men were put in rape torture boxes and brutalized while women laughed at this as “entertainment?” What if? Just do a reversal, and you will see the male war of terror, the terror men have no problem inflicting on women. Take a hard look at mainstream culture and tally up the violence men do in the world!

    Either men are cold and unfeeling monsters or they are clueless pigs not to fess up to this state of affairs. I’d like to see men show real rage on anti-woman hate talk radio. I’d like to see men get furious over pornography. Yeah guys, I’d like to see you turn into REAL human rights activists!

    Posted by Satsuma | January 30, 2008, 10:27 pm
  72. P.S. I bet you have to cut out a lot of male comments on these sites. Men are not used to women talking about THEIR attrocities and not being able to fight back. How does it feel guys? Not fun!

    Posted by Satsuma | January 30, 2008, 10:29 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Women of Color Blog » Murder of Females continues. - October 3, 2006

  2. Pingback: Witchy-woo’s Wednesday Wow this week… « Well I’ll Go To The Foot Of My Stairs… - October 4, 2006

  3. Pingback: The war of terror against women « A speakout on male violence - October 30, 2006

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,563,403 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos