8 year old girl shot by 11 year old boy

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the victim in this case had been male, many of the reasons I gave earlier would still apply, however the condoning of disrespectful male behaviour when it comes to girl would not apply.

She said the family had had trouble with the boy when they first moved to the area.

"He was making fun of her, calling her names, just being mean to her. I had to go to the principal about him and he quit for a while and then all of a sudden yesterday he shot her," Ms Dyer told WATE-TV.

So, the principal apparently shut down the bullying after being notified. Maybe the principal should have done that earlier, or teachers, or parents, but we have no sense of timeline, or of the home life of the boy involved, or really, any other details needed to draw a conclusion here.

The fact is, we don't know how this particular boy treated other kids, and therefore no idea about what role gender plays here. As others have pointed out, you could draw an argument that girls in general are more likely to be victims, and boys are more likely to be aggressors, but that argument is a far cry from claiming the boy had an internal belief that "girls have to do what I say or else".

So we have a widespread and deep-rooted problem that involves, but is not limited to, female victimization and male violence. You called this case of the boy with the shotgun a "textbook example" of this larger issue, but, with this limited information, this could just as easily be a textbook example of absentee parents, non-gendered bullying gone out of hand, gun control, or other issues worth tackling.

Obviously this whole situation was tragic, but without more information, attributing this girl's death to a larger systematic issue feels irresponsible.

Originally posted by NemeBro
(you could argue gender roles might have more strongly, simply because aggressive behavior is indeed more encouraged in boys, but it would still be a weak argument).

We did see how boys kill about 80% more people than girls. That's as good of a proof as we'll ever going to get for such an issue. So the last line pretty much means that in your opinion gender roles lead to weak discussions when it comes to children?

Actual question, I could see some rationales for that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841

It's messed up things like this happen so often. And I think this has definitely a misogynist component.

This has zero "misogynist component" about it. Its deplorable that you would even bring this up in something so tragic, to just push your misogynist agenda and beliefs on the forum. I doubt you even care about the story, nor did you report on it correctly. You lied about the article, it states no such thing in the tragedy. A shameful and deceitful post with no substance in which you made the claim.

Originally posted by Smurph

Obviously this whole situation was tragic, but without more information, attributing this girl's death to a larger systematic issue feels irresponsible.

Irresponsible? Give me a break. What's the worst case scenario if I am wrong (about this opinion I clearly labelled as my opinion) and this shooting is somehow completely devoid of a misogynist component? That some people will treat women and girls with more respect? Like this is like saying "Woah, easy there, you are being really irresponsible advocating for people to be nice to each other".

I mean what are people really doing here? Policing that it is apparently not time to talk about misogynist aspects of shootings and killings because maybe, in their opinion, this case is not influenced by this?

I think this one word has been more revealling about the state of posters here, be it from someone seeming unsure whether it was worse to bring up misogyny or the actual shooting of the girl to you using language more relevant if I was mishandling nuclear material.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean what are people really doing here? Policing that it is apparently not time to talk about misogynist aspects of shootings and killings because maybe, in their opinion, this case is not influenced by this?

Again, misogynist is a pretty strong word it warrants a responsible use. Do you think calling people racist is going to help fight against racism if done indiscriminately? Use up the word and you end up mixing really horrible actions with uneducated comments. It can be counterproductive instead of useful.

Policing the use of powerful words makes, some sense. You can disagree of course.

Originally posted by Bentley
Again, misogynist is a pretty strong word it warrants a responsible use. Do you think calling people racist is going to help fight against racism if done indiscriminately? Use up the word and you end up mixing really horrible actions with uneducated comments. It can be counterproductive instead of useful.

Policing the use of powerful words makes, some sense. You can disagree of course.

No, it's a very accurate word that describes very many interactions in our society. What is powerful is the desire to not face or think about sexist and misogynist issues. It's actually similar to "racist", people are much more comfortable arguing against something being racist than facing that racism is a common thing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it's a very accurate word that describes very many interactions in our society. What is powerful is the desire to not face or think about sexist and misogynist issues. It's actually similar to "racist", people are much more comfortable arguing against something being racist than facing that racism is a common thing.

I'm not saying it isn't accurate, I'm saying accuracy doesn't warrant irresponsability. Our discussion isn't marketing speech, our idea of useful isn't talking more and more, but being effective in what we say.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm not saying it isn't accurate, I'm saying accuracy doesn't warrant irresponsability. Our discussion isn't marketing speech, our idea of useful isn't talking more and more, but being effective in what we say.

Again, how is it irresponsible? Things are irresponsible because they have (big) negative consequences, explain to me how talking about systemic misogyny fits.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Irresponsible? Give me a break. What's the worst case scenario if I am wrong (about this opinion I clearly labelled as my opinion) and this shooting is somehow completely devoid of a misogynist component? That some people will treat women and girls with more respect? Like this is like saying "Woah, easy there, you are being really irresponsible advocating for people to be nice to each other".

It misrepresents a larger argument being made about violence that we know to be gendered, systematic, and condoned.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, how is it irresponsible? Things are irresponsible because they have (big) negative consequences, explain to me how talking about systemic misogyny fits.

Look at this thread. Many people who aren't very clear on how the misogyny claim works had a kneejerk reaction against it. This could've gone much smooter by a more consious choice of words and a build up towards your conclusion.

I'd say discrediting your own "fair" cause is a negative thing. Also you redirected the attention from other equally important issues, the time spent away from those situations limits awareness. In the cacophony that is the web, too much information can become misinformation.

If the term doesn't serve as a teaching tool then it's just useful for initiated people and hence the term doesn't deserve a serious place in societal debate.

Originally posted by Smurph
Ultimately you're not reinforcing that women and girls be treated with more respect. Rather, you're trying to defend an empty argument and calling it feminism, while reinforcing the very un-feminist idea that every violent male and every female victim of violence is a result of the patriarchy.

It misrepresents a larger argument being made about violence that we know to be gendered, systematic, and condoned.

I disagree, I think I have very much clarified many different aspects that contribute to violence. This reaction doesn't have to do with the story at all, it's solely the word, and it would happen exactly like that in any other case (and I know, because it basically happens every time sexism or misogyny is brought up).

Again this statement "I think this has definitely a misogynist component." has brought on the extreme reactions by everyone (comparing the sentence to the actual shooting, why bring up "horseshit gender politics", it's in poor taste, starting a barrage of sexist jokes, calling it irresponsible).

The only way it is irresponsible is that it brings out the latent sexism in posters, and tbh, I don't view that as a bad thing.

Originally posted by Bentley
Look at this thread. Many people who aren't very clear on how the misogyny claim works had a kneejerk reaction against it. This could've gone much smooter by a more consious choice of words and a build up towards your conclusion.

I'd say discrediting your own "fair" cause is a negative thing. Also you redirected the attention from other equally important issues, the time spent away from those situations limits awareness. In the cacophony that is the web, too much information can become misinformation.

If the term doesn't serve as a teaching tool then it's just useful for initiated people and hence the term doesn't deserve a serious place in societal debate.

I guess we disagree on tactics then. I believe a direct "calling a spade a spade" is the better approach. I do see the value of trying a soft approach (perhaps rather than criticising my approach you could have attempted that and we could have arrived somewhere more positive)

Is your second part a joke? Every thread on shootings devolves into a gun control thread. I opened up the discussion to more topics, and gave many more topics myself as well. I am not responsible that people would cut off their own arms before admitting something is misogynist.

I think it is a good teaching approach, this has been the only discussion on sexism, misogyny and male entitlement in the GDF in months...if I hadn't brought it up we would have just continued in our comfortable "Obama is the worst, no he's the best, no he's the worst" discussions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess we disagree on tactics then. I believe a direct "calling a spade a spade" is the better approach. I do see the value of trying a soft approach (perhaps rather than criticising my approach you could have attempted that and we could have arrived somewhere more positive)

I did throw you a bone in my very first reply on that regard towards a softer build up, but then we delved into semantics 😛

Again, we are arguing methodology here. We both know feminism scares people, if you are willing to consider a different approach from time to time, that's good enough for me.

Other people get the impression that you are being bias about it and I can see why. I would rather have them look at you differently, but whatever. Ultimately it's your call.

Originally posted by Bentley
I did throw you a bone in my very first reply on that regard towards a softer build up, but then we delved into semantics 😛

Again, we are arguing methodology here. We both know feminism scares people, if you are willing to consider a different approach from time to time, that's good enough for me.

Other people get the impression that you are being bias about it and I can see why. I would rather have them look at you differently, but whatever. Ultimately it's your call.

Okay, we are on the same page ideologically I suppose. And I do try different approaches in different circumstances.

I understand people think I'm biased. But that's literally going to happen the second you bring up support for any feminist issues, no matter how benign. I did qualify basically every of my posts with "In my opinion/I think/It seems to me/etc.".

If we are talking about methodology however, do you think yours is particularly helpful? Because all your replies have basically been about policing my tone, instead of supporting your own view (which I am still not sure of, but assume is somewhat in line with mine).

So why did you bring in horseshit gender politics into this particular incident(which almost certainly has nothing to do with misogyny)? Why not start a separate topic on it?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
So why did you bring in horseshit gender politics into this particular incident(which almost certainly has nothing to do with misogyny)? Why not start a separate topic on it?

I believe this incident has to do with gender politics.

However, and I know you don't know that, cause you stopped reading my original post when you hit the word "misogyny", I said "559 children, and this is entirely preventable, no other first world country has this problem. Of course gun control is one of the prime target, and definitely a very valid one, but what other actual solutions do you think can be implemented to prevent this"

So this thread, from the start, has been about different reasons and different solutions to shootings, one of my contributions has been the "gender politics" angle to them. You are free to bring yours.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe this incident has to do with gender politics.

However, and I know you don't know that, cause you stopped reading my original post when you hit the word "misogyny", I said "559 children, and this is entirely preventable, no other first world country has this problem. Of course gun control is one of the prime target, and definitely a very valid one, [b]but what other actual solutions do you think can be implemented to prevent this"

So this thread, from the start, has been about different reasons and different solutions to shootings, one of my contributions has been the "gender politics" angle to them. You are free to bring yours. [/B]

I've read all of the post, but I focused on the gender politics angle because, to me, it seemed so out of left field and kind of disingenuous.

My suggestions are as such: don't leave guns around children, introduce stricter gun control laws, parent better, pay better attention to children with emotional issues, and/or come to terms with the fact that such accidents will inevitably happen in a country that has hundreds of millions of guns in it and has the right to bear arms set in its constitution.

You don't think misogyny contributes to these kinds of shooting generally or just not in this case?

Those are good suggestions, many of which I made as well, btw.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't think misogyny contributes to these kinds of shooting generally or just not in this case?

Those are good suggestions, many of which I made as well, btw.

No, not in this case. Generally? Like when kids end up shooting eachother? Highly unlikely.

In other cases of killings or mass shooting, I think it varies wildly. Even someone like Elliot Rodger hated not just women, but everybody in general and ended up killing more men than women.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If we are talking about methodology however, do you think yours is particularly helpful? Because all your replies have basically been about policing my tone, instead of supporting your own view (which I am still not sure of, but assume is somewhat in line with mine).

I did post a few things on a different line when discussing with other people (if you take the time to reread my posts in the last few pages).

Was I effective? Who knows? I did my best to sneak objective facts into the debate (such as the gender disparities between killings that you generously provided), to consider a wider view into the gender bullying problem (as how it can be reflected on a later age and cause psychological scars) and to exchange with you so the points are clearer and more articulated.

But to be effective I'd need to have a goal and maybe to me having an enriching discussion and sharing it with onlookers is a goal on itserf?