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.

Advertisements

CNN contributor names the agent: males reponsible for school shootings

Today, one Dr. Frank Ochberg, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Michigan State University and former Associate Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, reports for CNN that boys and men are responsible for almost all school shootings, consistently, around the world.

For some reason, Dr. Ochberg explores several possible reasons for all this violence, focusing on American schools and trying to figure out why it’s apparently unusually difficult for American boys and men to go to school without opening fire and killing people, but ultimately concludes that each one of these alleged “factors” is irrelevant, wasting the readers’ time in the process and leaving us seriously wanting.  What is the point of positing irrelevant “factors” and wasting precious words and punctuation — and space — exploring the irrelevant?  This is a serious question, as there is most certainly a point to it.  There is always, always a point.

For example, he asks himself, “Self?  Are detection of warning signs, bullying and revenge fantasies, major mental illness, violent role models, drug culture, and extremism responsible for all this despicable male violence?”

And he answers “no” every time.

In the section exploring how mental illness is irrelevant, he names the agent of harm in these violent rampages — in a parenthetical — as follows:

[…]But America is really no worse than other nations when it comes to the numbers of seriously mentally ill, of violently mentally ill, of insufficiently treated violent mentally ill school-age boys. (Yes, we are talking about boys and young men; by far, they are the school shooters).

Okay!  Yes, indeed we are talking almost exclusively about boys and men.  But what he really wants to know, apparently, is not why boys and men around the world are going on violent, bloody rampages, in schools, with guns; he wants to know why American boys and men are doing this more than non-American boys and men.

After wasting lines and lines of prose exploring what’s not relevant, at the very end, he concludes that the availability of guns is the problem, and is why there are so many more deadly school shootings in America than anywhere else in the world.  (Drug-culture, to the extent that it overlaps with gun-culture, plays an indirect part only).

From the article:

Access to guns is a significant factor in American school shootings. If kids could not and did not bring guns to school, we wouldn’t have Columbine, Virginia Tech or Chardon, Ohio. There have been crimes with knives and bats and fists. But school shootings are gun crimes. Kids with guns kill kids at school.

I do not think America is an extremist nation, compared to other nations with bloody histories and despotic leaders. True, we have polarized political speech, and some of that speech is about access to guns. But the reason we have an American school shooting problem that exceeds other nations has to do with access to loaded weapons by kids who should not have that access.

I’m not offering a gun control solution. But any serious attempt to prevent school shooting will have to attack the problem by determining who should not be armed, and preventing dangerous boys from bringing guns to school.

Oh dear!  He slips into gender-neutral language there in the beginning, saying “kids” a bunch of times, but corrects himself at the end.  It’s not “kids” doing this.  It’s men, and male-bodied children.

Without exactly coming out and saying it, this expert’s bottom line deals a devastating blow to male- and male-violence apologists, and appears to be this: American boys and men kill people with guns, because they can.

Now, because he is making a comparison here, while he is asking why American rates of school shootings are relatively high, he is also implicitly asking why non-American rates of school-shootings are comparatively low.  And again, while he doesn’t come right out and say it, he may also be implying that the only reason non-American boys and men don’t shoot up their schools MOAR, is because — and is only to the extent that — someone had the foresight to make guns hard(er) for them to get.

And that Americans, to date, haven’t made guns harder for boys and men to get, even though it’s completely foreseeable that boys and men globally, and in America, do and will continue to use guns to hurt and kill people.  And that, the world over, boys and men do this, and will continue to do it because — and to whatever extent — they can.

And that this is a shared experience among men, cross-culturally.  And…there’s probably a reason for that.

It’s buried beneath a lot of nonsense, but *that* appears to be the crux of this article.  An indictment of men, globally, who, with numerous other factors being equal, will use guns to hurt and kill people, to whatever extent they can.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement for boys and men around the world, is it?