Pussy Riot: whose freedom, whose riot?

Recently there has been lots of noise around the arrest of three members of Pussy Riot, a Russian anarchist female punk band. The media almost unequivocally represented them as the modern heroines of our time, fighting for freedom, democracy, sexual liberation and peace against a dark and ruthless dictatorship (articles are to be found in the NYT, Le Monde. The Guardian, etc.) Feminist groups all over the Western world are sending links and petitions to “free pussy riot”, and demonstrations have even been organised in support of the group by big institutionalised organisations such as “Osez le féminisme” (dare to be a feminist).

Now while I support without ambiguity the liberation of Pussy Riot’s members, it’s worth pausing for a minute to ask ourselves, as radical feminists, what the political dynamics are here. Why would Western media denounce so passionately the repression of feminists in Russia, when it usually only diffuses information that supports male supremacy and patriarchy? Feminism has long disappeared from any malestream media, except when journalists can turn it into male masturbation material, that is pornify either our suffering or our resistance to it. What’s going on here?

Before learning more about the case, the first thing that made me frown was the fact progressives were hailing Pussy Riot as the “new feminists”, despite that their name is fairly insulting to women. It is certainly not apolitical, since we are in a context in which pornography has deeply colonised our movement and the only groups that the media presents as feminist are those that either insult us or reclaim the very instruments of our subordination, that is, male sexual violence, PIV, pornified femininity and all the associated harmful cultural practices. These tactics of destroying the meaning of feminism form part of a general worldwide backlash against women.

I found it suspicious that Pussy Riot was getting so much media attention, even for pseudo feminist standards. You can measure the degree of feminism of an action by how men react to it, and if men collectively cheer and celebrate it, then you can be pretty sure there’s something wrong about it, or that it doesn’t somehow support our liberation from men. And as far as I can recall, even the slutwalks didn’t get as much coverage or public appraisal. What was it that men liked so much about Pussy Riot?

Well, under closer inspection I discovered that the high level of coverage was related to – though indirectly – promoting men’s right to women’s sexual subordination and the pornification of our movement. The arrested women actually form part (and are victims of) a mixed anarchist group called “Voina” (meaning “war”), founded in 2007 by two men called Oleg Vorotnikov and Leonid Nikolaïev, who regularly engage the women in extreme and degrading women-hating pornography as part of their public “political stunts”. Some of Voina’s men have actually already been incarcerated in 2011 for hooliganism – which is punished for 7 years of prison in Russia, but their bail was paid for by an artist named “Banksy” four months after their imprisonment. (More information can be found here and here)

Included in their anti-government actions are a “public orgy” in the national museum of biology in a room full of stuffed bears, where several men anally penetrated their female partners in a position of submission, including one heavily pregnant women, as a metaphor to “bugger/fuck Medvedev”. “Medved” means “bear”, hence all the stuffed bears – this was meant to be symbolic, artistic and revolutionary according to the activists. Here the male anarchists literally used women as dead bodies or receptacles through which to make a political point to other men. Violating women as a means to offend other men is nothing else but an age-old patriarchal mechanism – behind which the intended target are us, for men to bond over our annihilation.

Another planned stunt in the name of “sexual freedom”, inspired by extreme forms of pornography such as zoophilia/ necrophilia, includes a member of Pussy Riot masturbating with a dead chicken in a supermarket under the watch and camera of the anarchist males, after which she inserts the dead chicken entirely into her vagina and hobbles with the chicken inside her out of the supermarket. This is how the male members themselves describe their act of “liberation”:

“How to Snatch a Chicken: A Tale of How One Cunt fed the Whole of the Group Voina… in honor of their hero, a 19th century political philosopher/prisoner, Voina’s president’s wife dubbed “Vacuous Cunt With Inconceivably Huge Tits,” smuggled a chicken out of a grocery store in said “Vacuous Cunt…” [the journalist comments] : First, the troupe searched for a large and fresh enough chicken. Then, the store isles and CCTV cameras were blocked by the members of the group holding up banners with “FUCK WHORING YOURSELF!” smeared on them in I-don’t-want-to-know-what. The blockade allowed Vacuous Cunt to promptly stuff and smuggle the poultry out of the store, which was then presumably cooked and eaten.[1]

The president is presumably Oleg, and the woman in question, apparently his wife – a situation which would qualify as domestic abuse and sexual slavery given the level of violence, women-hatred and humiliation directed at the women involved. The woman is reduced to a corpse to be ‘stuffed’ in the most degrading and insulting way. No woman would desire such things as inserting a dead chicken in her vagina in public were she not under heavy control and terror. Also of note is the fact that one of their children was brought to this stunt, visibly no older than four. Sexual exhibitionism in the presence of children may also qualify as child sexual abuse. How deeply has women-hatred sunk into men’s minds, that they are incapable of imagining a riot without it being a by-the-book copy of a gonzo porn film? Here again, we see men instrumentalising women and using sexual torture of women as a means to communicate a political message (which if not totally vacuous, communicates nothing other than their hatred of women).

Perhaps the most saddening action of all consisted in filming one of the women naked, covered in cockroaches, meant to be understood as “sexy”. The association of women to filth and parasites to be eliminated couldn’t be clearer. This is women-hating, genocidal propaganda at its most dangerous form. Voina’s men give the world to see where women’s place must be, even when fighting against authoritarian regimes: head down, underneath men and fucked by them.

Now what does this mean for us, what can be understood from the media’s silence about Voina’s pornographic exploitation of women, when all the attention is focused on promoting Pussy Riot as our modern heroines? The effect and intent is political. While all the public eyes are set on the Russian representatives of the state and religion as the ultimate fascists, dictators and machos, we are made to forget that the primary oppressors and tyrants of these particular women are the men closest to them, that is, Voina’s men and their use of pornography to demean, oppress and enslave their female comrades. They are their everyday police, the fascists and colonisers breaking the women’s resistance, occupying their souls, sentencing them to public humiliation and subordinating them through sexual abuse. We are made to forget that these women are doubly victimised: first victims of the violence by the men of their own group, they are then punished and held responsible for the abuse committed against them.

By holding Pussy Riot as examples of resistance, being silent about the pornographic violence and denouncing the state and religious authority as the only oppressor, it follows that the media is complicit with the men from Voina. It protects the anarchist’s individual impunity, and more generally, furthers all men’s interest in promoting rape and women-hating propaganda. It also prevents women in general from identifying men’s sexual violence and the harms of the penis as the primary agents of our oppression. It distracts and disgusts women away from feminism. What kind of dignity and respect for our movement can women have if the only models of resistance given to us by the media are those to be seen by millions of men as humiliated, soiled and degraded in this way? Even the most brave and valiant women, who fight bare handed and alone against Putin and the religious authority, must be shown by men to the world as surrendering and conquered.

If we want justice for the women imprisoned and to show true solidarity, we need to not only denounce the injustice by the Russian state, but also denounce the violence by the men from Voina. We need to recognise and openly denounce the pandemic levels of sexual violence present in most male-centric leftist or anarchist activist groups, whereby women are often pimped by the men of the group for pornography or expected to submit to extremely violent or degrading acts in the name of “sexual freedom”. What counts for these men is to fight for men’s total public access to women, especially militant women, because it really serves to put all women back in line. The weapon of mass destruction against women is the penis and this is why all men are focusing on making Putin look bad while they say nothing about the bastards of Voina.

For our sisters, for all women, we need to say out loud that this is not feminism.

— republished with permission from Radfem HUB

[1]http://www.animalnewyork.com/2010/voinas-latest-action-is-fowl/ (Warning! Pornographic still image included in this link.)

Footnote to “teeth-pulling bitch” story: much like the concept of ‘misandry’ itself, the story is false

Revealing what appears to have been an example of global journalistic malpractice — and misogyny — involving some of the world’s most esteemed mainstream news outlets, msnbc.com reported Tuesday that its own basic investigation into the “teeth-pulling ex-girlfriend” story has revealed the story was a hoax.

Apparently, Britain’s Daily Male first printed the story without bothering to perform even cursory fact-checking; regardless, the story was picked up and circulated by Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Huffington Post, Yahoo! News, MSN, the New York Post, and The New York Daily News and Australia’s Herald Sun and New Zealand Herald among others.

Msnbc.com reports,

when msnbc.com contacted police in Wroclaw, Poland, about the supposed criminal case, a spokesman said they had no record of such an incident.

“Lower Silesia Police Department has not been notified about such an event and is not investigating such a case,” Pawel Petrykowski of the Provincial Police Headquarters in Wroclaw said in an email that was translated into English.

A legal adviser for Poland’s Chamber of Physicians and Dentists, which handles disciplinary matters, said the organization is not investigating and has never investigated any such case, and added that there is no dental practitioner named Anna Maćkowiak listed in Poland’s central register of dentists.

“No information about this kind of misconduct has been provided to the Supreme Chamber,” the legal advisor, Marek Szewczyński, said in an email. “The Supreme Chamber is also not aware of any actions of this kind being taken by the Regional Chamber of Physicians and Dentists in Wroclaw, which would be the competent authority in case of a possible professional misconduct committed by a dental practitioner from Wroclaw.”


The American Dental Association’s national spokesperson, David Johnson Jr., said the story of Maćkowiak’s revenge was highly improbable — not just as an unprecedented abuse of the doctor-patient relationship but because most dentists are equipped to administer drugs only for conscious sedation dentistry. That would mean the ex-boyfriend would know his teeth were being extracted as it was happening, rather than realizing it after he arrived home.

Why wasn’t this most cursory of fact checking and referencing performed before the story was printed?  Well, when asked that very question, the Daily Male staff writer under whose byline the story was originally written, Simon Tomlinson, said

he does not know where the story came from and distanced himself from it when questioned about its origins.  “I’ve drawn a bit of a blank,” he said in an email. “The (Daily) Mail Foreign Service, which did the piece for the paper, is really just an umbrella term for copy put together from agencies. My news desk isn’t sure where exactly it came from.”

This, after the story was shared more than 75,000 times on Facebook since it was first published on April 27, and after having spawned thousands of misogynistic comments on online news sites none of which have been removed, although most of the online news sources who reported this story have since issued retractions.  Gee, how civil of them.

Interestingly enough, the link to the original story at the Daily Male is now a dead link: they have removed the article entirely rather than print a retraction in the header and leaving the article — and comments — intact, like the other outlets did.  Comments like this from Huff Po:

Women + MAN = LOVE
Women + MAN – Love = Heartache and Pain for you Buddy , because we all know women are some unstable CREATURES .

More-so if I was the judge I would make it a condition of her parole or probation that she must have all of her teeth removed. As well as consficate (sic) ever last thing she owned to pay his multimillion lawsuit and her license removed.

The tone of this article is massively inappropriate. To imply sympathy with this kind of behavior strikes me as incredibly misandric and offensive as a man.  If a male dentist had done this you would be rightfully indignant. Have some class Huffington Post.

That last part made me laugh and laugh.  The tone of the article wasn’t sympathetic enough to the man: the fake, hypothetical man to whom this never happened wasn’t treated kindly enough by Huff Po, demonstrating misandry.  And if the sexes were reversed, the result would have been different.

Indeed, the result probably would have been different: in reality, if a male dentist had allegedly abused a woman this way, it might not have been reported at all.  What news outlet has either the space or a single crap to give to reporting on every egregious abuse, breach of professional ethics, act of sexual violence or human rights violation men perpetrate on women every day?  It never would’ve been reported at all, and would never have had the chance to be picked up and circulated globally.

Even if it were true, it never even would have been reported, let alone circulated globally.  Because there is too much male violence against women to even report.  See how that works?

And of course, if the sexes were reversed, it would have been assumed from the beginning to be a hoax.  If after being fact-checked thoroughly the story checked out and it wasn’t technically a hoax of the journalistic kind, it would’ve still been scrutinized and assumed to be a hoax of the lying-bitch kind, perpetrated by the woman herself, who would have been assumed to have been lying about all of it, including who had done that to her, under what circumstances, and why.

In reality, Huff Po — and the entire global mainstream news industry — demonstrates egregious misogyny here, not misandry, not to mention revealing for the entire world to see that its journalistic ethics are of the bankrupt kind: without demonstrating even the most basic care regarding whether this story was even true, it printed it anyway, and let the entire world believe that a woman had terribly abused a man in a way that was sure to draw the most vile woman-hatred imaginable, and condemnation of women as a sexual class.

In fact, one is left with the impression that this was the goal the entire time.  If it wasn’t “intentional-intentional,” the result — a global orgy of misogynistic woman-bashing and condemnation of women as a sexual class — was foreseeable enough that intent can and should be presumed.

This was intentional.  Which is to be expected, of course, considering that mainstream news reporting is, in actuality, the thinnest of covers for a global misogynistic pro-patriarchal propaganda machine.

If the world were a safe and sane place for women, the global news industry would never recover its credibility after this, but of course it’s not, and it will.  Because credible and male are synonyms, you see.  The global, male-centric mainstream news industry’s “credibility” was never lost and it never will be, any more than an apple can lose its appleness, or a tangerine can cease being tangerine-y.  They will recover.  But we mustn’t ever forget what we are dealing with, when it comes to the global media, and its treatment of us.

As if most of us even could.

Also reported at Radfem-ological Images.

Coverage of One Goh Murders Invisibilizes Male Violence Against Females – Again

How many women does a man have to kill to “target” them?  It seems the answer is “more than six.”

In early April, news outlets reported that One Goh, a former student at Oikos University, a small Christian college near Oakland, California, killed seven “people” at the school, which recently expelled him.

Early reports indicated that Goh walked into the single-story building housing the university, took a (female) receptionist hostage and went looking for a particular (female) administrator.  When Goh could not find his (female) target, Goh took the (female) receptionist  into a classroom, shot her  and ordered the (mostly female) students to line up against the wall, where he executed them.

Of those killed, six were women, but Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan said “investigators do not know whether Goh was targeting women.”

So, Goh went to the school to look for a female administrator, and then shot six females, but the police do not know whether Goh targeted women? And the media accepts this?

Days after the murders, another news outlet addressed the “targeting of women” by Goh. That report noted that Goh, fueled by anger at the school and a particular (female) official, may have killed six females as proxy victims for the intended (female) target.  Countering the meme put forth by the MSM immediately after the killings that Goh murdered six women because of teasing over his poor English, Oikos nursing professor Romie John Delariman reported that Goh spoke perfect English but “had a problem working with females.”

“He can’t stand women,” Delariman told the Associated Press . “He said he never used to work with women, or deal with women in a work setting or a school setting.”  The husband of one of the victims confirmed that his wife feared Goh and predicted that Goh would do something like go on a murderous rampage – against females.

Hey, this looks like Goh targeted his victims based on sex.

We already know that males commit most violent crimes, with males committing 87% of all homicides. With rampage killings in particular, might it be helpful to know what motivates rampage killers? Say, in order to PREVENT it?

MSM’s failure to name the problem of male violence against females is not new.  A 2000 New York Times account of rampage killers noted that although “rampage killers were overwhelmingly male,” the presence of six females out of 102 cases examined led the Time to conclude that mental illness, not male violence, was the “problem.”  The Times study also did not bother to examine the sex of the four hundred twenty-five people killed and 510 people injured in these 102 cases, thus further avoiding the question of male violence against females in rampage killings in particular.  Another article that catalogs the “top” rampage killers suggests rather obliquely suggests that “problems with women” may have motivated some of the (male) killers, including Luby’s restaurant killer George Hennard and Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-hui.

Another notorious rampage killer – George Sodini – killed three women in an aerobics class in 2009 and even stated that he had “(n)o sex since July 1990,” but, apparently, that was proof of intent to murder based on class warfare, not hatred of females (or male entitlement to female bodies backed up with the threat of male violence).  Apparently, the only time the MSM will allow that a male targets females is when the killer himself indicates that motivation, as seen in the Montréal Massacre of 1989.  In that rampage, an anti-feminist, female-hating man murdered 14 women at the École Polytechnique after telling them “you’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists.”

And in a post-secondary setting, where there are often more female students enrolled than male, it would seem reasonable to ask in every case whether targeting of specifically female victims was the intent, and an analogy made between “school shootings” in a university setting and a white man going into a predominantly black establishment and shooting the place up.  In the latter case, the discriminatory overtones would be easily recognizable — but in the case of university shootings, which are often predominantly female establishments, apparently, not so much.

See this chart demonstrating the “gender gap” in post-secondary enrollment in California showing that as of 2004, female enrollment outshines male, sometimes drastically so (depending on other factors such as ethnicity).  And Okios University specifically appears to have been well-known for its troubled nursing program, as well as offering degrees in Music, Theology and Asian Medicine.  Shooter One Goh himself had been enrolled in the nursing program before he dropped out (or was expelled) — a man with known “problems with women” who left the school perhaps feeling humiliated over his failure, while other (female?) students continued with their educations.

Were the students at Okios University predominantly female?  Was the nursing program in particular dominated by female students?  These are questions that immediately arise, yet statistics on enrollment by sex at Okios University following this mass woman-murder are not forthcoming, and a quick internet search does not reveal them.  Why not?

Six women shot dead in a university setting.  Male former nursing student did it.  Nursing program.  Nursing program.  Questions linger, and so far have yet to be satisfactorily addressed, but this is always the case when women are gunned down by men, including by men who are known to hate women and where only or predominantly women are targeted, or where the violence occurs at a predominantly female or female-only space.

The first question reporters should ask when they hear “he’s got a gun” is “how many women did he kill?,” “was it a female-only or female-dominated space?” and “how were his ‘issues with women’ manifesting before he targeted them for violence?”

Memorial service for victims from Okios University’s website.

Transgender contestant to compete in Miss Universe pageant afterall

A transgender woman who has has been fighting for her right to internalize misogyny by competing in a beauty pageant has gotten what she wanted, reports CNN.  While she was initially disqualified by the organizers of Miss Universe Canada because she was not a “natural born woman” and because she had lied about having had sex-reassignment surgery, pageant organizers Monday reversed their decision and will now allow male-to-female transgender model Jenna Talackova to compete.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, commended the pageant organizer’s decision.

The 61st annual Miss Universe Canada Pageant will be held in Toronto on May 19.

From the article:

Speaking to CNN Tuesday, [owner Donald] Trump said that according to the laws of Canada and the United States, Talackova should be allowed to enter the pageant.

‘So she will be entering the Miss Canada pageant, but we went strictly by the laws,’ he said.


Talackova was one of the 65 finalists selected to contend for the title of Miss Universe Canada and the honor of representing her country in the Miss Universe competition.

But organizers told her last month she could not compete because she lied about having undergone sexual reassignment surgery and did not meet requirements for the pageant.

At the time, the Miss Universe Organization said current rules state that all contestants must be a “naturally born female.”

In a 2010 interview in Thailand, where she was competing for Miss International Queen, a competition for transgender women, Talackova said she knew she was a girl at age 4. She said she started hormone therapy at age 14 and underwent sexual reassignment surgery at 19.

After Talackova’s disqualification, social media users flooded the Facebook page of Miss Universe Canada with comments criticizing the decision.

A petition started on the social change website Change.org garnered more than 41,000 signatures calling for organizers to reverse their ruling.

So let us take inventory here shall we?  41,000 people have been motivated to action, supporting a male-to-female transgender who wants to compete with real women over who is the most male-pleasing; said male-to-female transgender gets feminist attorney Gloria Allred to help him fight for his right to internalize misogyny and be the bestest male-pleaser; and GLAAD — an organization that supposedly represents lesbians’ interests but lately doesn’t even return lesbians’ phone calls  — commends the organizers’ decision to allow a male-to-female transgender to internalize misogyny because justice, just weeks after GLAAD also “worked closely with” and published the work of male-to-female transgender Monica Roberts, who heralded progressive political transgender “trailblazers” on GLAAD’s website even though Monica Roberts himself has threatened to “pimp slap” women; refers to women as “fish” and has made public, graphic death threats against a lesbian activist.

Does that sound about right?  I think so, except for one thing:

Men cannot internalize misogyny, any more than a white man can internalize racism.  Men externalize misogyny and use it to oppress women.  Men externalizing misogyny is the context we are working within here and everywhere.  And transwomen are not women, they are men.

So what we have here are a bunch of allegedly woman, lesbian and feminist-friendly activists getting their panties in a bunch over whether a man will be allowed to exercise his alleged right to externalize misogyny by competing in a beauty pageant; and conservative gender religionist pageant organizers who apparently believe very strongly that competing for the title of Bestest Man-Pleaser is a privilege reserved for natural-born women (and non-lying-liars) but who caved under global political pressure and social networking campaigning from other conservative gender-religionists, deciding to ignore their own rules and letting a man do his best imitation of a male-pleasing woman, afterall.

And as if that weren’t enough, the transgender contestant also appears to be competing in pageants — and is eligible to compete — as both a woman (in Miss Universe) and as a transgender woman (in Miss International Queen) when an actual woman would never be able to compete in both.  And yet he claims that he doesn’t want special treatment.  And that he just wants to compete [in ALL TEH PAJUNTS!!1!!1]

The punchline: this is all apparently supposed to be both progressive, and feminist.  Thanks for nothing everyone!  Love, actual feminists.

Violence makes sense if you look closely enough at the perpetrator, says expert

Accused mass-murderer Sgt. Robert Bales’s lawyer says the U.S. soldier may have been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or a traumatic brain injury when he killed 16 civilians, including 9 children and 3 women, in Kandahar while they slept, but CNN’s mental health expert says that’s unlikely.  Apparently, in reality, there is rarely a medical or psychiatric explanation for bad behavior, including male violence and extreme male violence, and indeed, when the perpetrator in the current case is examined closely, things start to fall into place.

From the article:

In the case of Bales, if he is guilty of the massacre, his actions may eventually be found to be related to a clearly causative organic factor. But my clinical experience tells me not to bet on this. It happens, but pretty rarely.

When people behave in unexpected ways for no good reason, it often turns out that when the full story of their lives is understood, the behavior no longer appears as unexpected. That which is neither clearly linked to either a medical or psychiatric illness is very likely intertwined in a person’s longstanding personality.

So, I suspect that if 100 psychiatrists were told that a previously normal service person massacred 16 civilians and was neither medically impaired nor psychotic, the majority of them would immediately suspect that the person in question might not have been as normal across his life as initial reports suggested.

So even though the majority of psychiatrists would automatically suspect that the perpetrator was not sick and would recommend that the details of his life and previous behavior be examined for predictive indicators, we are always confronted with the montage of confused neighbors who say how great a guy he was and how all of this atrocious male violence came as such a shock.  Why does this meme persist in the face of evidence that it is simply not reality-based, and people who study this for a living know this?  Unsurprisingly, this case is no different, although weirdly, the doctor seems to buy into it himself:

It now appears that he was involved in fraudulent business dealings. What makes the case so strange, however, are the multiple contrasting reports of his remarkably caring and selfless behavior on numerous occasions and his status as something of a small town hero.

The confused-neighbors montage is “strange” now?  I thought you just implied that this kind of stuff shouldn’t confuse you because you know better?  What this doctor appears to be saying, when he says that this is “strange” even though it is actually extremely common, is that it doesn’t make any “psychiatric sense” meaning that where the perpetrator is “neither medically impaired nor psychotic,” it is simply out of his area of expertise — as a psychiatrist — to comment on.

In other words, there wasn’t anything wrong with Bales, and it was simply consistent with his history to commit mass murder .  So why all the mealy-mouth in this article?  Why not just come out and say it: that there is nothing that unusual about most men who commit extreme violence, that there is probably nothing unusual about this one either, and in fact it could’ve probably been predicted beforehand, if not just easily explained afterwards, if we only knew (or paid at attention to) how Bales and indeed all men behave every day?

The doctor himself seems apologetic for his mealy-mouthedness, and ends with a pretty revealing question:

I seem to end many of my CNNhealth pieces with some type of comment about how unsatisfying our current level of psychiatric understanding is. This pieces, [sic] alas, is no different in this regard. Frankly, at this point nothing in Bales’ actions makes psychiatric sense. On the other hand, how many highly admired, hard-working, patriotic, caring small-town heroes are embroiled in financial fraud or may have other dark behaviors in their backgrounds?

An observer who was actually invested in preventing male violence might conclude that therefore, men need to be monitored closely and punished severely or deterred by whatever means for all transgressions and “dark behaviors” because they are predictive of future violence, including extreme violence.

But yes, it is an excellent question, however it is phrased: how many allegedly “good men” really aren’t?  Taking it a step further, one might reasonably wonder whether there are any men out there who don’t have “dark behaviors” in their pasts and presents, including behaviors which average people generally regard as “dark” but also including other things that only radical feminists would see as particularly harmful, such as putting girls and women at extreme physical and psychological risk through dangerous male-centric sexuality, or doing this by-proxy by using porn?  In other words, doesn’t all male violence make perfect sense, and particularly men’s known propensity to commit violence as opposed to women’s, if we are going to use previous instances of putting people in harm’s way as a predictive indicator of future violence, where essentially all men put people in harm’s way all the time, particularly through dangerous male sexuality?

And this excellent question is coupled with a revealing point: psychiatry is simply not implicated in very many cases of male violence or extreme male violence because male violence and extreme male violence are not medically or psychiatrically abnormal (for men).  Read: it’s normal, or “typical” if you prefer; medically and psychiatrically healthy men do this.  Even though people clearly wish the reverse were true, and keep asking psychiatrists for psychiatric explanations and excuses when the facts do not warrant it.  Indeed, in reality, it seems like asking a psychiatrist to explain male violence is like getting a plumber to help you hang wallpaper.  They just aren’t that helpful.

Of course, he very obviously does not address whether banking fraud and other “dark behaviors” when women do it, would be predictive of future female violence, especially mass murder.

There is nothing wrong with these men, they just do it, and it’s completely predictable too.  This appears to be what this doctor is saying, albeit hesitantly.  Being a man himself, perhaps he is particularly compromised here to tell the truth about men and what men do and what men are, and CNN itself is a tool of the patriarchy, hence the mealiness.

But the thing is, we can all read, and we can read between the lines too.

No wonder men love their “privacy” and the separate spheres so much: because that’s where they can behave “darkly” and where no one ever knows about it except their wives and children, who very often are economically coerced into not turning their husbands and fathers in on the spot, and where no one would believe them anyway if they told the truth about what a male “upstanding citizen” acts like when he thinks that no one that matters is watching.

But also, how nice it must be for all men that almost everyone regards the most common expression of disdain for girls and women, and an obvious manifestation of men’s “darkness” where they place others in harm’s way — men, sticking their dicks into other people, particularly female-bodied people — as essentially harmless, or even an act of love?  Cue the confused-neighbors montage.  “He was such a great guy, a family man.”  When in reality, the man placed his wife in harm’s way repeatedly, and the numerous ambivalent or unwanted children are the proof.