Follow-Up on George Sodini Note Below

Justin, thanks for your comments. You write:

A. On Schwarzenegger -- 

I am in broad sympathy with this. Here are a few quick comments and questions. You write, “In cutting all funding for domestic violence shelters [Schwarzenegger] is directly leading to the death of people who did not need to die.” I’m willing to concede this point in a certain sense. But I want to clarify that sense. It is the same sense as the sense in which you and I are responsible for the deaths of who-knows-how-many little boys and girls that we could have sponsored for a dollar a day in Liberia or Bolivia (and practically all of us – even those of us on welfare in this country -- *could* sponsor at least one more child than we presently do [we could move into a single room with 10 other people, invariably rely on free clothes, work three jobs, eat only at soup kitchens, etc.])…
…As Singer or Unger might put it, we have “let such children die” rather than “killed them”. Of course, it could be argued that there is no morally relevant difference between killing and letting die. But that would have to be argued. It isn’t obvious that all of us have the same moral standing as someone who shoots a convenient store clerk in the face merely because we’ve let die more children in Uganda or whatever than we absolutely had to. By the same token, it isn’t obvious that Schwarzenegger is a murderer because he decided to prioritize whatever he decided to prioritize over the possible prevention of certain forms of violence against women (I’m not claiming that you suggested that he is).

First of all, he is the governor of California, and can affect lives in a manner and scale that I cannot replicate, and that it doesn't make sense for everyone to try to replicate. Society can't be composed entirely of politicians, and nor do I have the private wealth that would enable me to undo the effects of his funding decision. 

For my part, I do give at least a dollar and usually more, per day, to the homeless people who live on my block. I do this despite not really having an income beyond what I need for rent, food, and basic healthcare. I agree that we could all be doing more in this vein. 

Two more interesting points on this topic --

There is a minimum living standard beyond the necessary which I don't think we should ask people to sacrifice. This is the living standard which makes, broadly speaking, civilization possible -- scholarship, art, and other cultural practices arise in part out of leisure and the celebration of leisure. I think we do have an obligation to give when giving makes all of us stronger (and as long as I am able to handle it emotionally I will be volunteering as a rape crisis counselor and hospital advocate). The government of CA, I believe, could certainly find some way to cut other costs besides basic security measures for women. One of the main reasons the cuts are being made to begin with is the fact that Californians, wealthy or otherwise don't like taxes.

There is a fundamental sense in which I think you're right here, and ultimately I can't give a reason that this case of human suffering deserves specific attention over the myriad, equally problematic ones that deserve our care today. I can only say that it is an issue which I am personally highly motivated to impact, and one which I think tends to be under-estimated and under-represented due to a certain backlash against feminism that is happening to day (see Pat Buchanan telling Rachel Maddow that electing Sotomayor meant discriminating against white men, and see also the common argument that women in the United States shouldn't complain, because things are worse elsewhere. Not only are things just as bad for some lower-class women here as they are almost anywhere else, but despite the problem of upper-middle class white entitlement feminism, it doesn't make sense to compare and contrast oppression, any more than it makes sense to stop prosecuting rapists because a rape victim was "lucky he didn't get murdered.")

Lastly, Arnold Schwarzenegger has given women in California no reason to trust his motives. In a much-publicized video, he announced the budget cuts by waving a knife around and suggesting "cuts must be made." He claims it was a joke, but -- whatever his reason for the video or the budget cut itself -- this betrays an incomprehensible level of insensitivity towards the struggles of the women whose lives he is affecting in this budget cut.

B. On Censorship -- 

You write, “A cursory glance at cable TV, YouTube, or the movie theatre reveals that the mistreatment of women, and quite often their outright rape and murder, gets sexualized…” Is your view that we should censor movies so as to avoid sexualized depictions of violence against women?

I'm not sure why so many people take away from my writing that I want censorship to happen. There are many reasons censorship is a terrible idea, not least of which is that it simply won't work. And yet, one person went so far as to tell me repeatedly that I believe that "pornography is murder and the TV kills people." This is certainly a problem for some feminists. People like Andrea Dworkin do go, in my opinion, a little too far. Even the pornography documentary I linked to in the previous piece, I think, overstates the case by comparing BDSM pornography to waterboarding. My problem isn't even as much with things like BDSM pornography, when it is quite clear that they are participating in a consensual subculture/lifestyle decision, but rather where things like date rape or "raping to seduce" are naturalized into the 'everyday' life of heterosexual and 'vanilla' people. And again, no filmmaker is directly responsible for the actions of their fans. Even an ostensibly feminist depiction of a rape still gets misinterpreted by some people. (http://bitchmagazine.org/post/mad-men-i-love-you-but-your-fans-are-freaking-me-out) 

The resemblance to the Christian right among "all intercourse is rape" feminists is uncanny and significant. But it is also important to realize that one of the most common stereotypes against feminists is that they are humorless, frigid shrews, and to avoid giving that stereotype any more attention than it merits. 

A few ideas on this topic. I actually have used depictions of sexualized violence against women in my own art. And I enjoy some pieces of art that do the same (Videodrome comes to mind). Think of the song "Strange Fruit" -- we can talk about violence beautifully, and quite powerfully, without thereby encouraging it. Art is, I think the barometer of a culture, and thus it is all the more vital that it not be censored so that we can come to terms with how sexist ours really is. If anything, we should be more transparent about it. 

However, I think it is undeniable that there already exists a certain "positive censorship" when our systems and markets are rigged to allow the Judd Apatows of the world to make all the money. Sex sells, right. But undoing this involves undoing discrimination on the level of the industry, in pay gaps, and opportunities for female and feminist filmmakers -- it doesn't involve standing in the way of Judd Apatow (far be it from me). There is also a lack of positive media about women. The onus here is on the feminists to produce a positive result, rather than censor the negative ones. Ultimately we should be able to create a self-regulating system where depictions of Hillary Clinton cackling like a witch, or throwing a "temper tantrum" or having a "gigglefest," are just as rebuked as the watermelon or monkey jokes about Obama (for the record, I don't necessarily support Hillary Clinton's politics, and I think racist jokes about Obama are tolerated too much). But this involves, as I said, positive media, and also education about the historical context which creates the political implications of these depictions (psychiatric diagnoses of female hysteria, Salem witch trials, et cetera).

One more reason censorship is not good -- there is a distinction between a) depictions of sexualized violence that are therapeutic or cathartic for sufferers, b) that which is depicted for pedagogical reasons (to spread awareness), and c) that which is gratuitous or unexamined. There is no way we could create a bureaucracy to distinguish between these, and I don't think we should try. The problem isn't with the inert media itself, but with the lack of an education which would allow people to critically examine their media (in all spheres, not just feminist ones). 

C. On Power and Violence -- 

You write, “Clearly these homicidal actions, like (if not the same as) the violence of the patriarchy itself, like all of the fantasies about violence against women that do exist in media today, stem from a feeling of powerlessness in the face of women.” I wonder what your evidence is for this (it’s not clear to me). Is you view that all violence against X arises from a feeling of powerlessness *in the fact of X* (as opposed to a feeling of powerlessness under God, in the face of one’s boss, etc.)?

Where Mao Tse-tung says "power grows out of the barrel of a gun," Arendt suggests that "power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent." The important thing is that every time a group feels its power decreasing, there is an "open invitation" to violence. I think that any oppressing group does run up against this conundrum when facing its "dependence" on the service of the oppressed group. There is violence against women for many reasons, but I believe one of these reasons is a feeling of powerlessness against women. If we don't have the power to gain non-violent assent from the women we oppress, then the only way to reinstitute the patriarchy is by force. I think similarly of hate crimes against homosexuals -- they are pinpointed because they are seen as a threat. If they really were "less than nothing," it wouldn't be necessary to attack them. And it is a serious and open question why people get killed for "walking like a girl," to use an example of the randomly motivated homicide of a gay teenager that Judith Butler discussed in a documentary I saw recently.

I definitely overstated the point by saying that *all* homicidal fantasies against women stem *directly and only* from a feeling of powerlessness in the face of women. Obviously it happens for many reasons. The reason I thought it was important to highlight this specific cause is for the sake of women readers --- instrumental to taking back power over oneself is realizing that one has it to begin with. Instrumental to that is realizing that every enemy pays a compliment to the person he attacks by suggesting that this enemy is worth attacking.

George Sodini

As someone who has survived serious sexual violence on a few different occasions, I live with a fair amount of hypervigilance and fear for my safety. On the street I very routinely get harassed (not just like "take care of those gorgeous legs baby," which doesn't really bother me, but things like "I had better put my eyes back in my head because I am going to get arrested for what I am thinking about you right now." this would be a direct quote). Now, the fact that all of these men are not psychotic or homicidal is precisely the point. Rather than speculate about whether George Sodini was insane, (he clearly was) or even whether he should have gotten a long prison sentence (in a world of ideal penal reform he probably should have, but I am undecided here), the only responsible thing to do is to think about how to prevent this violence. 

If it turns out that a culture of sexism encourages the likelihood that crazy people will kill women, it is irresponsible not to examine that. The psychological and physical well being of the women being victimized is just as important as that of any man -- and I have an inkling that the feeling of persecution straight men may get from this critical examination is not as serious as the situation for women in California, who, for example, recently had all funding for domestic violence shelters -- all of it -- cut by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who again is not a psychopath. But indirectly, in cutting all funding for domestic violence shelters he is leading to the death of people who did not need to die.

A cursory glance at cable TV, YouTube, or the movie theatre reveals that the mistreatment of women, and quite often their outright rape and murder, gets sexualized (in everything from Judd Apatow films [he blames anti-semitism for the criticism that Knocked Up is sexist], to the treatment of Hillary Clinton's recent trip to the Congo to talk about her $17 million dollar program to keep women from being raped with the barrels of guns, to basically every horror film ever, except perhaps this... http://www.teethmovie.com/ ). 

The naturalization of male violence is not backed up by scientific evidence (see Pulitzer-prize winning biologist Natalie Angier's text 'Woman') . Recognizing this is good for both men and women, because it means men don't have to be violent. What it also means is they have effective free will, or at least a serious obligation to continue assuming they have free will. And when we realize how extensive the positive depictions of the rape of and violence against women are in our culture, it is obviously more important to subject "their" media to critical examination than to blindly disavow any possible linkage whatsoever and thus save face.

You do not need to say that any man is directly responsible for George Sodini's actions other than himself to say that critical examination of media is called for. And by the way, I don't think that these straight men you are talking about should have any sort of monopoly over "their" media, as you say. The lines are not so clean. The pornography industry is responsible for all kinds of violence against women and their economic oppression. One of the main men in the pornography industry today is also a major movie producer and has ties to the KKK ( http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=235&template=PDGCommTemplates/HTN/Item_Preview.html) 

This doesn't mean that pornography viewers are murderers any more than casual cocaine users directly cause the guerilla warfare which they support with their purchase, but it does mean there is a linkage.

Furthermore, mental illness doesn't happen in a vacuum. Nor is it a necessary fact. If it is remotely possible that we can create a culture that doesn't encourage men to think of violent or hyperaggressive behavior against women as sexy -- which is a situation that hurts plenty of men too, by pressuring them to demonstrate their "straight male" macho-ness in a way that leaves millions deeply emotionally and psychologically wounded (http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/why-pornography-hurts-men-repo.html) --if we can help to prevent people like George Sodini from feeling so boxed-in by this caricature of masculinity that he suffers a mental breakdown and commits heinous acts of murder against innocent people, I think we have a huge obligation to critically examine whether it is possible. It makes just as much sense to deny that as it does to say that a man who murdered a black man after watching casual racism in some movie over and over doesn't obligate the filmmaker to even ask himself once how he could have depicted race differently. We will save so much more time, money, angst, and innocent life if we do this than if we wait for psychiatric "cures" and prison sentences after the fact. The "after the fact" concern only helps George Sodini -- it doesn't help the women he killed.

The one point where I do agree with you, Steve, is in saying that people like George Sodini need help. Psychiatric help, but not only psychiatric help -- also help through cultural education. As Hannah Arendt says, violence can only exist in the absence of power, and power is precisely the ability to effect change without stooping to the use of force. Clearly these homicidal actions, like (if not the same as) the violence of the patriarchy itself, like all of the fantasies about violence against women that do exist in media today, stem from a feeling of powerlessness in the face of women. Women, after all, are these "inferior" beings upon whom even sexist men inevitably have to depend in order to, at the very least, perpetuate the species. And no man was always independent of his mother.

It's funny, because in creating a caricature of women who use sex, not violence, to effect the changes they want to see in the world, the patriarchal media has, like Midas, unwittingly projected into women a weird cartoon version of what they wanted all along: the power to impact the world without being so desperate as to stoop to anger, or force.

Thought Of The Day

I recently read that a woman is unlikely to orgasm during intercourse unless the distance between her clit and her vag is less than one inch. In that case, it is more likely that she will not be able to comfortably accomodate the average-sized wang. This is certainly not true for all women but the majority.

Some evolutionary biologists contend that the clitoral orgasm (despite being, strictly speaking, the only orgasm that exists*) is an evolutionary "holdover" that serves no discernable purpose and is on its way out. However, given the clit-vag distance conundrum, in addition to the fact that, strictly speaking, male orgasm is no more necessary for reproduction than female orgasm -- cf. preseminal fluid -- I am forced to conclude that, unfortunately, it is not the clit but the vag which is the gracious holdover of the female body which, all things told, would do perfectly well for itself reproducing parthenogenetically.

*There has been much 'scientific' debate about whether there is a "vaginal orgasm" in addition to the clitoral one. However, a simple look at female anatomy shows us that the average clitoris** is actually 7.5 inches long and wraps in two prongs around the pelvic bone and hence the vagina. This is clearly the source of female pleasure during intercourse, and allows us to conclude that female pleasure is female pleasure -- which, biologically speaking, develops out of exactly the same erectile tissues as male pleasure. 

**For a sweet picture of a giant mothership vagina and also one that looks suspiciously like the virgin mary please consult Wikipedia.