NEWS: Post Virginia Tech Analysis

CULTURE: Post Virginia Tech Analysis

Has enough time passed since the shootings at Virginia Tech for a little reasoned discussion of the problem of violence?



About a week ago, there was a rather good article on the psychology of violence in the London Times. It got a lot of blog coverage, mostly because of Camille Paglia's (predictably) asinine remarks about women failing to understand male aggression and "young women" whose sexual freedom is "confusing" and "humiliating" to boys--as if sexually active single women aren't constantly told that they're sluts who are somehow asking to be raped, and aren't therefore (if anything) hyper-aware of the possibility of male violence. But okay, Paglia's got a bug up her ass about violence and feminism and everyone knows it; it's not surprising that when asked she's going to invoke the old double standard in that backlashy kind of way she does.



The article as a whole, though, is quite interesting and makes some really good points. The gist of it is a genuinely thoughtful exploration of the centrality of violence to American masculinity. It's a truism by now that these mass shooters are usually young white men (though Cho, of course, was a Korean immigrant), and that they usually feel socially isolated, picked on and marginalilzed, and want to somehow punish or get even with "society" for their sense of alienation.



The responses to this kind of thing are truisms, too: identify people who seem "weird," (over)react to stories or fantasies that involve violence (although again, in Cho's case the reactions of Nikki Giovanni and other professors and students to his writing seem, in retrospect, highly accurate), argue about security and gun control, blame video games, worry (excessively) about whether or not the mentally ill are dangerous. (Check that last link for an example of the kind of overreaction to whatever the most prominent feature of the latest killer's story seems to be.)



But all of those reactions are essentially reactionary--that is, they're after-the-fact responses to the unexamined problem of why violence is so endemic and attractive, especially to young men. Undoubtedly part of it is simple biology: men are probably more aggressive than women, especially during adolesence and early adulthood. But most guys don't shoot up schools or gangbang or get in bar fights or beat up their girlfriends or even join the military. A lot of them channel their aggression into playing WoW, or internet flamewars, or angsty rebellion, or sports, or fairly harmless occasional rowdiness. So aggression, in and of itself, is hardly an adequate explanation.



Which leads us back to Sarah Baxter's article in the Times. She interviews scientists from psychology to poli sci about the problem of (male) violence and comes up with some pretty interesting explanations, most of which amount to a combination of young male energy + a sense of social grievance + psychological isolation.

I really don't see why it would be "politically incorrect" to argue that at a time in life when they're going through (1) a lot of energy and (2) an attempt to figure out their role in society, young men who find that the roles offered to them aren't available for one reason or another would be angry and aggrieved. Hell, most of the arguments people have about culture and social problems revolve, one way or another, around what young men "need": jobs, military service, fathers, freedom, marriage, respect.



Change happens, though. And guys are gonna have to adjust when the world they live in evolves. What would really do them--and us--the most good is being able to talk about the social, physical, and emotional stresses they're under and start to recognize that there's more than one way to be a good man.



Bitch_PhD got her son an Easy-Bake oven yesterday, because his particular version of little boyness involves making stuff, feeling helpful and productive, fueling his energy with lots of carbs, and liking things that plug into the wall.

very good article

Great article. This "celebrity through murder/martyrdom" trend is super scary.

Man, how long has Paglia been pushing her bullshit?

The perception is that it's taboo to acknowledge anything other than the obvious anatomical or cosmetic differences between people, for fear of getting yelled at for saying that black people can't swim. It's bullshit, of course -- car insurance companies charge higher rates to teenage boys for the exact reasons you lay out -- but it doesn't stop people from assuming that whatever they have to say would piss people off.

Extreemly good I would say.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said: "Change happens, though. And guys are gonna have to adjust when the world they live in evolves."

It feels to me like we (all of human society I mean) are right in the middle of some sort of evolutionary change. That the world is moving beyond the old ideas of "Might Makes Right" into one where things like democracy and debate will have more power than acts of violence.

What we are seeing, in these horrific acts of violence and other incidents like them, are the death-throes of an old ideology. The last vestiges of an old world fighting against a new one. One where, hopefully, men will not need to "prove" themselves through acts of violence.

one of the best articles I've read on here, well done!


"although again, in Cho's case the reactions of Nikki Giovanni and other professors and students to his writing seem, in retrospect, highly accurate"

I've thought that too, but for curiosity's sake, I would like to know how many other "reactions" are had based on the fucked up writings of college students.

I only say this because, in high school, I was questioned about writings that were found by school officials. Sure they were fucked up, but I've never even been in a fist fight, let alone do anything that could harm random innocent people, and I've never so much as had the inclination to do so.

Another interesting thing to ponder. I'm not quite sure what the numbers are, but if I'm not mistaken, the majority of "cutters" are teen girls. Which to me, makes an interesting contrast, between teen boys (who apparently lash out on others) VS. teen girls (who tend to lash out on themselves)

or maybe I'm just high

I agree that this is an excellent article.

As for what's "politically correct" - honestly, I don't see how that term can be applied to anything but opinions. A "politically incorrect" opinion might be something along the lines of "Men are a bunch of violent jerks." A broad generalization backed by nothing more than unsupportable opinion. But something like "the vast majority of crimes are committed by men between the ages of 15 and 30" is easily verifiable through statistical analysis. It's either accurate or inaccurate, how it makes people feel is entirely irrelevant, and the fact that it is true adds to the discussion.

As to the more general issue of how to deal with violence like this, while I'm not anxious to prop up Susan Faludi's version of pop-psychology, one thing I did get out of her book "Stiffed" was a lot of men feel as if nothing they do can make any sort of impact, that they're expendable and replaceable in virtually every way. With six billion people in the world and only the top 3-4 "best" at any given activity receiving any sort of recognition for it, making an impact and a difference on society at large seems virtually impossible given the vast competition to be the best at anything. So perhaps people who resort to violent acts feel like it's a means to make their mark on the world - even if it's not a positive mark, and in doing so somehow validates their existence.

Camille Paglia is the Ann Coulter of feminism- which doesn't even make sense.

This is, btw, one of the best articles I've read on the site...kudos.

very interesting article, it does lead to something i have thought about which is why is it only young males shooting up schools in America , has there ever been a situation where a girl has done this to the extent of other high profile shootings ? none that i can personally think of

great article.

"the boy with a thorn in his side,
behind the hatred there lies a muderous desire
for love"

That's the crux of the issue, for any commentator with a "magic bullet" (pardon the phrase) solution to the issue of violence, especially of this nature. The fact is that despite the coverage it gets, it's not even all that prevalent. According to the article it has happened 19 times in the last decade. Each one is a tragedy, but given the number of people in the US, an average of once every six months is not especially high, hardly the "epidemic of violence" people complain about.

Can women be cruel and send mixed signals to guys? Sure, of course. The opposite is true too, of course, and not just in emotional scarring ways, since the vast majority of domestic violence is men perpretrating it on women. But even given the sometimes nasty superficiality and competitiveness in male/female relations, almost everyone is able to dust themselves off and get on with their lives after having their advances rejected by someone of the opposite sex. The fact that a few people like Cho weren't able to speaks more about them as individuals than the women they sought as a group.

Good article, but I don't think there even is an underlying reason for the shootings. I think a guy randomly went crazy and started killing people. I don't think you can really blame anyone. (except maybe God)

There's been previous stories on the newswire about the results of attitude surveys; "is it okay to hit women", etc. The results were horrific, and show that many people (men and women) are confused by women.

Stating the obvious: This means that men need an attitude readjustment, not that women need to change their behaviour.

David Von Drehle had a compellign article in Time the other week that argued that it's narcissism that allows for these school shootings. Lots of people get picked on, most of them don't think they have the right to take other people's lives because they're unhappy. Nikki Giovanni called Cho a "bully," he wasn't just some miserable, victimized outcast, he actively avoided other people and was pretty open about his God complex in the videos he sent to NBC.

I think the evidence you don't provide is much more telling than the evidence you do. Because with rising violence among teenage girls, decreasing military recruitment, and the simple fact that Sri Lanka is the world's leader in suicide bombings (which both men and women participate in), I have a hard time seeing how feelings of inferiority among men is even a significant factor in the Virginia Tech shooting.

But it could just be that my penis is keeping me from seeing the connection.

I'm finally glad someone put this horrific ordeal into somewhat of an understandable idea. You can't just look at what the guy did and say "Oh. He must have been crazy." This isn't the 1800's where we didn't know about all of the things that could possibly make someone warrant this callus of an attack. What he did was intentional. He was misguided and that unfortunately led to the demise of people who had no reason to die as they did.

We can easily point the finger at our society and say "GUILTY! GUILTY!" But anyone can easily distinguish that there are so many factors that led to this act. And like so many times before there was warning signs but people are self involved to realize that something might happen in their world.

I just hope that the next guy that begins to feel this realizes that he may need help with the way he is feeling and does not confuse his feelings and let them misguide him into another tragedy that we don't need.

agreed!

easy bake ovens. mmmm.

never had one as a child, but I always wanted to make delicious treats...and eat them.

If this were a "comment" I wouldn't really care. I read these kinds of comments all the time. Hell, I post comments like this. But as part of a published article it irritates me a bit.

Lose the word "probably" and include a source with supporting evidence.

*I'm not picking on Bitch_PhD. Much love.*

We do have a violent culture, but I don't think that this violence in our culture fuels mass killings like VT. Cho would have snapped regardless. He was a clinical narcissist. So was nearly every serial killer and every other mass killer who left a final message to be analyzed.

You can tell that Cho was a clinical narcissist because, if the reports about him are to be believed, he kept mostly to himself and never responded the few times when people tried to engage him in conversation. He was going through great pains, it seemed, to isolate himself, and then it seems that he got pissed off when his existence wasn't acknowledged.

The problem is that no matter how advanced humanity comes, we are still stupid, selfish, panicky animals, broadly speaking. Peace will never happen because there will always be a person or group who takes advantage of another groups pacifism.

http://suicidegirls.com/members/korut/1626988/

Really great article, although lumping in joining the military with shooting up schools, beating your wife and gangbanging kinda rubbed the wrong way.