“You’re polyamorous? That’s so greedy!”
I’ve heard that about a zillion and eleventy-four times, and it’s totally baffled me every single time I’ve heard it. I hae never, ever once quite understood how the notion that my partners are free to form attachments to and relationships with anyone they choose, and how I am free to form attachments to and relationships with, anyone we choose so long as we all choose to treat one another with reciprocal respect and kindness, is “greedy.”
Quite the opposite, in fact. To me, “you are my partner, and therefore I forbid you to make your own choices about relationship and I forbid you to have certain kinds of relationships with anyone except me” seems more than a little greedy.
It took an asshole with a gun to make me understand where “You’re polyamorous? That’s so greedy!” comes from.
This is George. George is, or was, an asshole. In the unlikely event that you’re not aware of him, George spent many, many years unable to get any woman to go out with him, so George decided to solve the problem by walking into a women’s fitness center, shooting the place up, killing a bunch of women and injuring a bunch more, and then shooting himself.
So, yeah, asshole.
This particular asshole kept a long, rambling online journal just stuffed full of the most boggling array of misunderstandings and misapprehensions one could ever expect to see outside of a Creation Science seminar. His site is currently offline (which I think is a shame; the insight it offers into the mind of a profoundly fucked-up person is worth preservation), but bits of it have been picked up and scattered all over the Net. Those barely coherent noodlings on misogyny and racism are, paradoxically, what gave me the insight into what a person who says “You’re polyamorous? That’s so greedy!” is actually saying.
George’s Web site is kaput, but nothing on the Internet ever really dies. There are Web sites all over the place which have picked up and preserved some of his journal entries, and it’s quite a sewer of racism and misogyny…but what struck me is how ordinary his particular flavor of misogyny is. what’s really scary is that George’s rants are not too far from the sort of stuff you see in places like LiveJournal, OK Cupid, and other blogs and dating sites every day.
Take this, for instance:
Moving into Christmas again. No girlfriend since 1984, last Christmas with Pam was in 1983. Who knows why. I am not ugly or too weird. No sex since July 1990 either (I was 29). No shit! Over eighteen years ago. And did it maybe only 50-75 times in my life.
Or this:
Just got back from tanning, been doing this for a while. No gym today, my elbow is sore again. I actually look good. I dress good, am clean-shaven, bathe, touch of cologne – yet 30 million women rejected me – over an 18 or 25-year period. That is how I see it. Thirty million is my rough guesstimate of how many desirable single women there are. A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everywhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend. This type of life I see is a closed world with me specifically and totally excluded. Every other guy does this successfully to a degree.
Or this little gem:
I was reading several posts on different forums and it seems many teenage girls have sex frequently. One 16 year old does it usually three times a day with her boyfriend. So, err, after a month of that, this little hoe has had more sex than ME in my LIFE, and I am 48. One more reason. Thanks for nada, bitches! Bye.
I spent quite a bit of time talking with my sweetie figmentj about George; these journal quotes got me to thinking about the nature of interpersonal relationships and expectations, and she’s an awesome sounding board for that sort of cognitive noodling.
The things he wrote reek to me of…well, not objectification, precisely, but certainly of a sense of entitlement. There’s also a very deep sense of disconnect; I don’t know if he ever really thought of women as being quite fully human.
And I don’t think he’s alone in that.
There are two things in particular that jumped out at me, reading these journal entries. The first is the idea that “getting” a woman is a bit like getting a car: it’s a quantifiable process. To get a car, you go into the dealership, the dealer looks at your credit rating, you pick a car that matches the amount of money you have available for a down payment, and as long as you have enough money and your credit rating is OK, you leave with a car. It’s an easy, defined process.
A lot of men seem to think the same thing is true of getting a woman. As long as you are not “ugly or too weird” and you have enough money, you can get a woman. You pick out someone who you can afford and are attractive enough to have; she looks to make sure you’re not too weird, and as long as there’s nothing wrong with you, you go home with her.
This might not be objectification per se, but it’s awfully close–it seems, I think, to see women as an undifferentiated mass, rather than as a group of individuals, each of whom has her own ideas about what she wants.
The second part that struck me is “A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everywhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend.” It reeks of an entitlement perspective; I need you for the things you do for me, and I deserve to have those things. A man needs a toaster to make toast, a coffee maker to make coffee, a computer to get connected to the Internet, and a woman for confidence. As long as he has money and is not too weird, he deserves to be able to have these things.
And seriously, I see this kind of thinking just about everywhere. “How can I get a woman to have sex with me?” is a popular refrain on the Internet. (To a person who thinks it’s a question of “getting” a woman to do what he wants her to do, I suspect the answer is likely to be incomprehensible; you don’t “get” a woman to sleep with you, you become a person who is interesting to other people, and those other people will then…er, find you interesting.)
“You’re polyamorous? That’s so greedy!” The statement is loaded down with exactly the same sort of world view that I see clearly in George’s writing. There’s an entire world of preconceptions and assumptions bundled up in those five words.
It starts, I think, with a group conception of women that sees the world’s females as an undifferentiated mass resource; there are about as many women as men, and women expect certain things in exchange for companionship and sex–it’s simply a question of giving women what they expect and you, too, can walk off the lot with a woman of your own, whose attractiveness depends on how much currency you have to spend. Each man is entitled to a woman by right.
Polyamory upsets the balance. People with multiple women are somehow walking into a dealership with no cash and no credit but still driving off the lot with a bunch of cars; they’ve discovered some kind of way to hack the system, to upset the economic exchange, leaving fewer women for the other men who deserve them.
And men shouldn’t be allowed to have a woman if they are too weird. You accept social norms and adopt normative behaviors in exchange for having a woman. That’s the way the system works. (In a very literal sense. I actually had a person tell me recently that he couldn’t figure out how a weird, creepy-looking guy like me could even “get” one woman to sleep with him, much less several. How do you “get” a dealer to give you a car when you don’t have credit? What manner of black magic could persuade a woman to have sex with a man who is too weird?)
Okay, so maybe there’s a bit of “well, duh” going on here. But seriously, I was so busy being baffled by the “WTF is selfish about allowing a partner to make her own choices about her lovers?” to see the “women are a rationed commodity and if you keep taking all of them that leaves fewer for me; I’m not too ugly or too weird, so you’re taking away something I am entitled to have a share of myself.”
Honestly, I do think there has to be just a pinch of objectification and more than a little sense of entitlement to make a statement like “polyamory is selfish.” It would never occur to someone who doesn’t see women as some kind of amorphous group; a person who sees women as a collection of individuals would be more inclined to say “A woman who wants a polyamorous relationship would be a poor match for me, so a polyamorous person isn’t taking anything away from me; I wouldn’t choose these women even if they were single, because we have different relationship goals.”
George believed that he was entitled to have a woman, because he wasn’t too weird and because every man needs a woman for confidence. I imagine that the smell of misogyny probably oozed off of him; he wasn’t rejected by women as a group, he was rejected by each individual woman unlucky enough to cross paths with him.
So thank you, George Sodini. You’re an asshole who exemplifies a certain kind of misogyny so clearly that you make other misogynists more comprehensible.
But you’re still an asshole.
Situation normal
And he looked so clean cut, too!
I worked on a research project on the subject of “evil” in order to satisfy the editor who had a been in his bonnet and thought it would be a jolly story.
One thing that sticks out in tales of mass murders and some of the real monsters of history is that they appear to be so normal – especially to themselves. They feel justified in what they do because to them it is normal. Every twisted thought is normal — and when someone stands in the way of their normal, that is when they do their despicable deeds. So the racist fees justified in killing someone of an other ethnic group because it keeps his normal safe; or a religious fanatic kills his sister because she has been raped and he feels he must in order to keep his normal neat and tidy. I think it is the rationalization in their heads that makes it so right for them to do these things, it is not aberrant to them, it is not perverse or misogyny or anything of the sort. It is being normal. So George, being a normal and clean smelling guy who uses toothpaste and cologne can’t get laid and can’t have sex with more than his right hand and he wants to make the girls around him normal and give him what he is entitled to for being normal. I’m sorry for the women he killed or injured. I’m not sorry for George taking his own life. It was the normal thing to do in that situation.
Situation normal
And he looked so clean cut, too!
I worked on a research project on the subject of “evil” in order to satisfy the editor who had a been in his bonnet and thought it would be a jolly story.
One thing that sticks out in tales of mass murders and some of the real monsters of history is that they appear to be so normal – especially to themselves. They feel justified in what they do because to them it is normal. Every twisted thought is normal — and when someone stands in the way of their normal, that is when they do their despicable deeds. So the racist fees justified in killing someone of an other ethnic group because it keeps his normal safe; or a religious fanatic kills his sister because she has been raped and he feels he must in order to keep his normal neat and tidy. I think it is the rationalization in their heads that makes it so right for them to do these things, it is not aberrant to them, it is not perverse or misogyny or anything of the sort. It is being normal. So George, being a normal and clean smelling guy who uses toothpaste and cologne can’t get laid and can’t have sex with more than his right hand and he wants to make the girls around him normal and give him what he is entitled to for being normal. I’m sorry for the women he killed or injured. I’m not sorry for George taking his own life. It was the normal thing to do in that situation.
Just when I thought the Sodini story couldn’t chill my blood any further…this chill, however, was worth the discomfort. May I quote you?
Absolutely! 🙂
Just when I thought the Sodini story couldn’t chill my blood any further…this chill, however, was worth the discomfort. May I quote you?
I’m almost certain you didn’t mean to, but this post seems to imply polyamory is about MEN having multiple WOMEN rather than PEOPLE having multiple PARTNERS.
I see what you’re saying, but I think part of the point is that there’s a misconception that poly is about men having multiple women, and that leads to the greedy debate.
maybe worth a reread
Hmmmm, I got the impression that parts about George were all about George having (or not) a woman or women. Perhaps rereading the first couple paragraphs and the last paragraph will clarify what is written about the author’s experience and what misogyny and objectification of people is inherent in George’s behavior and attitudes regarding relationships.
The portions on the man to woman ratio is written specifically to try to explain a specific behavior as observed. I can see how this may seem confusing, but I think that if you reread it, you’ll take home a different interpretation than that which you commented here.
I think he’s more pointing out how many people seem to make this assumption.. that women are a commodity to be rationed. He’s talking about other people’s assumptions about what polyamory is, not making assumptions himself.
I feel pretty sure I’m clear on what Franklin actually thinks on such matters.
My concern is what a stranger might take away from it.
I agree that this would not be a good introductory article to someone new to polyamory and could cause confusion. The only way I can think to avoid that is to lay a whole bunch of groundwork first, which I think is too much to ask and would really hurt the article. Can you think of a simple thing he could do to still explore this issue without potentially confusing the completely ignorant?
fwiw, I am a stranger to and I didn’t take anything remotely like that away from what was being said.
ditto.
His very first sentence should prevent that misunderstanding.
However, I think most sheeple are unable to even comprehend the concept.
Even if you used large print and simple words.
Some things you just have to write for the target audience. I think the article was brilliant and refreshing.
Actually, I didn’t take that away from it at all, and I’m usually pretty hair-trigger on a lot of things. But YMMV.
In every case where I’ve seen someone say “polyamory is greedy,” it has always been a man saying that about men having multiple female partners. The point if “it’s not at all greedy; those women can have multiple male partners as well!” is what’s getting lost, and that’s the point I tend to get hung up on.
I don’t know if it’s selection bias or some kind of social phenomenon, but so far I’ve never heard a woman say to another woman “You’re polyamorous? That’s so greedy!”
There’s a part of me that suspects it has a lot to do with social attitudes about sexual roles. We live in a society where men are seen as the pursuers of sex and women are seen as the gatekeepers of sex; men chase women and women decide. So a man who has multiple partners must be out there pursuing multiple women, and somehow “getting” them to say “yes.”
Actually, that might be part of the assumption.
Men (like George) who consider poly men “greedy” might very well also break down the datable amorphous glob that is womanhood into girlfriends (who are monogamous), sluts, and whores (who have multiple partners, cannot be trusted, and can only be used for desparate sex).
To someone with such an assumption, members of the latter two groups can never become a member of the first.
wait a second. NO ONE knows what George considered poly men, “greedy” or not.
I would hope that a group of people such as polyamorists, who are constantly misjudged and mischaracterized, would refrain from doing so about other people.
Quite true. I am drawing from my own experience with other men in my extrapolation, with what my friends have said about women in their lives, especially what they said in times of frustration. The same generalizations and talk of entitlement mentions above occasionally pokes out.
In no way would I consider my speculations a window into Crazy George’s thinking. I’m also not poly.
Well, that’s an interesting point.
I’m almost certain you didn’t mean to, but this post seems to imply polyamory is about MEN having multiple WOMEN rather than PEOPLE having multiple PARTNERS.
eeeek. It’s sort of like what writes about in her rant “Nice Guys”. But writ super extra large,ugly & violent.
*shudder*
one of the reasons I’ve *never* found romantic possessiveness attractive in a partner is that it seems to me to be just one end of a spectrum, the other end of which is : “If *I* can’t have you *nobody* can! *BANG*”
*shudder*
*shudder*
eeeek. It’s sort of like what writes about in her rant “Nice Guys”. But writ super extra large,ugly & violent.
*shudder*
one of the reasons I’ve *never* found romantic possessiveness attractive in a partner is that it seems to me to be just one end of a spectrum, the other end of which is : “If *I* can’t have you *nobody* can! *BANG*”
*shudder*
*shudder*
You may want to check out the stuff on this page http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml – a series of rants and articles I found a month of two ago about the mindset I’ve referred to as ‘Nice Guy Syndrome’ since some point in my teens.
Sadly the page I wanted to point to on misogyny seems to be out at the moment, but this one is saying something alongside what you just have.
Ironically, my one Serious Mistake (who claimed to be poly) towards the very end of our relationship accused me of being ‘greedy’ and wanting a ‘stable of men at my beck and call’ (quite the opposite of what i was looking for at the time, in fact, since I was going through a submissive phase) – there are some guys who do in fact seem to use poly as a tool for acquiring more of those desirable objects, women, and will claim the moral highground while doing so whilst subtly isolating their newly acquired possessions from their other partners.
Shudder… I guess Mr Sodini wasn’t possessed of the psychotically high IQ and manipulation skills of Mr Mistake though, since that photo is actually quite attractive, he really must have oozed misogyny to put women off so consistently.
i love Heartless Bitches International!
Hmm, just re-read what I wrote and somehow skipped a chunk of sentence – Psycho ex who claimed to be poly called me greedy for wanting to go back to being poly and reintroduce someone very important to me back into my life *as a platonic friend* after a long period of monogamy.
Lightning would be doing the world a favour.
You may want to check out the stuff on this page http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml – a series of rants and articles I found a month of two ago about the mindset I’ve referred to as ‘Nice Guy Syndrome’ since some point in my teens.
Sadly the page I wanted to point to on misogyny seems to be out at the moment, but this one is saying something alongside what you just have.
Ironically, my one Serious Mistake (who claimed to be poly) towards the very end of our relationship accused me of being ‘greedy’ and wanting a ‘stable of men at my beck and call’ (quite the opposite of what i was looking for at the time, in fact, since I was going through a submissive phase) – there are some guys who do in fact seem to use poly as a tool for acquiring more of those desirable objects, women, and will claim the moral highground while doing so whilst subtly isolating their newly acquired possessions from their other partners.
Shudder… I guess Mr Sodini wasn’t possessed of the psychotically high IQ and manipulation skills of Mr Mistake though, since that photo is actually quite attractive, he really must have oozed misogyny to put women off so consistently.
I saw something else in his writings that tells me exactly why he was like he was and did what he did.
He is completely narcissistic and self-centered. He signs up for a matching service and can only think that 30 million women reject HIM. He talks about teenagers having sex and the only thing that resonates with him is that some random teenage girl would have had more sex than HIM.
His obsession with how he perceived women viewing (or not viewing) HIM would eventually breed bitterness – and bitterness would turn women into the enemy. Once you have an enemy, then you have something to defeat – however poorly you do it.
So yeah – George… he’s an asshole. My husband would like to add that those people that do what he did – they need to start thinking about shooting themselves first.
He is completely narcissistic and self-centered.
That was what stood out more to me than his misogyny (which is there, but not much more than you’d see in a significant number of non-violent, “balanced” men, when one thinks about it). Had he been gay, I’ve no doubt his tendency to see others as a means to sexual pleasure/self-reaffirmation would have been just as strong. Perhaps where gender played the greater role in this specific case is the propensity in men to see violence as a viable solution to any given problem.
Actually, I really really doubt this. The social dynamic toward same-sex relationships is entirely different.
What makes some men feel entitled to sex with women, to having a woman of their very own, is in part due to a lot of societal pressures to do with patriarchy, mysogyny, and ubermasculinity. To be recognized as a Real Man, you have to have a woman… And women are just possessions to be owned, status symbols to be acquired… To claim your place at the top of the heirarchy, you need to get you a woman!
These pressures and poisonous messages don’t really have analogues in male same-sex relationships. The sought-after sex is the same sex as the seeker, so there’s less temptation to view the sought-after sex as being lesser than oneself. And, sadly, the patriarchy (or, better put, kyriarchy) reserves its rewards for men getting themselves a woman, not another man. There are certainly mainstream messages telling us all “without a partner, you are incomplete!” but there are very few carrying that message precisely to gay men; and there are a lot of mainstream messages, tragically, telling gay men that finding a fulfilling relationship or even a satisfying one-night-stand will only confirm their failure to be Real True Men.
This isn’t to dismiss that someone with violent tendencies, entitlement issues, and narcissism might not go Sodini just because he’s gay–but the social dynamics at play simply don’t map cleanly onto the example of Sodini himself and the scary legions of Sodini wannabes out there.
The narcissism is definitely there. (His “college hoez have more sex than I do” rant reeks of it sky-high.) It’s definitely a big part of his psychological makeup, but I didn’t really talk about it because it isn’t what triggered the “ahah” moment for me.
I saw something else in his writings that tells me exactly why he was like he was and did what he did.
He is completely narcissistic and self-centered. He signs up for a matching service and can only think that 30 million women reject HIM. He talks about teenagers having sex and the only thing that resonates with him is that some random teenage girl would have had more sex than HIM.
His obsession with how he perceived women viewing (or not viewing) HIM would eventually breed bitterness – and bitterness would turn women into the enemy. Once you have an enemy, then you have something to defeat – however poorly you do it.
So yeah – George… he’s an asshole. My husband would like to add that those people that do what he did – they need to start thinking about shooting themselves first.
The more I hear about this guy, the more of a morbid fascination I have with his disconnection from reality. I think has the right of it – this guy was so narcissistic that not only did he consider women less than people, I would lay dollars to donuts he didn’t really think of anyone other than himself as a person.
I wonder how much of his problem was bio-chemical, and how much of it was bad socialization.
The more I hear about this guy, the more of a morbid fascination I have with his disconnection from reality. I think has the right of it – this guy was so narcissistic that not only did he consider women less than people, I would lay dollars to donuts he didn’t really think of anyone other than himself as a person.
I wonder how much of his problem was bio-chemical, and how much of it was bad socialization.
I have a friend who used the greedy argument about poly to me, and I had never heard it before and gave her (I’m sure) the weirdest look. She felt better about it when I told her that in most relationships both partners are allowed to have multiple partners, that it’s not just one guy with a whole bunch of girls or anything. I wonder how often that misconception exists and plays into the greedy argument.
I have a friend who used the greedy argument about poly to me, and I had never heard it before and gave her (I’m sure) the weirdest look. She felt better about it when I told her that in most relationships both partners are allowed to have multiple partners, that it’s not just one guy with a whole bunch of girls or anything. I wonder how often that misconception exists and plays into the greedy argument.
I see what you’re saying, but I think part of the point is that there’s a misconception that poly is about men having multiple women, and that leads to the greedy debate.
maybe worth a reread
Hmmmm, I got the impression that parts about George were all about George having (or not) a woman or women. Perhaps rereading the first couple paragraphs and the last paragraph will clarify what is written about the author’s experience and what misogyny and objectification of people is inherent in George’s behavior and attitudes regarding relationships.
The portions on the man to woman ratio is written specifically to try to explain a specific behavior as observed. I can see how this may seem confusing, but I think that if you reread it, you’ll take home a different interpretation than that which you commented here.
While your breakdown of this particular view is intriguing, I feel that some people simply view intense sexual and emotional intimacy with people outside their relationship to be, necessarily, a negative factor to the health of their relationship.
That’s obviously subjective and people have reasonably different views across the spectrum, but if we begin with that as a somewhat normative view, it could be seen as “greedy” to pursue what is probably seen as primarily more personal gratification at the potential expense of the relationship.
The essential difference seems to be that what you say is allowing your partner freedom is interpreted as choosing to want more partners for yourself.
This.
I always interpreted the “greedy” comment similarly. People making it to me, without even knowing that *I’m* poly (hi! female poly person!), make it about sexual morality:
* Can’t you be satisfied with your loving partner? It’s greedy to want more than they can give you!
* Don’t you have responsibilities to your loving partner? It’s greedy to seek satisfaction elsewhere and neglect them!
None of those can be easily countered by “My partner can find other lovers too! I’m not hogging all the freedom here!” because the basic premise my correspondents have here is that we are all obliged to be satisfied with one person, and that if we are seeing other people we are by definition neglecting the needs of that one person.
The one time I tried to explain how two people might simply not require monogamy from each other as part of the wedding vows, I got some vicious sarcasm and assumptions-of-bad-faith-arguing in response. I really don’t know what to do with conversations like that. I marked the person down mentally as “Someone not to ‘come out’ to about being poly,” and moved on. Uncomfortably.
While your breakdown of this particular view is intriguing, I feel that some people simply view intense sexual and emotional intimacy with people outside their relationship to be, necessarily, a negative factor to the health of their relationship.
That’s obviously subjective and people have reasonably different views across the spectrum, but if we begin with that as a somewhat normative view, it could be seen as “greedy” to pursue what is probably seen as primarily more personal gratification at the potential expense of the relationship.
The essential difference seems to be that what you say is allowing your partner freedom is interpreted as choosing to want more partners for yourself.
The second part that struck me […] reeks of an entitlement perspective; I need you for the things you do for me, and I deserve to have those things.
seriously, try reading Schnarch’s “Passionate Marriage”, especially the parts where he talks about Other-validation as a driving need for people to hook up in relationships: i need you to do these things for me because they reflect back on me what I hope is an accurate sense of value for *me*, of my worth.” or simply, “I need you to show me I’m the good person I think I am”.
i think you’re bang-on in the sense of an entitlement to having a woman as an adjunct to his own needs, rather than for a complicit partner who stands as a free-thinking entity unto himself. Schnarch talks about that too, in te idea of a relationship’s possessive idea of “communal gentials”, in which one partner’s genitals become solely the property of the relationship or the other partner — not in any kind of D/s context, but in that “entitled” or greedy sense of “None Shall Pass! (but me, of course)” that often defines monogamy… and sometimes defines boundaries even within poly structures (as some define “poly-fidelity”, for example).
george, as you describe him, wasn’t looking for a partner, it seems more like he was looking for a mirror. people who go hunting with that subconscious motivator give off subtle signals that this is always going to be “all about them”. clearly george was less subtle than most in that regard, if he’d been turning women off more almost two decades.
everyone else in the world had a partner, why didn’t he? therein lies a pervasive and powerful sense of *societal entitlement*, absolutely; we’re taught, men and women both, that we’re “incomplete” without a partner. and depending on messages instilled in his childhood and teen years, that message may have been driven in deep by family/peer circumstances, what above describes as “bad socialization”. it may not have been greed to start with, and it may not ever have actually been greed in the end, but a lot of pain: insurmountable, indescribable, inarticulate pain.
and while that rarely results in mass-murders in the poly community, i can guarantee it’s still there in its own ways.
The second part that struck me […] reeks of an entitlement perspective; I need you for the things you do for me, and I deserve to have those things.
seriously, try reading Schnarch’s “Passionate Marriage”, especially the parts where he talks about Other-validation as a driving need for people to hook up in relationships: i need you to do these things for me because they reflect back on me what I hope is an accurate sense of value for *me*, of my worth.” or simply, “I need you to show me I’m the good person I think I am”.
i think you’re bang-on in the sense of an entitlement to having a woman as an adjunct to his own needs, rather than for a complicit partner who stands as a free-thinking entity unto himself. Schnarch talks about that too, in te idea of a relationship’s possessive idea of “communal gentials”, in which one partner’s genitals become solely the property of the relationship or the other partner — not in any kind of D/s context, but in that “entitled” or greedy sense of “None Shall Pass! (but me, of course)” that often defines monogamy… and sometimes defines boundaries even within poly structures (as some define “poly-fidelity”, for example).
george, as you describe him, wasn’t looking for a partner, it seems more like he was looking for a mirror. people who go hunting with that subconscious motivator give off subtle signals that this is always going to be “all about them”. clearly george was less subtle than most in that regard, if he’d been turning women off more almost two decades.
everyone else in the world had a partner, why didn’t he? therein lies a pervasive and powerful sense of *societal entitlement*, absolutely; we’re taught, men and women both, that we’re “incomplete” without a partner. and depending on messages instilled in his childhood and teen years, that message may have been driven in deep by family/peer circumstances, what above describes as “bad socialization”. it may not have been greed to start with, and it may not ever have actually been greed in the end, but a lot of pain: insurmountable, indescribable, inarticulate pain.
and while that rarely results in mass-murders in the poly community, i can guarantee it’s still there in its own ways.
Great analysis of this situation Tacit– well put and thoughtful. yes, Sodini is an ASSHOLE to the utmost of assholes.
I’ve not had sex in over two years. I might*** get a date only once a year. Never been in a relationship of any kind. Dabbled with poly lifestyle for a couple of years and it did not work out (I came to discover that I’m a monogamist by heart). However, would that justify me going to a fitness club and shooting men because I hate men and have not been laid in 2 years? Absolutely not. What’s helping me is (1) going to weekly therapy (2) learning to undo my codependent behavior and cope with an abusive childhood and (3) learning to love once again becuase I’ve been an ice queen now since my early teen years.
Sodini is an ASSHOLE. In fact, his name should mounted onto the top of the Hall Of Assholes whereever that hall may be located.
Great analysis on this morbid topic!
Great analysis of this situation Tacit– well put and thoughtful. yes, Sodini is an ASSHOLE to the utmost of assholes.
I’ve not had sex in over two years. I might*** get a date only once a year. Never been in a relationship of any kind. Dabbled with poly lifestyle for a couple of years and it did not work out (I came to discover that I’m a monogamist by heart). However, would that justify me going to a fitness club and shooting men because I hate men and have not been laid in 2 years? Absolutely not. What’s helping me is (1) going to weekly therapy (2) learning to undo my codependent behavior and cope with an abusive childhood and (3) learning to love once again becuase I’ve been an ice queen now since my early teen years.
Sodini is an ASSHOLE. In fact, his name should mounted onto the top of the Hall Of Assholes whereever that hall may be located.
Great analysis on this morbid topic!
i love Heartless Bitches International!
Unfortunately, our mega-monogamous culture enforces this viewpoint all the time. How often have you heard:
There’s someone for everyone.
He/She is *the one*.
Mr./Ms. Right.
A million fish in the sea.
and other such phrases which encourage such single minded thinking?
And as for the numbers game, when I was in sales there was a story used in training about greater quantities yielding greater chances of success. If I remember correctly, it was something about a study being done that two groups of sales people went door to door selling insurance. One group gave a positive spiel and the other simply said, “Hey, you don’t want any insurance, do you?” and that even with the negative wording, 5% of people approached would still say, “why as a matter of fact, I *have* been wanting to buy insurance.” The whole point of this is that the more people you expose your product to, the greater the chances of making a sale and that it is a numbers game. The Internet has done that to dating to a certain extent. However, one of the bright flashing blinking emergency lights of George’s viewpoint is that I’m sure he didn’t personally talk to or approach 30 million women. He did see partnering as a numbers game, but in addition to major fail in his thought process, his math was incorrect.
Incidentally, I came across this link (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/447) in a friends LJ last night, and I was floored. The insidious misogyny of some gamers in gaming groups in light of the George manifesto (who as far as I know wasn’t a gamer, but I see some similarities in the “social awkwardness” category) is just mind boggling. Never once would any of these things crossed my mind. Of course I’m not a gamer, but I am a sci-fi geek and I know tons of guys (and girls) to whom this might be business as usual.
Sorry for rambling. My mind is still processing it all and I’m trying to make sense of things I’ve never once before thought about.
I know a (male) GM who had one of his (female) players’ characters raped. I wouldn’t say it was because he was socially awkward. I’d say it was because he was a misogynistic asshole who’d proven over and over in a variety of situations that he considered women to be things that needed to be controlled by him. I don’t play with him. I don’t speak to him. I don’t know anybody else who’s done that.
ps. “One True Love” pisses me off too.
I knew there was another common phrase I was forgetting! Thanks!
While I agree that there are some people who are just assholes, I think, in light of reading about just how common those RPG rape scenarios are, that perhaps there are folks out there who are perceived as socially awkward who, in reality are actually misogynists, and that just makes them appear “socially awkward” because of the disconnect between the way they think and the way other people think.
The thing is that there are a million fish in the sea if one wants to consider it that way.
I mean, with at least two and a half billion women in the world the chances are that there is someone in the world who would’ve dated George Sodini, flaws and all, is there.
Now, that woman might live in Bangladesh and George never had a chance to meet her is beside the point.
Even if there is one fish out there that you think is just perfect for you, catching that fish is not consented to by the fish and most often is not beneficial for said fish, either.
This saying, while I understand the general sentiment, does still smack of onesidedness in a relationship, and entitlement on the part of the fisherman. What does the fish get out of the exchange?
That’s making the assumption that said fish isn’t looking to get caught. If the fish doesn’t want to get caught, then I would argue that wasn’t the fish for that particular fishermen.
It could also be a problem with the analogy and the dynamic it sets up.
Regardless, I do think that there is someone for everyone. I don’t think there is “The ONE!” but I think there are a number of people in the world who could fit that bill for each other just on pure statistical chance alone.
Unfortunately, our mega-monogamous culture enforces this viewpoint all the time. How often have you heard:
There’s someone for everyone.
He/She is *the one*.
Mr./Ms. Right.
A million fish in the sea.
and other such phrases which encourage such single minded thinking?
And as for the numbers game, when I was in sales there was a story used in training about greater quantities yielding greater chances of success. If I remember correctly, it was something about a study being done that two groups of sales people went door to door selling insurance. One group gave a positive spiel and the other simply said, “Hey, you don’t want any insurance, do you?” and that even with the negative wording, 5% of people approached would still say, “why as a matter of fact, I *have* been wanting to buy insurance.” The whole point of this is that the more people you expose your product to, the greater the chances of making a sale and that it is a numbers game. The Internet has done that to dating to a certain extent. However, one of the bright flashing blinking emergency lights of George’s viewpoint is that I’m sure he didn’t personally talk to or approach 30 million women. He did see partnering as a numbers game, but in addition to major fail in his thought process, his math was incorrect.
Incidentally, I came across this link (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/447) in a friends LJ last night, and I was floored. The insidious misogyny of some gamers in gaming groups in light of the George manifesto (who as far as I know wasn’t a gamer, but I see some similarities in the “social awkwardness” category) is just mind boggling. Never once would any of these things crossed my mind. Of course I’m not a gamer, but I am a sci-fi geek and I know tons of guys (and girls) to whom this might be business as usual.
Sorry for rambling. My mind is still processing it all and I’m trying to make sense of things I’ve never once before thought about.
I know a (male) GM who had one of his (female) players’ characters raped. I wouldn’t say it was because he was socially awkward. I’d say it was because he was a misogynistic asshole who’d proven over and over in a variety of situations that he considered women to be things that needed to be controlled by him. I don’t play with him. I don’t speak to him. I don’t know anybody else who’s done that.
ps. “One True Love” pisses me off too.
This was really thought provoking. Thanks for posting.
This was really thought provoking. Thanks for posting.
I think he’s more pointing out how many people seem to make this assumption.. that women are a commodity to be rationed. He’s talking about other people’s assumptions about what polyamory is, not making assumptions himself.
It’s about not being so damn picky
Turtle, do you remember Crystal? You two used to share a place over on 301 down in SRQ, about a hundred years ago.
When I first met you and Donthen (who’s name escapes me right now–is it Watts?), I was not impressed at all by your looks (or his, for that matter). I was even less impressed by Crystal’s looks. At the time, I was much more interested in your brains, as I had an old 8M Winchester drive (big as a suitcase, remember them?) which I wanted your assistance in hooking it up to a TRS-80 Model IV.
But yeah, you did look wierd. I’m no judge of “ugly”, and probably in no position to throw stones anyway. May I say, in a non-gay way, that you are not a bad looking guy?
But if you remember Scott Steele (who by the way, has succumbed to religion, poor bast***), after he met you and Crystal, had the gall to come back and brag to his friends that he thought Crystal had a thing for him. For the life of me, at the time, I could not figure out WHY he would brag about that…having seen her. (Who was a BBW, minus the “beautiful” part…quite the opposite.)
I guess what I’m saying is that I believe that the reason you’re so successful in your “greed” is not just these things that you posted above…it’s a given that lady should be able “to make her own choices about her lovers”…but that you are not tremendously picky about partners.
But I do think you’re spot on about George. I’m not ready to despise him (though I do despise what he did) because I’ve been in that position. I also think that he’s a product of our society, one which is not as “enlightend” as your little sect. People really do believe this “car” analogy, and I’m sure that the compliment of that is a woman who believes that a man should be able to support her with all the money he makes. The difference isn’t that some crazy woman (redundant, sorry) will go ballistic and go shoot up some gym.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
I’m pretty comfortable despising someone who treats a human being as a commodity, product of society or not.
I say this as someone with ancestors who bought and sold humans. I’m okay with thinking that was bad and not really liking them for it.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
Really? It was all the rage at the time. Interesting that you consider them despicable, instead of understanding that it was normal for the times. But I suppose being enlightened gives you that option.
FWIW, I’d agree with you that it was bad, but again, I’m not ready to despise them for it. That seems kind of overboard to me. Do you blame yourself for what they did? Do you hate yourself for it, too?
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
Of course not. I’m only responsible for what *I* do.
I’m not enlightened, nor do I claim to be. What makes you use the term?
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
Actually, I am picky about my partners. Very, very, very picky indeed…so picky, in fact, that I say “no” far more often than I say “yes.”
It’s just that what I’m picky about isn’t what they look like, which also tends to upset the economic notion that a woman’s value as a commodity depends on what she looks like, and of course men want to get the best-looking women they can “afford.”
I have had, and currently have, partners of every size, shape, and body type imaginable; to see what I’m picky about, you have to look at more than what they look like.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
I’m quite a bit insulted at the idea that the only thing a person can be “picky” about is a woman’s looks. That, if someone does not care about a female’s appearance, then he has no *other* list of criteria for judging a person’s ability to be a suitable romantic partner.
The reason why has as many women interested in him as he does is not because he’ll fuck anything that moves, so desperate, fat, ugly women are lining up at his door …
The reason is because treats all women as individuals and gets to know them as people before deciding if someone is compatible in a romantic sense.
And THAT is extremely attractive to women, who are judged on their appearance before anything else.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
you can be picky about partners for reasons that other people can’t immediately see. i’ve frequently dated people who others didn’t find physically attractive even though they felt that i was physically attractive. i’m generally in decent shape, a good dresser, reasonably cute etc. so i’d get comments like ‘eew, why are you with her (or him)’, often with the implication that i should be with the speaker instead and that somehow this comment was all it’d take for me to be like ‘dude, you’re totally right… i never realized you were so sexy’
they’d imply that i was just going for these people because they were an easy catch ’cause i couldn’t possibly care for someone so hideous. but none of them were actually hideous, they were just average looking people. a few too few pounds or a few too many, a nonsymmetrical face etc.
in my case, i’m not interested in giving birth, so i don’t need to find male partners who look like models so that we can have children that can strut around while vogue plays in the background. and sometimes my partners are female.
so obviously you don’t want to date someone who you aren’t sexually attracted to… that’s no fun. but it’s not only possible to have hot sex with someone who doesn’t look like a model, it’s sometimes more likely. i’ve dated models and extremely physically attractive people and they were often on the lazy side in bed. they seemed to feel that i would orgasm merely at the sight of them. and maybe that was the case for their male partners initially =P but it takes a little more effort over here.
anyway, to give you an idea, i won’t date people for any length of time who can’t spell and punctuate, who aren’t witty, who aren’t good in bed or quick learners, etc. etc… but my list of “hell no” just doesn’t happen to include “overweight” or “not physically beautiful”
the way i see it, people all get progressively more physically unappealing as they get older. we all get wrinklier, saggier, less “cool”, and many will get fatter.
but not everyone gets progressively more psychologically unappealing as they get older. far from it, many people learn and grow and accomplish all kinds of awesome things later in life… scientific discoveries, writing novels, artistic achievements, etc. etc.
that isn’t to say that i view everyone i sleep with as a potential life partner. but assuming that you’d want to date someone for an extended period if you liked them, it’s a value proposition. do you want somebody who’s gonna look good on your arm for another 10 years, or do you want somebody who’s gonna make you laugh until tears come to your eyes for another 50 years?
i see it as most efficient to invest my energy into people who thrill me psychologically because their body is a lot more likely to devalue than their mind.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
but that you are not tremendously picky about partners.
Can you be anymore conceited and full of yourself?
Re: It's about not being so damn picky
I could try. Is there any money in it?
It’s about not being so damn picky
Turtle, do you remember Crystal? You two used to share a place over on 301 down in SRQ, about a hundred years ago.
When I first met you and Donthen (who’s name escapes me right now–is it Watts?), I was not impressed at all by your looks (or his, for that matter). I was even less impressed by Crystal’s looks. At the time, I was much more interested in your brains, as I had an old 8M Winchester drive (big as a suitcase, remember them?) which I wanted your assistance in hooking it up to a TRS-80 Model IV.
But yeah, you did look wierd. I’m no judge of “ugly”, and probably in no position to throw stones anyway. May I say, in a non-gay way, that you are not a bad looking guy?
But if you remember Scott Steele (who by the way, has succumbed to religion, poor bast***), after he met you and Crystal, had the gall to come back and brag to his friends that he thought Crystal had a thing for him. For the life of me, at the time, I could not figure out WHY he would brag about that…having seen her. (Who was a BBW, minus the “beautiful” part…quite the opposite.)
I guess what I’m saying is that I believe that the reason you’re so successful in your “greed” is not just these things that you posted above…it’s a given that lady should be able “to make her own choices about her lovers”…but that you are not tremendously picky about partners.
But I do think you’re spot on about George. I’m not ready to despise him (though I do despise what he did) because I’ve been in that position. I also think that he’s a product of our society, one which is not as “enlightend” as your little sect. People really do believe this “car” analogy, and I’m sure that the compliment of that is a woman who believes that a man should be able to support her with all the money he makes. The difference isn’t that some crazy woman (redundant, sorry) will go ballistic and go shoot up some gym.
I feel pretty sure I’m clear on what Franklin actually thinks on such matters.
My concern is what a stranger might take away from it.
He is completely narcissistic and self-centered.
That was what stood out more to me than his misogyny (which is there, but not much more than you’d see in a significant number of non-violent, “balanced” men, when one thinks about it). Had he been gay, I’ve no doubt his tendency to see others as a means to sexual pleasure/self-reaffirmation would have been just as strong. Perhaps where gender played the greater role in this specific case is the propensity in men to see violence as a viable solution to any given problem.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
I’m pretty comfortable despising someone who treats a human being as a commodity, product of society or not.
I say this as someone with ancestors who bought and sold humans. I’m okay with thinking that was bad and not really liking them for it.
Hmm, just re-read what I wrote and somehow skipped a chunk of sentence – Psycho ex who claimed to be poly called me greedy for wanting to go back to being poly and reintroduce someone very important to me back into my life *as a platonic friend* after a long period of monogamy.
Lightning would be doing the world a favour.
Greetings. linked to this from her journal. You’re an excellent writer. Friending you if that’s OK.
Thanks, and welcome aboard!
Greetings. linked to this from her journal. You’re an excellent writer. Friending you if that’s OK.
Thanks for posting this.
Sodini reminds me of the character Norman Bates; sexually repressed, tall, unintentionally creepy, thinks his behavior is justified…he’s even physically similar.
Ferret!!!!!
I love your icon. Just had to share. 🙂
Thanks for posting this.
Sodini reminds me of the character Norman Bates; sexually repressed, tall, unintentionally creepy, thinks his behavior is justified…he’s even physically similar.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
Really? It was all the rage at the time. Interesting that you consider them despicable, instead of understanding that it was normal for the times. But I suppose being enlightened gives you that option.
FWIW, I’d agree with you that it was bad, but again, I’m not ready to despise them for it. That seems kind of overboard to me. Do you blame yourself for what they did? Do you hate yourself for it, too?
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
Of course not. I’m only responsible for what *I* do.
I’m not enlightened, nor do I claim to be. What makes you use the term?
I think there’s a critical point being missed here
George Sodini was ill. Even your average narcissitic mysoginist asshole doesn’t go into a work-out club and kill women. He had a mental illness that went untreated. He probably had a personality disorder, and from reading his original page, I think it’s pretty clear he was probably clinically depressed.
None of that excuses what he did, but I don’t think that walking around calling him an asshole really captures what happened to him and to his victims.
I don’t know why women didn’t like him; I’m not a woman and I never encountered him. But I’ve known many people who go through life not really finding a way to latch on.
Constantly alone, they become antisocial, and because they’re constantly alone, there’s no one who knows them well enough to say “hey, do you wanna go get a beer and talk?” And of course, we live in a country where mental wellness isn’t regarded as important by companies and insurance providers either, so it’s not like he was encouraged to see a professional.
I’ve read other posts about Sodini that say that his standards were too high — he apparently had some book about wooing younger women on his desk — and that he should have gone looking for women who were more “in his league”. I don’t know about that either; I’ve been attracted to all sorts of women, and some of them have been attracted to me, and some women have been attracted to me that I didn’t find attractive at all, and for me, it’s not a factor of age or size or class or wealth, but of something in them matching up with something in me.
Personally, I find it very sad that Sodini wasn’t able to find someone who matched up with him. Whether or not it was because of things he did, or if it was just bad luck, or whatever. He lived lonely and he died lonely. That engenders pity from me, not contempt.
His actions at the end of his life were terrible. They cannot be condoned. But I believe that this is a failure of society, in many ways. We’re supposed to look out for each-other, and that’s easy to do with our friends and family. It’s the people who fall through the cracks — financially, socially — that we end up calling “assholes”.
I wonder who the “assholes” really are.
And I don’t think this has ANYTHING to do with Poly.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I think I’m going to go with a bit of column A, a bit of column B, here. I think what George Sodini did was the result of a profoundly miserable and lonely person reaching the end of his miserable and lonely ability to cope with the world — a terrible and sad outburst of mental illness, which we’ve seen all too often in other people as well for other reasons. But the way he did it and the way he wrote about it beforehand reeks of societal misogyny, and a particular type of societal misogyny. Franklin’s not saying that Sodini hated polyamory, or that Sodini’s actions were primarily caused by being the sort of person who hated polyamory: rather, that a glimpse into this deeply disturbed and ill individual’s mind also happens to serve as a glimpse into one of the more disturbed and ill social prejudices that still haunts people’s view of relationships now.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Thank you, yes. This is exactly what I was trying to say when and I were discussing it. “Asshole” is just a term for “person who was once very sad who became very angry in defense that I don’t want to understand because I don’t want them to be like me in any way.”
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
To be fair, “asshole” can be a term for “person I don’t want to understand or identify with,” but I think you know me well enough to know that I’m not using it that way. I think it’s possible to understand and identify with a person and still consider that person to be an asshole.
The whole reason that I wrote about George Sodini in the first place is that I do, from his writings, find him comprehensible, and I really don’t think he’s some kind of aberration or a monster or anything–he is, if anything, a reflection of some very commonly held ideas and attitudes about sex and love.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
You say that, but you and I spent a considerable amount of time exploring his reasons and possible emotional development, and the societal mores that are not about misogyny, and I see nothing of that here, just a focusing on the less palatable bits of what happened and an interpretation that suits your thesis, not a genuine attempt to understand him in his own context. That’s fine, you’re not obligated to try to understand him, but I still think it’s a bit short-sighted and twisted the way you’re doing it, and completely ignores the more common meanings of “you’re so greedy/selfish” in a poly sense.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I would hazard a guess that a person who walks into a fitness center and shoots the place up is probably mentally ill to some extent or another by definition; this isn’t the sort of thing healthy, well-adjusted people do. It’s hard to tell, though, which came first–was he a misogynist first, which kept him from finding a partner, which made him bitter and angry, which led to depression? Was he depressed, which interfered with his ability to find a partner, which led to bitterness, which made him a misogynist?
One danger I see in thinking of this as a social problem is that it can lead perilously close to “well, if some woman would have been with him, then this would not have happened”–which is too close to “women should put out if they don’t want to die” for my comfort. The notion that had he had a partner, he wouldn’t have shot a whole bunch of people can, in the right light, look a whole lot like “it’s women’s responsibility to make sure that men have their sexual needs met in order to keep them from going on a killing rampage.”
I realize that’s not what you’re saying, but I am also aware that there certainly are people who might see that as a reasonable attitude to hold.
George’s actions had nothing to do with polyamory; he possibly didn’t even realize the notion of polyamory existed. That’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m trying to make is that he had a particular type of misogyny that illuminated, for me, the tacit misogyny in statements like “polyamory is greedy.”
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I don’t believe that from his few blog posts that we can make that kind of diagnoses. Nobody will ever know. Society failed him to the point where he is now dead, having taken other people with him.
Certainly, it is not “women’s responsibility to make sure men have their sexual needs met.” However, I do believe that it is society’s responsibility to try and help all people with their illnesses, including mental ones, and I also think it’s society’s responsibility to reach out to people who are withdrawing.
I just think that there’s a problem when polyamorists, who so often are unfairly and wrongfully judged, wrongfully judge someone who is not only mentally ill, but also dead, and therefore are utterly incapable of defending themselves.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Again I agree. It’s not “if only some woman had fucked him so he weren’t such a hater”, it’s “if only some person had seen his desperate loneliness and reached out to try to help him so he weren’t so lost and withdrawn that he lost control of his feelings to that degree.”
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
exactly. Without condoning the actions he took at the end of his life, I can sympathize with the pain and frustrations he felt. I’ve had relationships end very badly, I’ve been crushingly lonely. I’ve had impulses of destruction (all self-directed).
It happens to poly and non-poly alike, because in the end, it has nothing to do with poly or non-poly, but because it has to do with mental health, and how that’s not a priority in this country.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I can absolutely understand and sympathize with that, while at the same time saying that it is reprehensible to shoot a bunch of women out of loneliness. It’s not a dichotomy; I absolutely ache for the young and alienated George Sodini while at the same time believing that the George Sodini who walked into a fitness center with a rifle is an asshole.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I absolutely ache for the young and alienated George Sodini
Maybe so, but your blog post certainly doesn’t allude to it.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I decided to quit arguing and wrote this instead. 🙂
*hug*
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
It’s a locked post… 🙁
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
You should be able to see it, you can’t?
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Certainly, it is not “women’s responsibility to make sure men have their sexual needs met.” However, I do believe that it is society’s responsibility to try and help all people with their illnesses, including mental ones, and I also think it’s society’s responsibility to reach out to people who are withdrawing.
How is this possible, in a practical sense? In what way do you believe that he could have been reached? He certainly wasn’t poor or isolated; he had a successful programming job making close to six figures (so I’m betting he probably had a pretty good benefits package) and he presented socially at least well enough to function (his blog talks about going on vacations, going to company parties, and so on). He didn’t appear to seek out any psychological aid and he didn’t present any behaviors, so far as I know, that would alert people that he was a danger to himself or others, so I’m a little confused about who should have done something to head him off. We can not, for example, forcibly institutionalize folks who seem depressed.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
A society that put more stock in making sure that people were mentally healthy would have some kind of process in place. Even a yearly mental health well visit to a psychologist might have found something. A manager who spends time talking about more then work at every meeting. A company that has people who work for HR in the best interest of the workers, not the company.
It’s interesting that you don’t think outside the box on this.
I suppose that it is possible that, even given any of that, Sodini might still have fallen into illness, and might have still not been stopped. That doesn’t mean that we need to fall into the mundane minds set of attempting to assign non-positive attributes to him because he killed people. What he did was terrible enough without having to find ways to justify an uncaring, uninterested social “net”.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
*blink*
I’m a little surprised that you see anything in what I’ve written as “justifying” a poor social net.
It’s one thing to propose better mental health coverage for people; it’s another to believe that the coverage being available would make it widely used. A lot of people who could benefit from mental health treatment are also extremely resistant to it, and not just for reasons of social stigma.
But all that aside, I still think that, for whatever reason, there is some level of personal responsibility involved here. Was he mentally ill? Quite likely, though neither of us can diagnose him for sure. Are you saying that he was not in control of, and therefore responsible for, his actions? I don’t think you are, but what you’re saying could be interpreted that way.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I was simply taking an idea — Sodini was mentally ill — and expounding on it.
If coverage was available, a lot more people WOULD take advantage of it. Of course, we can’t know either way, since it’s not.
I think that we cannot judge whether or not Sodini was in control of his actions. He died, so he certainly cannot be held responsible for them in any meaningful manner.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Even a yearly mental health well visit to a psychologist might have found something.
Whether they want that visit or not?
A manager who spends time talking about more then work at every meeting. A company that has people who work for HR in the best interest of the workers, not the company.
How do we know that his manager was all business or that his HR department didn’t care? Whether they did or did not, is it the place of a person’s employer to pry into the state of their employees’ mental health or involve themselves in an individual’s personal life when said personal life doesn’t involve their work?
It’s all well and good to look at a tragedy and say, “Someone should’ve done something.” That’s a normal human response in attempting to explain why something happened, and wishing to find the right place to lay fault so that the reason for what happened can be fixed. However, none of what you suggest would be appropriate for an employer to do.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
No one forces people to go to well visits, but millions of americans do so every year. Many of them have incentives — they get money BACK from their health insurance provider — because it makes health care cheaper in the long run. They could do that with mental health just as easily.
If the HR department specifically had someone whose job it was to go around and talk to people and see how they’re doing, I don’t see why that would be inappropriate. Contract it out. This is what Employee Assistance Programs already do, except in a proactive manner.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
They could do that with mental health just as easily.
True, they could and, whether or not they should or it would be beneficial, they don’t. Beyond that there are millions of Americans who have such benefits and don’t take advantage of them (whether they get a kick back from their insurance or not). If George’s benefits did include mental health coverage, then it was on him to go and get himself checked out rather than a failing of his insurance or company to some how force him to do so. Beyond that, I doubt that he would’ve; with the amount of outwardly casted blame evident in his journal (on women, on their age, on their promiscuity, on their want for black men) leads me to believe that he didn’t he have the self-awareness to possibly identify that he needed help in that fashion.
If the HR department specifically had someone whose job it was to go around and talk to people and see how they’re doing, I don’t see why that would be inappropriate.
The problem is, and this is coming from someone who works in Human Resources, that assumes a level of personal involvement, one would say then responsibility, in an employee’s life that businesses can’t and won’t go into. For one, there is a privacy issue; the question that would be asked is why my work is trying to ask questions about my private work life. If my performance at my job is not suffering, why should they be asking questions about my life? Secondly, there is a liability issue for the employer. By taking a proactive step they are, in essence, assuming a level of responsibility that they may not be able to actually follow-up on.
The reason why EAP exists is because it allows the employer to offer help to employees who need it but the employee has to take responsibility for instigating that request for help.
Say that an employer learns that a person is having domestic issues at home by proactively asking said employee about their personal life. What happens if the employee then goes and does something rash, perhaps has a break down and harms a family member. If it comes out that the employer knew about the possibility of the harm, they could be held responsible for not warning or “doing something” to help the situation. If they did try to somehow get the authorities involved, believing that there MIGHT be the possibility that something could happen, they could be held as responsible for a violation of privacy in the event that nothing actually did happen and for overstepping their boundaries as an employer.
Honestly, I wouldn’t want my employer, as much as I like them, trying to play the part of my mental health professional or getting involved in my personal life.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
IAWTC.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
Thank you.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
His blog was online for how long? Months at least. Possibly years. It was full of things that would alert people that he was a danger to himself and others.
I just don’t believe that in all the time that blog was on the internet, not one single person stumbled across it, ever. I can think of several benign Google searches that would have possibly brought that site up, yet no one figured that he was a danger to himself or others? No one did anything. At all.
I typed out a long response this morning, and I erased it, because I just don’t have the energy to debate this subject. The man was mentally ill.
I am, at this point in my life, most likely clinically depressed. I would isolate the hell out of myself if my husband and friends would let me, but they won’t. Thus, I have a support system and doctors and family and people who care. This guy had NONE of that, and you know something? I’d like to be able to say that no matter how depressed I got I wouldn’t walk into someplace and shoot up some people, but I can’t honestly say that with any real conviction, because I just don’t know what would happen if people would leave me alone to isolate and withdraw and stoke the flames of my general distaste for humanity and my apathy toward pretty much everything. (You see, depression is SO much fun.)
Not everything is cut and dry black and white. Society did fail this man, and they/we are CONTINUING to fail him and so many others in situations like him. Generally when people become that angry and that depressed and that desolate, they only take themselves out of the picture, but that doesn’t make it any better, and it doesn’t make it right.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Hmm, that’s an interesting point. Is it legal to compel someone to seek mental health treatment for something they write in an online blog?
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Maybe not compel, but suggest and offer? Certainly.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Well, I wasn’t necessarily arguing the seeking of mental health treatment here. You said that there was nothing that would lead anyone to think he was a danger to himself or others. I disagreed and offered evidence as to why I disagree.
No, because of online writings we cannot compel anyone to to seek mental health treatment. However, I honestly think that if someone would have noticed and offered/suggested, he would have taken it. I think that the fact that it was online for the world to see was the only way he knew how to reach out. He wasn’t hiding it. It wasn’t on a locked blogging site like LJ. He wasn’t sneaking about. He was practically shouting for help, and it makes me so sad that not one single person paid attention to that shout.
All of that aside, and speaking as a school teacher now, this is much like turning in your peers for making shooting/bombing/etc. threats, even if you don’t think the child is serious. The first line of action is NOT to offer the offender(s) mental health treatment. It is to REMOVE them from the school in order to protect the rest of “society”. After that is done, then mental health evaluations happen, and based on those findings a course of action is made.
Maybe George Sodini was so far gone that all of the mental health treatment in the world could not have brought him back. However, I believe with everything in me that if even one person would have paid attention to what was online, several women would still be alive today.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
He wasn’t hiding it. It wasn’t on a locked blogging site like LJ
Actually, if you go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz9jWEdc6VQ and fast forward to about 3:05 you’ll see that his rambling posts about women were hidden; you had to enter his birthdate and the date of his death to see them.
However, I honestly think that if someone would have noticed and offered/suggested, he would have taken it.
Actually, in individuals with hightened levels of narcissism (such as those people with various personality disorders) they are more likely to not take offered mental health help unless they are compelled in some fashion to do so because the problem isn’t with them, at least according to their personal self-view, but with everyone else. The thought process goes “Why don’t they go get help so they can interact with me?”
Obviously, I’m not George Sodini’s shrink and I didn’t know the man but from having read what parts of his blog I could find he had a very narcissistic, self-centered world view in which he was the victim for not being allowed the things he wanted.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Actually, if you go to the YouTube link to a CNN report I posted above his ramblings the topic were hidden. You had to enter in his birthdate and the date he was going to die to see them.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Hey Dyer ( Cubs’ Fan?) – Great post on George Sodini! I withdrew( or
was thrown out as women would say it) from the ‘dating game’ a long time ago as too square, too boring or whatever.
I am destined to be alone,and that is fine, but I now wear the same “asshole” label that they gave George Sodini.
As long as I just eat it, forget it and accept the sick, loser,
loner label, everybody is O.K. George Sodini had another way to
“cope” with the label. Let us try to improve life and prevent
some of these tragedies from happening!
I think there’s a critical point being missed here
George Sodini was ill. Even your average narcissitic mysoginist asshole doesn’t go into a work-out club and kill women. He had a mental illness that went untreated. He probably had a personality disorder, and from reading his original page, I think it’s pretty clear he was probably clinically depressed.
None of that excuses what he did, but I don’t think that walking around calling him an asshole really captures what happened to him and to his victims.
I don’t know why women didn’t like him; I’m not a woman and I never encountered him. But I’ve known many people who go through life not really finding a way to latch on.
Constantly alone, they become antisocial, and because they’re constantly alone, there’s no one who knows them well enough to say “hey, do you wanna go get a beer and talk?” And of course, we live in a country where mental wellness isn’t regarded as important by companies and insurance providers either, so it’s not like he was encouraged to see a professional.
I’ve read other posts about Sodini that say that his standards were too high — he apparently had some book about wooing younger women on his desk — and that he should have gone looking for women who were more “in his league”. I don’t know about that either; I’ve been attracted to all sorts of women, and some of them have been attracted to me, and some women have been attracted to me that I didn’t find attractive at all, and for me, it’s not a factor of age or size or class or wealth, but of something in them matching up with something in me.
Personally, I find it very sad that Sodini wasn’t able to find someone who matched up with him. Whether or not it was because of things he did, or if it was just bad luck, or whatever. He lived lonely and he died lonely. That engenders pity from me, not contempt.
His actions at the end of his life were terrible. They cannot be condoned. But I believe that this is a failure of society, in many ways. We’re supposed to look out for each-other, and that’s easy to do with our friends and family. It’s the people who fall through the cracks — financially, socially — that we end up calling “assholes”.
I wonder who the “assholes” really are.
And I don’t think this has ANYTHING to do with Poly.
I think you’re spot-on here. Enough so that it actually hit some nerves for me, and explained some things that have been causing me problems lately.
Thank you for another thoughtful and enlightening entry, even if it did leave me pissed off.
I think you’re spot-on here. Enough so that it actually hit some nerves for me, and explained some things that have been causing me problems lately.
Thank you for another thoughtful and enlightening entry, even if it did leave me pissed off.
I agree that this would not be a good introductory article to someone new to polyamory and could cause confusion. The only way I can think to avoid that is to lay a whole bunch of groundwork first, which I think is too much to ask and would really hurt the article. Can you think of a simple thing he could do to still explore this issue without potentially confusing the completely ignorant?
Actually, I didn’t take that away from it at all, and I’m usually pretty hair-trigger on a lot of things. But YMMV.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I think I’m going to go with a bit of column A, a bit of column B, here. I think what George Sodini did was the result of a profoundly miserable and lonely person reaching the end of his miserable and lonely ability to cope with the world — a terrible and sad outburst of mental illness, which we’ve seen all too often in other people as well for other reasons. But the way he did it and the way he wrote about it beforehand reeks of societal misogyny, and a particular type of societal misogyny. Franklin’s not saying that Sodini hated polyamory, or that Sodini’s actions were primarily caused by being the sort of person who hated polyamory: rather, that a glimpse into this deeply disturbed and ill individual’s mind also happens to serve as a glimpse into one of the more disturbed and ill social prejudices that still haunts people’s view of relationships now.
Great post. It’s amazing how many people in 2009 still treat dating as an elaborate courtship ritual with a master password and a magic word they expect to unlock. It’s amazing how many people are still stunned by the idea that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that they can do to make themselves appealing to any given person with whom they are not especially compatible. And it’s amazing how much this is because of an institutional dehumanization of women that bafflingly fails to consider them as individuals with individual preferences.
Great post. It’s amazing how many people in 2009 still treat dating as an elaborate courtship ritual with a master password and a magic word they expect to unlock. It’s amazing how many people are still stunned by the idea that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that they can do to make themselves appealing to any given person with whom they are not especially compatible. And it’s amazing how much this is because of an institutional dehumanization of women that bafflingly fails to consider them as individuals with individual preferences.
I knew there was another common phrase I was forgetting! Thanks!
While I agree that there are some people who are just assholes, I think, in light of reading about just how common those RPG rape scenarios are, that perhaps there are folks out there who are perceived as socially awkward who, in reality are actually misogynists, and that just makes them appear “socially awkward” because of the disconnect between the way they think and the way other people think.
Am I the only one who thinks that creeper’s “blog” is just a hoax set up to glorify or otherwise bring attention this prick?
I don’t believe he wrote a single word of that crap.
Just Sayin’.
I looked at the records in Archive.org, and the domain and blog both go back to March 2004. So if it’s a hoax, it’s one hell of an elaborate one, dating back five years before he shot up the fitness center.
Am I the only one who thinks that creeper’s “blog” is just a hoax set up to glorify or otherwise bring attention this prick?
I don’t believe he wrote a single word of that crap.
Just Sayin’.
I certainly don’t intend to be unfair to gamers. As the vice-president of a general science fiction club with just over 50 members and having been on staff of several different conventions, I know plenty of female gamers, and many well adjusted and socially active fen — both male and female. However, I also know more than my share of the stereotypical, get-out-of-your-parent’s-basement types. But not being a gamer, I’ve never asked my gamer friends about RPG character rape (although I certainly intend to inquire further), but it was when one of them mentioned it on her blog that I heard about that for the first time.
Having said that, most of the GMs, STs and DMs around here do tend to be male. At the last 3 conventions I attended, 2 of which I worked on, there were female gamers, and female gaming department staff, but everyone running the games was male. It just happened that way.
And it is coming from this viewpoint that I think about the socially awkward members of our group, and I think about the things I’ve seen and heard from them with my own eyes and ears, and I wonder. I really wonder if for those individuals — the ones that come to our meetings and parties but yet never seem to fit in even with our extremely diverse groups of self proclaimed misfits extending open arms and invitations to join in and take part — I wonder if some of them are really misogynists. And yes, I know they aren’t all male — I know one woman who is socially awkward, but other than her, the rest I can think of are all male — and most of them are very smart and very shy. For example, there’s one guy who was previously in our group who went to Russia to get a bride, then he brought her here and kept her isolated from the rest of the social group and she primarily stayed at his house taking care of his mother. Then there was another that regularly pays $800 for “slave girls” at convention slave auctions but he never ever gets a date and I have heard him say very uncomplimentary things about women in general — yet he’ll spend lots of money to obtain their company in a controlled environment.
I just can’t help but wonder if there is some connection between how differently some of these fen view one half of society and how that disconnect from the way the rest of society views people ends up manifesting in their inability to blend and seem normal. And given the communications of a game, the insight into the inner workings of someone’s thought process, I just can’t help but wonder if some of these things coming out in a game that you wouldn’t hear about in a more open venue might be indicative of a larger problem with social interactions.
I certainly don’t intend to be unfair to gamers. As the vice-president of a general science fiction club with just over 50 members and having been on staff of several different conventions, I know plenty of female gamers, and many well adjusted and socially active fen — both male and female. However, I also know more than my share of the stereotypical, get-out-of-your-parent’s-basement types. But not being a gamer, I’ve never asked my gamer friends about RPG character rape (although I certainly intend to inquire further), but it was when one of them mentioned it on her blog that I heard about that for the first time.
Having said that, most of the GMs, STs and DMs around here do tend to be male. At the last 3 conventions I attended, 2 of which I worked on, there were female gamers, and female gaming department staff, but everyone running the games was male. It just happened that way.
And it is coming from this viewpoint that I think about the socially awkward members of our group, and I think about the things I’ve seen and heard from them with my own eyes and ears, and I wonder. I really wonder if for those individuals — the ones that come to our meetings and parties but yet never seem to fit in even with our extremely diverse groups of self proclaimed misfits extending open arms and invitations to join in and take part — I wonder if some of them are really misogynists. And yes, I know they aren’t all male — I know one woman who is socially awkward, but other than her, the rest I can think of are all male — and most of them are very smart and very shy. For example, there’s one guy who was previously in our group who went to Russia to get a bride, then he brought her here and kept her isolated from the rest of the social group and she primarily stayed at his house taking care of his mother. Then there was another that regularly pays $800 for “slave girls” at convention slave auctions but he never ever gets a date and I have heard him say very uncomplimentary things about women in general — yet he’ll spend lots of money to obtain their company in a controlled environment.
I just can’t help but wonder if there is some connection between how differently some of these fen view one half of society and how that disconnect from the way the rest of society views people ends up manifesting in their inability to blend and seem normal. And given the communications of a game, the insight into the inner workings of someone’s thought process, I just can’t help but wonder if some of these things coming out in a game that you wouldn’t hear about in a more open venue might be indicative of a larger problem with social interactions.
In every case where I’ve seen someone say “polyamory is greedy,” it has always been a man saying that about men having multiple female partners. The point if “it’s not at all greedy; those women can have multiple male partners as well!” is what’s getting lost, and that’s the point I tend to get hung up on.
I don’t know if it’s selection bias or some kind of social phenomenon, but so far I’ve never heard a woman say to another woman “You’re polyamorous? That’s so greedy!”
There’s a part of me that suspects it has a lot to do with social attitudes about sexual roles. We live in a society where men are seen as the pursuers of sex and women are seen as the gatekeepers of sex; men chase women and women decide. So a man who has multiple partners must be out there pursuing multiple women, and somehow “getting” them to say “yes.”
Absolutely! 🙂
Actually, that might be part of the assumption.
Men (like George) who consider poly men “greedy” might very well also break down the datable amorphous glob that is womanhood into girlfriends (who are monogamous), sluts, and whores (who have multiple partners, cannot be trusted, and can only be used for desparate sex).
To someone with such an assumption, members of the latter two groups can never become a member of the first.
The narcissism is definitely there. (His “college hoez have more sex than I do” rant reeks of it sky-high.) It’s definitely a big part of his psychological makeup, but I didn’t really talk about it because it isn’t what triggered the “ahah” moment for me.
In 1999, Andrew Goldstein pushed Kendra Webdale off of a New York City subway platform into the path of an oncoming train. He committed this terrible crime becase he was schizophrenic (and the city’s mental health department basically told him “lotsa luck” each of the 13 times he tried to have himself committed). George Sodini wasn’t schizophrenic as far as we know, but he was still delusional, even if not clinically so. Therapy might have prevented the horrific bloodbath that he caused, assuming access to therapists who reject destructive social norms. Then again, is much of the private mental health sector any more useful than the system which failed Andrew Goldstein and Kendra Webdale, especially since health insurance companies only pay for as much time as it takes for the shrink to scribble out a prescription? (Public option – yes!)
@dwer – excellent posting.
In 1999, Andrew Goldstein pushed Kendra Webdale off of a New York City subway platform into the path of an oncoming train. He committed this terrible crime becase he was schizophrenic (and the city’s mental health department basically told him “lotsa luck” each of the 13 times he tried to have himself committed). George Sodini wasn’t schizophrenic as far as we know, but he was still delusional, even if not clinically so. Therapy might have prevented the horrific bloodbath that he caused, assuming access to therapists who reject destructive social norms. Then again, is much of the private mental health sector any more useful than the system which failed Andrew Goldstein and Kendra Webdale, especially since health insurance companies only pay for as much time as it takes for the shrink to scribble out a prescription? (Public option – yes!)
@dwer – excellent posting.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
Actually, I am picky about my partners. Very, very, very picky indeed…so picky, in fact, that I say “no” far more often than I say “yes.”
It’s just that what I’m picky about isn’t what they look like, which also tends to upset the economic notion that a woman’s value as a commodity depends on what she looks like, and of course men want to get the best-looking women they can “afford.”
I have had, and currently have, partners of every size, shape, and body type imaginable; to see what I’m picky about, you have to look at more than what they look like.
Thanks, and welcome aboard!
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Thank you, yes. This is exactly what I was trying to say when and I were discussing it. “Asshole” is just a term for “person who was once very sad who became very angry in defense that I don’t want to understand because I don’t want them to be like me in any way.”
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I would hazard a guess that a person who walks into a fitness center and shoots the place up is probably mentally ill to some extent or another by definition; this isn’t the sort of thing healthy, well-adjusted people do. It’s hard to tell, though, which came first–was he a misogynist first, which kept him from finding a partner, which made him bitter and angry, which led to depression? Was he depressed, which interfered with his ability to find a partner, which led to bitterness, which made him a misogynist?
One danger I see in thinking of this as a social problem is that it can lead perilously close to “well, if some woman would have been with him, then this would not have happened”–which is too close to “women should put out if they don’t want to die” for my comfort. The notion that had he had a partner, he wouldn’t have shot a whole bunch of people can, in the right light, look a whole lot like “it’s women’s responsibility to make sure that men have their sexual needs met in order to keep them from going on a killing rampage.”
I realize that’s not what you’re saying, but I am also aware that there certainly are people who might see that as a reasonable attitude to hold.
George’s actions had nothing to do with polyamory; he possibly didn’t even realize the notion of polyamory existed. That’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m trying to make is that he had a particular type of misogyny that illuminated, for me, the tacit misogyny in statements like “polyamory is greedy.”
I looked at the records in Archive.org, and the domain and blog both go back to March 2004. So if it’s a hoax, it’s one hell of an elaborate one, dating back five years before he shot up the fitness center.
wait a second. NO ONE knows what George considered poly men, “greedy” or not.
I would hope that a group of people such as polyamorists, who are constantly misjudged and mischaracterized, would refrain from doing so about other people.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
To be fair, “asshole” can be a term for “person I don’t want to understand or identify with,” but I think you know me well enough to know that I’m not using it that way. I think it’s possible to understand and identify with a person and still consider that person to be an asshole.
The whole reason that I wrote about George Sodini in the first place is that I do, from his writings, find him comprehensible, and I really don’t think he’s some kind of aberration or a monster or anything–he is, if anything, a reflection of some very commonly held ideas and attitudes about sex and love.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I don’t believe that from his few blog posts that we can make that kind of diagnoses. Nobody will ever know. Society failed him to the point where he is now dead, having taken other people with him.
Certainly, it is not “women’s responsibility to make sure men have their sexual needs met.” However, I do believe that it is society’s responsibility to try and help all people with their illnesses, including mental ones, and I also think it’s society’s responsibility to reach out to people who are withdrawing.
I just think that there’s a problem when polyamorists, who so often are unfairly and wrongfully judged, wrongfully judge someone who is not only mentally ill, but also dead, and therefore are utterly incapable of defending themselves.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
You say that, but you and I spent a considerable amount of time exploring his reasons and possible emotional development, and the societal mores that are not about misogyny, and I see nothing of that here, just a focusing on the less palatable bits of what happened and an interpretation that suits your thesis, not a genuine attempt to understand him in his own context. That’s fine, you’re not obligated to try to understand him, but I still think it’s a bit short-sighted and twisted the way you’re doing it, and completely ignores the more common meanings of “you’re so greedy/selfish” in a poly sense.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Again I agree. It’s not “if only some woman had fucked him so he weren’t such a hater”, it’s “if only some person had seen his desperate loneliness and reached out to try to help him so he weren’t so lost and withdrawn that he lost control of his feelings to that degree.”
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Certainly, it is not “women’s responsibility to make sure men have their sexual needs met.” However, I do believe that it is society’s responsibility to try and help all people with their illnesses, including mental ones, and I also think it’s society’s responsibility to reach out to people who are withdrawing.
How is this possible, in a practical sense? In what way do you believe that he could have been reached? He certainly wasn’t poor or isolated; he had a successful programming job making close to six figures (so I’m betting he probably had a pretty good benefits package) and he presented socially at least well enough to function (his blog talks about going on vacations, going to company parties, and so on). He didn’t appear to seek out any psychological aid and he didn’t present any behaviors, so far as I know, that would alert people that he was a danger to himself or others, so I’m a little confused about who should have done something to head him off. We can not, for example, forcibly institutionalize folks who seem depressed.
It’s funny, to me, that this objectification is labeled misogyny. I see men commodified just much, especially ones with higher-paying jobs.
Yep, quite right. I personally tend to see only the misogynist side of it because I only encounter men who say that men with multiple female partners are “selfish,” though from the looks of some of the comments up there, women sometimes say the same thing of women with multiple male partners. In that case I’d say it’s as objectifying of men as it is of women.
Yes, men do get commodified, too, and it’s really bad.
Sexism isn’t pretty either way.
It’s just that there are fewer corpses per sexist woman than sexist man — for whatever reason.
It’s funny, to me, that this objectification is labeled misogyny. I see men commodified just much, especially ones with higher-paying jobs.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
A society that put more stock in making sure that people were mentally healthy would have some kind of process in place. Even a yearly mental health well visit to a psychologist might have found something. A manager who spends time talking about more then work at every meeting. A company that has people who work for HR in the best interest of the workers, not the company.
It’s interesting that you don’t think outside the box on this.
I suppose that it is possible that, even given any of that, Sodini might still have fallen into illness, and might have still not been stopped. That doesn’t mean that we need to fall into the mundane minds set of attempting to assign non-positive attributes to him because he killed people. What he did was terrible enough without having to find ways to justify an uncaring, uninterested social “net”.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
exactly. Without condoning the actions he took at the end of his life, I can sympathize with the pain and frustrations he felt. I’ve had relationships end very badly, I’ve been crushingly lonely. I’ve had impulses of destruction (all self-directed).
It happens to poly and non-poly alike, because in the end, it has nothing to do with poly or non-poly, but because it has to do with mental health, and how that’s not a priority in this country.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
His blog was online for how long? Months at least. Possibly years. It was full of things that would alert people that he was a danger to himself and others.
I just don’t believe that in all the time that blog was on the internet, not one single person stumbled across it, ever. I can think of several benign Google searches that would have possibly brought that site up, yet no one figured that he was a danger to himself or others? No one did anything. At all.
I typed out a long response this morning, and I erased it, because I just don’t have the energy to debate this subject. The man was mentally ill.
I am, at this point in my life, most likely clinically depressed. I would isolate the hell out of myself if my husband and friends would let me, but they won’t. Thus, I have a support system and doctors and family and people who care. This guy had NONE of that, and you know something? I’d like to be able to say that no matter how depressed I got I wouldn’t walk into someplace and shoot up some people, but I can’t honestly say that with any real conviction, because I just don’t know what would happen if people would leave me alone to isolate and withdraw and stoke the flames of my general distaste for humanity and my apathy toward pretty much everything. (You see, depression is SO much fun.)
Not everything is cut and dry black and white. Society did fail this man, and they/we are CONTINUING to fail him and so many others in situations like him. Generally when people become that angry and that depressed and that desolate, they only take themselves out of the picture, but that doesn’t make it any better, and it doesn’t make it right.
Well, that’s an interesting point.
Exactly what I meant. Thank you, you expressed it better than I could.
Exactly what I meant. Thank you, you expressed it better than I could.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
*blink*
I’m a little surprised that you see anything in what I’ve written as “justifying” a poor social net.
It’s one thing to propose better mental health coverage for people; it’s another to believe that the coverage being available would make it widely used. A lot of people who could benefit from mental health treatment are also extremely resistant to it, and not just for reasons of social stigma.
But all that aside, I still think that, for whatever reason, there is some level of personal responsibility involved here. Was he mentally ill? Quite likely, though neither of us can diagnose him for sure. Are you saying that he was not in control of, and therefore responsible for, his actions? I don’t think you are, but what you’re saying could be interpreted that way.
Yep, quite right. I personally tend to see only the misogynist side of it because I only encounter men who say that men with multiple female partners are “selfish,” though from the looks of some of the comments up there, women sometimes say the same thing of women with multiple male partners. In that case I’d say it’s as objectifying of men as it is of women.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I can absolutely understand and sympathize with that, while at the same time saying that it is reprehensible to shoot a bunch of women out of loneliness. It’s not a dichotomy; I absolutely ache for the young and alienated George Sodini while at the same time believing that the George Sodini who walked into a fitness center with a rifle is an asshole.
Yes, men do get commodified, too, and it’s really bad.
Sexism isn’t pretty either way.
It’s just that there are fewer corpses per sexist woman than sexist man — for whatever reason.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Hmm, that’s an interesting point. Is it legal to compel someone to seek mental health treatment for something they write in an online blog?
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I was simply taking an idea — Sodini was mentally ill — and expounding on it.
If coverage was available, a lot more people WOULD take advantage of it. Of course, we can’t know either way, since it’s not.
I think that we cannot judge whether or not Sodini was in control of his actions. He died, so he certainly cannot be held responsible for them in any meaningful manner.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I absolutely ache for the young and alienated George Sodini
Maybe so, but your blog post certainly doesn’t allude to it.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I decided to quit arguing and wrote this instead. 🙂
*hug*
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Maybe not compel, but suggest and offer? Certainly.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Well, I wasn’t necessarily arguing the seeking of mental health treatment here. You said that there was nothing that would lead anyone to think he was a danger to himself or others. I disagreed and offered evidence as to why I disagree.
No, because of online writings we cannot compel anyone to to seek mental health treatment. However, I honestly think that if someone would have noticed and offered/suggested, he would have taken it. I think that the fact that it was online for the world to see was the only way he knew how to reach out. He wasn’t hiding it. It wasn’t on a locked blogging site like LJ. He wasn’t sneaking about. He was practically shouting for help, and it makes me so sad that not one single person paid attention to that shout.
All of that aside, and speaking as a school teacher now, this is much like turning in your peers for making shooting/bombing/etc. threats, even if you don’t think the child is serious. The first line of action is NOT to offer the offender(s) mental health treatment. It is to REMOVE them from the school in order to protect the rest of “society”. After that is done, then mental health evaluations happen, and based on those findings a course of action is made.
Maybe George Sodini was so far gone that all of the mental health treatment in the world could not have brought him back. However, I believe with everything in me that if even one person would have paid attention to what was online, several women would still be alive today.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
It’s a locked post… 🙁
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
You should be able to see it, you can’t?
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
I’m quite a bit insulted at the idea that the only thing a person can be “picky” about is a woman’s looks. That, if someone does not care about a female’s appearance, then he has no *other* list of criteria for judging a person’s ability to be a suitable romantic partner.
The reason why has as many women interested in him as he does is not because he’ll fuck anything that moves, so desperate, fat, ugly women are lining up at his door …
The reason is because treats all women as individuals and gets to know them as people before deciding if someone is compatible in a romantic sense.
And THAT is extremely attractive to women, who are judged on their appearance before anything else.
I see an awful lot of assumptions in your comment here, primarily that all women or all people can be lumped into a single group with a common goal.
1) Not all individuals NEED to have the ocmpanionship of the romantic type in their lives to at least some degree. I happen to be one of them and I certainly don’t need romantic companionship for confidence. I have that in abundance to the point that I am often accused of arrogance. I have never once, ever, felt like I was not a whole person or “not quite right. I don’t deny the feeling of euphoria that comes with the various brain chemicals released during the bonding stage, but that does not necessarily translate into a feeling of “completeness” in everyone.
And I *have* had periods of being alone, and for long periods of time.
I also don’t think that objectification is “normal early in a person’s life”. I’m sure it *can* be natural for some people, but again with the assumptions that all people are the same. My sexual attraction to people requires the getting-to-know-them part to happen first, not last. The better I know them, and the more I like what I know of them, the stronger the sexual attraction is. And that has *always* been the case.
You then say “above anything, woman seem to like companionship…” Again with the assuming all women like the same things. Most of the women I work with most certainly do *not* want companionship or care about how a guy makes her feel – they are just as opportunistic and as objectifying as any male stereotype. For the women for whom that is true, George would clearly not be a good match, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who have different desires.
These are the same sorts of assumptions that people like George make – there must be *something* that [people of this category] all want, and as soon as one perfects or obtains that something, then [people of that category] will flock to one.
The most likely answer is that George was deeply fucked up and the women he happened to hit on didn’t like whatever part of his fucked-up-edness they caught on to.
But there are plenty of other women whose own brand of fucked-up would find compatibility with George’s.
I see an awful lot of assumptions in your comment here, primarily that all women or all people can be lumped into a single group with a common goal.
1) Not all individuals NEED to have the ocmpanionship of the romantic type in their lives to at least some degree. I happen to be one of them and I certainly don’t need romantic companionship for confidence. I have that in abundance to the point that I am often accused of arrogance. I have never once, ever, felt like I was not a whole person or “not quite right. I don’t deny the feeling of euphoria that comes with the various brain chemicals released during the bonding stage, but that does not necessarily translate into a feeling of “completeness” in everyone.
And I *have* had periods of being alone, and for long periods of time.
I also don’t think that objectification is “normal early in a person’s life”. I’m sure it *can* be natural for some people, but again with the assumptions that all people are the same. My sexual attraction to people requires the getting-to-know-them part to happen first, not last. The better I know them, and the more I like what I know of them, the stronger the sexual attraction is. And that has *always* been the case.
You then say “above anything, woman seem to like companionship…” Again with the assuming all women like the same things. Most of the women I work with most certainly do *not* want companionship or care about how a guy makes her feel – they are just as opportunistic and as objectifying as any male stereotype. For the women for whom that is true, George would clearly not be a good match, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who have different desires.
These are the same sorts of assumptions that people like George make – there must be *something* that [people of this category] all want, and as soon as one perfects or obtains that something, then [people of that category] will flock to one.
The most likely answer is that George was deeply fucked up and the women he happened to hit on didn’t like whatever part of his fucked-up-edness they caught on to.
But there are plenty of other women whose own brand of fucked-up would find compatibility with George’s.
This reminds me, tangentially, of a comment I saw in a forum thread just a week or two ago:
“if everyone knew that polyamory was an option, we’d end up with 99% of the women choosing monogamy and wondering where all the men are and 99% of all the men choosing polyamory and wondering where all the women are”.
*blink blink*
There are so many faulty assumptions in that one sentence that I had trouble unpacking it to refute it.
Huh. Given that, in my own very anecdotal experience, most of the poly people I know are women, it seems a bit, you know. Odd.
Also, given the feminist involvement in poly movements, the way that most of the major Poly Spokespeople (TM) seem to be women, and, let’s be frank, the way that girls tend to have a lot more socialisation in communication and relationships than boys..
um…
yup.
I may have to go with *blinkblink* as well here.
This reminds me, tangentially, of a comment I saw in a forum thread just a week or two ago:
“if everyone knew that polyamory was an option, we’d end up with 99% of the women choosing monogamy and wondering where all the men are and 99% of all the men choosing polyamory and wondering where all the women are”.
*blink blink*
There are so many faulty assumptions in that one sentence that I had trouble unpacking it to refute it.
That was not at all what I meant to imply. I apologize if you were offended.
Having said that, you are one of Tacit’s “sweeties”, so I suppose you would know best what I meant–since you are one of the women I was talking about. I have no idea what you look like, and really, I suppose it makes no difference, other than to say, if you are insulted, why? Have you ever considered yourself less than absolutely physically beautiful? Why would it matter if I said that Turtle’s sweeties are not all physically beautiful? Who CARES what I think?
And BTW, I never said that he’ll “fuck anything that moves”…I said, he wasn’t picky. (I guess as long as I’m shoving my foot in my mouth, I should see if I can reach my tonsils.) What I meant was that as picky as he is, he certainly doesn’t differentiate on the basis of looks. While he is extremely discerning when it comes to things other than looks (obviously, he has to be) all I’m saying is that this guy George WAS.
(Where am I going with this?) I guess that I’m trying to point out I got the impression from George that he wanted the Barbie doll, and wasn’t willing to settle for anything less until it was too late. When it comes to Turtle, Turtle DOESN’T CARE if his “partners” turn out to be Barbie dolls…he’s not picky like that, and I think it contributes to his success. That’s all I’m saying.
But! …on a larger scale, if both men and women were as selective as Tacit is, in the WAY Tacit is, they’d be far more successful. It’s about not being so damn picky–about looks!
Can I pull my foot out of my mouth yet?
Actually, you do know what I look like because I included a picture of myself in my response.
It’s not at all about being not-picky – it’s about being picky about the things that are actually important in a relationship. One of the many paths to choosing poor relationships is in *not* being picky.
oh, and the insult was not whether or not *you* consider me physically attractive (being one of his sweeties), it’s in the idea that tacit is not “picky” based solely on the fact that his partners do not measure up to some arbitrary level of attractiveness that you seem to think is an objective measurement.
That was not at all what I meant to imply. I apologize if you were offended.
Having said that, you are one of Tacit’s “sweeties”, so I suppose you would know best what I meant–since you are one of the women I was talking about. I have no idea what you look like, and really, I suppose it makes no difference, other than to say, if you are insulted, why? Have you ever considered yourself less than absolutely physically beautiful? Why would it matter if I said that Turtle’s sweeties are not all physically beautiful? Who CARES what I think?
And BTW, I never said that he’ll “fuck anything that moves”…I said, he wasn’t picky. (I guess as long as I’m shoving my foot in my mouth, I should see if I can reach my tonsils.) What I meant was that as picky as he is, he certainly doesn’t differentiate on the basis of looks. While he is extremely discerning when it comes to things other than looks (obviously, he has to be) all I’m saying is that this guy George WAS.
(Where am I going with this?) I guess that I’m trying to point out I got the impression from George that he wanted the Barbie doll, and wasn’t willing to settle for anything less until it was too late. When it comes to Turtle, Turtle DOESN’T CARE if his “partners” turn out to be Barbie dolls…he’s not picky like that, and I think it contributes to his success. That’s all I’m saying.
But! …on a larger scale, if both men and women were as selective as Tacit is, in the WAY Tacit is, they’d be far more successful. It’s about not being so damn picky–about looks!
Can I pull my foot out of my mouth yet?
I don’t think you can make these assumptions. My personal observation is that these are *not* minority traits, just as your assumptions that they are seem to be anecdotal.
As for what George had or didn’t have, I don’t think you can fairly say that either. We do not know that no one tried to reach out to him, that no support group was available to him, that perhaps he didn’t reject these things himself, rather than have them reject him. I see no reason to assume that these things would have helped him or that he didn’t have them available to him, because I have seen people be offered these things and reject them.
I don’t think you can make these assumptions. My personal observation is that these are *not* minority traits, just as your assumptions that they are seem to be anecdotal.
As for what George had or didn’t have, I don’t think you can fairly say that either. We do not know that no one tried to reach out to him, that no support group was available to him, that perhaps he didn’t reject these things himself, rather than have them reject him. I see no reason to assume that these things would have helped him or that he didn’t have them available to him, because I have seen people be offered these things and reject them.
Actually, you do know what I look like because I included a picture of myself in my response.
It’s not at all about being not-picky – it’s about being picky about the things that are actually important in a relationship. One of the many paths to choosing poor relationships is in *not* being picky.
oh, and the insult was not whether or not *you* consider me physically attractive (being one of his sweeties), it’s in the idea that tacit is not “picky” based solely on the fact that his partners do not measure up to some arbitrary level of attractiveness that you seem to think is an objective measurement.
fwiw, I am a stranger to and I didn’t take anything remotely like that away from what was being said.
“My darling girl, when are you going to understand that ‘normal’ isn’t a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage.” —Aunt Frances – Practical Magic
I love this quote and am reminded of it by your comment on being ‘weird’. The idea that one must conform to acceptable standards of ‘normal’ to have someone in their life or to be at all happy is the ‘weird’ part to me.
Great article.
“My darling girl, when are you going to understand that ‘normal’ isn’t a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage.” —Aunt Frances – Practical Magic
I love this quote and am reminded of it by your comment on being ‘weird’. The idea that one must conform to acceptable standards of ‘normal’ to have someone in their life or to be at all happy is the ‘weird’ part to me.
Great article.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
As far as I know, his blog was not private. Like some suicide notes, it was a cry for help and attention.
I would go so far as to suggest that Sodini did not refuse to help himself; he was unable to help himself. Perhaps some would see that as a semantic difference, but I don’t.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I would go so far as to suggest that Sodini did not refuse to help himself; he was unable to help himself. Perhaps some would see that as a semantic difference, but I don’t.
I think that’s a valid distinction.
I also think that he did indeed have the wrong tools, largely because he absorbed a lot of ideas about relationships that are very common in society…and I think the society would be a lot healthier without those ideas.
But I do still wonder…what’s the missing piece? Many people absorb those ideas, and become bitter and alienated because of them, but don’t go on to shoot up a fitness center. What’s the crucial component that leads from alienation and depression to a murder spree?
I wonder if it isn’t something in a particularly toxic mixture of alienation and narcissism; not only did he feel isolated, depressed, and alone, but he also believed that his isolation was the result of thirty million women rejecting him personally. Maybe the combination of alienation with that particular kind of narcissism is what does it.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I expect that only a trained mental health specialist, with months of therapy, would have been able to find that out.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
As far as I know, his blog was not private. Like some suicide notes, it was a cry for help and attention.
I would go so far as to suggest that Sodini did not refuse to help himself; he was unable to help himself. Perhaps some would see that as a semantic difference, but I don’t.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve gathered he hid the access behind a date of birth, and date of death.
I haven’t read or seen anything that stated this. Do you have a link? Given that he “chickened out” at least once, I don’t know that he would have done such a thing.
From everything I’ve read his only attempt at helping himself was going to seminars, and buying books on how to date younger women.
That doesn’t disprove my belief that he could not help himself. Even when he tried, all he had were the wrong tools because of society’s “teachings”. We can — and should — do better.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I haven’t read or seen anything that stated this. Do you have a link? Given that he “chickened out” at least once, I don’t know that he would have done such a thing.
Google’s your friend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz9jWEdc6VQ
A cry for help isn’t one if all you’re doing is screaming in a locked room.
We can — and should — do better.
Again, I ask: whether he wants it or not?
You do raise a good point about whether or not he could’ve helped himself, and maybe you’re right in that he couldn’t; I certainly don’t think he was aware of how messed up he’d become due to his narcissism. But that begs the question of, when a person is sick and cannot help themself in this way, is it society’s place to force them to try and get better? Do people have the right to be ill?
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
that news report doesn’t say that the blog was locked before he left to go open fire, or if it was locked the entire time he was writing it.
But that begs the question of, when a person is sick and cannot help themself in this way, is it society’s place to force them to try and get better? Do people have the right to be ill?
Well, if he’s going to go shoot people? I’d say not only is it society’s place to force him to try and get better, but it’s society’s RESPONSIBILITY to do so.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
that news report doesn’t say that the blog was locked before he left to go open fire, or if it was locked the entire time he was writing it.
Google is still your friend: http://www.jongales.com/blog/2009/08/05/george-sodini-suicide-journal/
He kept it locked up, that is the fact. Please, stop making excuses for him.
Well, if he’s going to go shoot people? I’d say not only is it society’s place to force him to try and get better, but it’s society’s RESPONSIBILITY to do so.
Which I agree, in the event that we know that people are actually planning harm (for instance, the number of incidents of children being taken into custody for making particular threats online has risen since Columbine) but if there is no indication that such a person is going to take action, such as the case with George since his friends and family that were interviewed said they had no idea he was going to do this (and I’ve provided two links showing he hid his plans), then society didn’t fail here.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
I’m not making excuses for him, although I don’t think that this additional link proves that it was locked, only that this person thought it was. So maybe it was locked, and maybe it wasn’t.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
The person on the second link corrorborates that the information was hidden and you needed the date of his death to see it! That goes directly with what CNN was reporting. This isn’t “believed” it to be locked, it was. The author of the second post is, in fact, a professional in web publishing.
*shrug* Whatever. Throughout history there have always been people willing to apologize for the horrible actions of others, trying to find reasons to explain actions that are largely unexplainable out of a need to try and reassert some order in their reality.
Have a good day.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
You are making the assumption that this is code that was not put in place the last time he updated the block. All that’s corroborated is that the blog was blocked AFTER the incidents occurred, not that it was blocked the entire time.
Locked after =/= locked always. After all, he had to know the date to put in place to unlock it afterward. He’d already chickened out once.
I am not apologizing for what Sodini did. But there are reasons for why people do things. Figuring that out so it can be prevented in the future is much more important then deciding how much of an “asshole” the man is.
We are our brothers and our sisters keepers.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
You are making the assumption that this is code that was not put in place the last time he updated the block. All that’s corroborated is that the blog was blocked AFTER the incidents occurred, not that it was blocked the entire time.
Locked after =/= locked always. After all, he had to know the date to put in place to unlock it afterward. He’d already chickened out once.
And you are also making the assumption that said date on the lock could not have been changed. Yes, he chickened out once, that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have changed the lock on the code to reflect his new “death date” or that he couldn’t have hidden it much in the past.
It is also interesting to note that said journal had no in-bound traffic, as noted in the second link. If your journal isn’t being pinged by any other website, how is blogging a cry for help? If this had all been in a paper journal in his home, would that have been a cry for help as well?
Figuring that out so it can be prevented in the future is much more important then deciding how much of an “asshole” the man is.
That I can agree with; trying to determine what level of asshole he was is not helpful in any sense. However, when “finding the reasons” turns into survivors guilt/blame then it is not helpful either and that is how I see the argument of “George did this because we, as a society, failed him.” We didn’t fail him. By all accounts no one around him knew what was going on. Beyond that, the only way we could find out the real reasons as to why he did what we did would require him and George isn’t talking.
We are our brothers and our sisters keepers.
I must disagree. Your actions are your own. To say anything else is to remove personal responsibility from individuals which denies them their identity as individuals. I am no more responsible for the man in Texas who lashes out in anger at his kids as he is for me when I cut someone off on the freeway.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
And you are also making the assumption that said date on the lock could not have been changed. Yes, he chickened out once, that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have changed the lock on the code to reflect his new “death date” or that he couldn’t have hidden it much in the past.
No. I’m not making an assumption either way. That’s all.
We obviously have a fundamentally different world view. I suggest we drop it here, allowing us each to go our separate ways, thinking the other is wrong.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
Indeed. Thank you for your time, you express yourself very wel and I hope that you have a good day.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
For what it’s worth, the archive.org archives would tend to confirm the hypothesis that the journal was always locked, since the archive.org spider has a way of getting into anything not password-protected.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
I thought you said that you used Archive.org to confirm that this page was not a fake?
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
I used archive.org to confirm that the domain has been present and active for at least five years. The journal entries don’t extend back that full five years in the archive, but to propose that the journal is fake would mean to assume that the person responsible for faking them had at some point in the recent future taken control of the domain and gotten the entries into the archive, which I find a little farfetched. 🙂
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
maybe I don’t understand how it works, but if the page was password protected, how would archive.org know that THIS PAGE was updated in real time? And if the entries are in the archive, how were they locked?
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
It wouldn’t. But it does confirm that Sodini did use that domain for a long time, which I think takes the wind out of the sails of the “someone else fabricated the journal” hypothesis.
I’d find that hypothesis less implausible if he had no online footprint whatsoever and then suddenly someone said he had this journal, but that isn’t the case.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
ah, I see. Fair enough.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve gathered he hid the access behind a date of birth, and date of death.
I haven’t read or seen anything that stated this. Do you have a link? Given that he “chickened out” at least once, I don’t know that he would have done such a thing.
From everything I’ve read his only attempt at helping himself was going to seminars, and buying books on how to date younger women.
That doesn’t disprove my belief that he could not help himself. Even when he tried, all he had were the wrong tools because of society’s “teachings”. We can — and should — do better.
Quite true. I am drawing from my own experience with other men in my extrapolation, with what my friends have said about women in their lives, especially what they said in times of frustration. The same generalizations and talk of entitlement mentions above occasionally pokes out.
In no way would I consider my speculations a window into Crazy George’s thinking. I’m also not poly.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I would go so far as to suggest that Sodini did not refuse to help himself; he was unable to help himself. Perhaps some would see that as a semantic difference, but I don’t.
I think that’s a valid distinction.
I also think that he did indeed have the wrong tools, largely because he absorbed a lot of ideas about relationships that are very common in society…and I think the society would be a lot healthier without those ideas.
But I do still wonder…what’s the missing piece? Many people absorb those ideas, and become bitter and alienated because of them, but don’t go on to shoot up a fitness center. What’s the crucial component that leads from alienation and depression to a murder spree?
I wonder if it isn’t something in a particularly toxic mixture of alienation and narcissism; not only did he feel isolated, depressed, and alone, but he also believed that his isolation was the result of thirty million women rejecting him personally. Maybe the combination of alienation with that particular kind of narcissism is what does it.
“greedy”
In that Newsweek article I had an exchange with a woman who ended one of her umpty zillion comments with. “I’m happy with my monogamous marriage. I’m not greedy.”
So I tried this tack (paraphrased): “Hey, polyamory is all about sharing. How come you’re keeping your man all to yourself, huh? Who’s greedy now?”
Naturally, she was quite offended. :^)
“greedy”
In that Newsweek article I had an exchange with a woman who ended one of her umpty zillion comments with. “I’m happy with my monogamous marriage. I’m not greedy.”
So I tried this tack (paraphrased): “Hey, polyamory is all about sharing. How come you’re keeping your man all to yourself, huh? Who’s greedy now?”
Naturally, she was quite offended. :^)
I don’t know anything about George Sodini except speculations about him on a few blogs – I didn’t hear the news, nor have I had time to research the issue, but various comments here and elsewhere have inspired me to say this: If you’ve got problems in life, then often a social safety net (friends, family, whatever) is often necessary to truly deal with it. If you don’t have that social safety net, then you’re basically screwed, because those life problems will make it near impossible to get one. Or at least, that’s my experience.
Around 95%-99% of my time is directly or indirectly involved in keeping myself and my mother alive and off the streets. Most of my work is done alone and from home. I wouldn’t have time for friends even if I had any. This will hopefully improve very soon, but I’m still not going to be in a very good place for having much of a social life. And as for my family – most of them are dead or missing. My parents are utterly dysfunctional as human beings. My father, before he disappeared, picked up a lot of stray cats and lived in squalor. Apparently without his parents (dead), former wife (my mother, they’re divorced) or children to take care of him, he just can’t function. My mother often bitches about how nothing makes sense because everybody is not doing everything they can to rewrite reality to her every whim. (Or at least, that’s what it tends to sound like to me.) She also tends to alienate nearly everyone just by opening her mouth. My brothers are social shut-ins who eschew human contact in favor of playing video games. But at least they seem to have stable jobs and are much more capable of taking care of themselves than my parents are. And one of them does do games with some degree of social interaction, like World of Warcraft. But they don’t want very much to do with me any more than they do anyone else.
I don’t know for sure if Sodini had a broken or inadequate social net and problems which needed their support. But even if he did I don’t really emphasize with him. I realized from a young age that hatred is pointless – it just creates more victims of whatever is victimizing you, and acting on it rarely solves anything or makes you feel better.
I don’t know anything about George Sodini except speculations about him on a few blogs – I didn’t hear the news, nor have I had time to research the issue, but various comments here and elsewhere have inspired me to say this: If you’ve got problems in life, then often a social safety net (friends, family, whatever) is often necessary to truly deal with it. If you don’t have that social safety net, then you’re basically screwed, because those life problems will make it near impossible to get one. Or at least, that’s my experience.
Around 95%-99% of my time is directly or indirectly involved in keeping myself and my mother alive and off the streets. Most of my work is done alone and from home. I wouldn’t have time for friends even if I had any. This will hopefully improve very soon, but I’m still not going to be in a very good place for having much of a social life. And as for my family – most of them are dead or missing. My parents are utterly dysfunctional as human beings. My father, before he disappeared, picked up a lot of stray cats and lived in squalor. Apparently without his parents (dead), former wife (my mother, they’re divorced) or children to take care of him, he just can’t function. My mother often bitches about how nothing makes sense because everybody is not doing everything they can to rewrite reality to her every whim. (Or at least, that’s what it tends to sound like to me.) She also tends to alienate nearly everyone just by opening her mouth. My brothers are social shut-ins who eschew human contact in favor of playing video games. But at least they seem to have stable jobs and are much more capable of taking care of themselves than my parents are. And one of them does do games with some degree of social interaction, like World of Warcraft. But they don’t want very much to do with me any more than they do anyone else.
I don’t know for sure if Sodini had a broken or inadequate social net and problems which needed their support. But even if he did I don’t really emphasize with him. I realized from a young age that hatred is pointless – it just creates more victims of whatever is victimizing you, and acting on it rarely solves anything or makes you feel better.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I expect that only a trained mental health specialist, with months of therapy, would have been able to find that out.
The thing is that there are a million fish in the sea if one wants to consider it that way.
I mean, with at least two and a half billion women in the world the chances are that there is someone in the world who would’ve dated George Sodini, flaws and all, is there.
Now, that woman might live in Bangladesh and George never had a chance to meet her is beside the point.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Even a yearly mental health well visit to a psychologist might have found something.
Whether they want that visit or not?
A manager who spends time talking about more then work at every meeting. A company that has people who work for HR in the best interest of the workers, not the company.
How do we know that his manager was all business or that his HR department didn’t care? Whether they did or did not, is it the place of a person’s employer to pry into the state of their employees’ mental health or involve themselves in an individual’s personal life when said personal life doesn’t involve their work?
It’s all well and good to look at a tragedy and say, “Someone should’ve done something.” That’s a normal human response in attempting to explain why something happened, and wishing to find the right place to lay fault so that the reason for what happened can be fixed. However, none of what you suggest would be appropriate for an employer to do.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
No one forces people to go to well visits, but millions of americans do so every year. Many of them have incentives — they get money BACK from their health insurance provider — because it makes health care cheaper in the long run. They could do that with mental health just as easily.
If the HR department specifically had someone whose job it was to go around and talk to people and see how they’re doing, I don’t see why that would be inappropriate. Contract it out. This is what Employee Assistance Programs already do, except in a proactive manner.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
They could do that with mental health just as easily.
True, they could and, whether or not they should or it would be beneficial, they don’t. Beyond that there are millions of Americans who have such benefits and don’t take advantage of them (whether they get a kick back from their insurance or not). If George’s benefits did include mental health coverage, then it was on him to go and get himself checked out rather than a failing of his insurance or company to some how force him to do so. Beyond that, I doubt that he would’ve; with the amount of outwardly casted blame evident in his journal (on women, on their age, on their promiscuity, on their want for black men) leads me to believe that he didn’t he have the self-awareness to possibly identify that he needed help in that fashion.
If the HR department specifically had someone whose job it was to go around and talk to people and see how they’re doing, I don’t see why that would be inappropriate.
The problem is, and this is coming from someone who works in Human Resources, that assumes a level of personal involvement, one would say then responsibility, in an employee’s life that businesses can’t and won’t go into. For one, there is a privacy issue; the question that would be asked is why my work is trying to ask questions about my private work life. If my performance at my job is not suffering, why should they be asking questions about my life? Secondly, there is a liability issue for the employer. By taking a proactive step they are, in essence, assuming a level of responsibility that they may not be able to actually follow-up on.
The reason why EAP exists is because it allows the employer to offer help to employees who need it but the employee has to take responsibility for instigating that request for help.
Say that an employer learns that a person is having domestic issues at home by proactively asking said employee about their personal life. What happens if the employee then goes and does something rash, perhaps has a break down and harms a family member. If it comes out that the employer knew about the possibility of the harm, they could be held responsible for not warning or “doing something” to help the situation. If they did try to somehow get the authorities involved, believing that there MIGHT be the possibility that something could happen, they could be held as responsible for a violation of privacy in the event that nothing actually did happen and for overstepping their boundaries as an employer.
Honestly, I wouldn’t want my employer, as much as I like them, trying to play the part of my mental health professional or getting involved in my personal life.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
I haven’t read or seen anything that stated this. Do you have a link? Given that he “chickened out” at least once, I don’t know that he would have done such a thing.
Google’s your friend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz9jWEdc6VQ
A cry for help isn’t one if all you’re doing is screaming in a locked room.
We can — and should — do better.
Again, I ask: whether he wants it or not?
You do raise a good point about whether or not he could’ve helped himself, and maybe you’re right in that he couldn’t; I certainly don’t think he was aware of how messed up he’d become due to his narcissism. But that begs the question of, when a person is sick and cannot help themself in this way, is it society’s place to force them to try and get better? Do people have the right to be ill?
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Actually, if you go to the YouTube link to a CNN report I posted above his ramblings the topic were hidden. You had to enter in his birthdate and the date he was going to die to see them.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
He wasn’t hiding it. It wasn’t on a locked blogging site like LJ
Actually, if you go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz9jWEdc6VQ and fast forward to about 3:05 you’ll see that his rambling posts about women were hidden; you had to enter his birthdate and the date of his death to see them.
However, I honestly think that if someone would have noticed and offered/suggested, he would have taken it.
Actually, in individuals with hightened levels of narcissism (such as those people with various personality disorders) they are more likely to not take offered mental health help unless they are compelled in some fashion to do so because the problem isn’t with them, at least according to their personal self-view, but with everyone else. The thought process goes “Why don’t they go get help so they can interact with me?”
Obviously, I’m not George Sodini’s shrink and I didn’t know the man but from having read what parts of his blog I could find he had a very narcissistic, self-centered world view in which he was the victim for not being allowed the things he wanted.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
that news report doesn’t say that the blog was locked before he left to go open fire, or if it was locked the entire time he was writing it.
But that begs the question of, when a person is sick and cannot help themself in this way, is it society’s place to force them to try and get better? Do people have the right to be ill?
Well, if he’s going to go shoot people? I’d say not only is it society’s place to force him to try and get better, but it’s society’s RESPONSIBILITY to do so.
I remember a random conversation I was having online with friends years ago, where the subject of polygamy came up. One friend came up with the line “Polygamy isn’t wrong for all the reasons you usually hear, polygamy is wrong because it’s hoarding”.
Which makes sense if you’re talking about cultures where the men are allowed to have multiple wives but women aren’t allowed to have multiple husbands.
This led me to a conjecture why there’s so much violence in the Middle East. Islam in particular has the following bad combination of rules:
1) Polygamy is accepted (but polyandry is not)
2) Masturbation is verboten
3) Homosexuality is verboten
The bad side effect of these three rules is that young men can’t find a wife, because women would rather be the 3rd or 4th wife of a successful guy than the 1st wife of someone in their 20s; furthermore they have no other sexual outlet, either with themselves or with other men.
Is it any wonder that there are so many militants and suicide bombers in the Middle East? All that pent-up sexual frustration has to go somewhere, after all.
While I agree that the social rules of islamic regions have created a perfect storm of disenfranchised young men – you trip over some really important things here getting to your point – most women in islam do not have a choice in whom they marry – it is a contractual wealth exchange between families.
My own interaction with individuals from this population leads me to believe that most women would prefer, even in an arranged marriage, to have a husband “of their own” and are not seeking wealth – You’ve used a western stereotype of ‘gold-digging’ improperly here… and what does that say about how you view women and their motivations in this culture as well?
Homosexuality (if it were to be socially allowed) is not a valid release of sexual pent up tension and frustration for those who are not also bi or homosexual – heterosexual men, denied marriage, are not going to go have gay affairs simply because they “need to fuck something that moves.” What does this say about your perception about homosexual orientation?
Umm… I would like to point out that even though homosexual and bisexual men combined probably only make roughly 10% of the population… and allowing their needs to be met would not very much affect the portion of the straight population which has no sexual outlet… does not seem to be a good reason to deny them that possibility. True, doing only that would be unfair, but I think fin9901 was suggesting to do all of those things, not just any one of them.
I think that was suggesting that if a guy couldn’t get a wife cause some rich slob had 3 or 4 he was doubly doomed because he couldn’t also have sex with himself or another guy. I think the implication was that heterosexual men would want homosexual relationships as a supplement or band-aid to not being given a female partner to marry.
The bad side effect of these three rules is that young men can’t find a wife, because women would rather be the 3rd or 4th wife of a successful guy than the 1st wife of someone in their 20s; furthermore they have no other sexual outlet, either with themselves or with other men.
I’m not disagreeing that sexual repression is negative.. and that things aren’t rather socially fucked up. But to miss the lack of personal choice most islamic women have and to say that they wold were ‘choosing’ to be the 2nd, 3rd, 4th wife and that the 20 year old guy needs a sexual outlet and would go to having one with men once denied a wife is such a twisted view of the oppression of women and sexual orientation, from my point of view, that it needed to be pointed out.
In my ideal world – the original poster would respond with.. “whuups! ..yeah I took a lazy shortcut and the next time I tell this to my friends I am going to stop referring to women as gold diggers just wanting the successful guy and that with the oppression of women in many of these societies and the arranged marriages for political reasons.. marriageable women are sometimes scarce.. And I didn’t really mean to imply that homosexuality was a fallback for brideless young men, but maybe I should say that the sexual needs of the homosexual population are also denied.” .. all creating disenfranchised young men without healthy sexual relationships.
Is your name Eliza, perchance?
*snerk* I am told that my original language choice was pointy – and I feel a little bit strongly enough about this that I didn’t mind so much if there were points, but I would like to be able to express myself without alienating others – so perhaps I should give it another try.
I think all individuals need to speak up and not allow others to get away with these sorts of inaccurate statements.. the next time a news reporter says of an islamic town that “children are playing in the streets” ..no. BOYS might be playing in the streets.. the girls might be watching from behind a screen while being made to stay indoors.
I don’t think your point about sexual repression would have been
lotLOST while losing the misogynist statement about women only choosing to marry successful men as additional brides – when they have no choice at all – and while losing the indication that all 20-somethings should at least have homosexuality to fall back onto.I remember a random conversation I was having online with friends years ago, where the subject of polygamy came up. One friend came up with the line “Polygamy isn’t wrong for all the reasons you usually hear, polygamy is wrong because it’s hoarding”.
Which makes sense if you’re talking about cultures where the men are allowed to have multiple wives but women aren’t allowed to have multiple husbands.
This led me to a conjecture why there’s so much violence in the Middle East. Islam in particular has the following bad combination of rules:
1) Polygamy is accepted (but polyandry is not)
2) Masturbation is verboten
3) Homosexuality is verboten
The bad side effect of these three rules is that young men can’t find a wife, because women would rather be the 3rd or 4th wife of a successful guy than the 1st wife of someone in their 20s; furthermore they have no other sexual outlet, either with themselves or with other men.
Is it any wonder that there are so many militants and suicide bombers in the Middle East? All that pent-up sexual frustration has to go somewhere, after all.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
that news report doesn’t say that the blog was locked before he left to go open fire, or if it was locked the entire time he was writing it.
Google is still your friend: http://www.jongales.com/blog/2009/08/05/george-sodini-suicide-journal/
He kept it locked up, that is the fact. Please, stop making excuses for him.
Well, if he’s going to go shoot people? I’d say not only is it society’s place to force him to try and get better, but it’s society’s RESPONSIBILITY to do so.
Which I agree, in the event that we know that people are actually planning harm (for instance, the number of incidents of children being taken into custody for making particular threats online has risen since Columbine) but if there is no indication that such a person is going to take action, such as the case with George since his friends and family that were interviewed said they had no idea he was going to do this (and I’ve provided two links showing he hid his plans), then society didn’t fail here.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
I’m not making excuses for him, although I don’t think that this additional link proves that it was locked, only that this person thought it was. So maybe it was locked, and maybe it wasn’t.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
The person on the second link corrorborates that the information was hidden and you needed the date of his death to see it! That goes directly with what CNN was reporting. This isn’t “believed” it to be locked, it was. The author of the second post is, in fact, a professional in web publishing.
*shrug* Whatever. Throughout history there have always been people willing to apologize for the horrible actions of others, trying to find reasons to explain actions that are largely unexplainable out of a need to try and reassert some order in their reality.
Have a good day.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
You are making the assumption that this is code that was not put in place the last time he updated the block. All that’s corroborated is that the blog was blocked AFTER the incidents occurred, not that it was blocked the entire time.
Locked after =/= locked always. After all, he had to know the date to put in place to unlock it afterward. He’d already chickened out once.
I am not apologizing for what Sodini did. But there are reasons for why people do things. Figuring that out so it can be prevented in the future is much more important then deciding how much of an “asshole” the man is.
We are our brothers and our sisters keepers.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
You are making the assumption that this is code that was not put in place the last time he updated the block. All that’s corroborated is that the blog was blocked AFTER the incidents occurred, not that it was blocked the entire time.
Locked after =/= locked always. After all, he had to know the date to put in place to unlock it afterward. He’d already chickened out once.
And you are also making the assumption that said date on the lock could not have been changed. Yes, he chickened out once, that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have changed the lock on the code to reflect his new “death date” or that he couldn’t have hidden it much in the past.
It is also interesting to note that said journal had no in-bound traffic, as noted in the second link. If your journal isn’t being pinged by any other website, how is blogging a cry for help? If this had all been in a paper journal in his home, would that have been a cry for help as well?
Figuring that out so it can be prevented in the future is much more important then deciding how much of an “asshole” the man is.
That I can agree with; trying to determine what level of asshole he was is not helpful in any sense. However, when “finding the reasons” turns into survivors guilt/blame then it is not helpful either and that is how I see the argument of “George did this because we, as a society, failed him.” We didn’t fail him. By all accounts no one around him knew what was going on. Beyond that, the only way we could find out the real reasons as to why he did what we did would require him and George isn’t talking.
We are our brothers and our sisters keepers.
I must disagree. Your actions are your own. To say anything else is to remove personal responsibility from individuals which denies them their identity as individuals. I am no more responsible for the man in Texas who lashes out in anger at his kids as he is for me when I cut someone off on the freeway.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
And you are also making the assumption that said date on the lock could not have been changed. Yes, he chickened out once, that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have changed the lock on the code to reflect his new “death date” or that he couldn’t have hidden it much in the past.
No. I’m not making an assumption either way. That’s all.
We obviously have a fundamentally different world view. I suggest we drop it here, allowing us each to go our separate ways, thinking the other is wrong.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
Indeed. Thank you for your time, you express yourself very wel and I hope that you have a good day.
“Hasn’t every guy written something alone the lines of “what women want”.”
I know a few guys who haven’t. Some of them actually approached an individual woman and asked her what she, particularly, was interested in, and whether she would be interested in participating in some hobbies with them. They were young guys too.
“Hasn’t every guy written something alone the lines of “what women want”.”
I know a few guys who haven’t. Some of them actually approached an individual woman and asked her what she, particularly, was interested in, and whether she would be interested in participating in some hobbies with them. They were young guys too.
I disagree. I think that pondering “what women want” on a “purely academic basis” IS objectifying and dehumanizing. Each woman out there is an individual and the the things she wants are going to be much more focused by her class, ethnicity, education, interest, personal politics, chosen associations, sexual orientation, etc. than by the fact that she is gendered female. I think anyone who drops to a ‘what do women really want?’ ..or ‘what do men really want?’ should be confronted by their associates around them to amend it immediately. “What do women, who might end up being interesting in a relationship with me, want? Much more quickly leads to a healthful discussion of “what qualities do I have to offer and what skills can I possibly learn to improve my chances?” Your purely academic question inspires alienation and objectification – which too quickly turns to something approaching blaming the victim.
I disagree. I think that pondering “what women want” on a “purely academic basis” IS objectifying and dehumanizing. Each woman out there is an individual and the the things she wants are going to be much more focused by her class, ethnicity, education, interest, personal politics, chosen associations, sexual orientation, etc. than by the fact that she is gendered female. I think anyone who drops to a ‘what do women really want?’ ..or ‘what do men really want?’ should be confronted by their associates around them to amend it immediately. “What do women, who might end up being interesting in a relationship with me, want? Much more quickly leads to a healthful discussion of “what qualities do I have to offer and what skills can I possibly learn to improve my chances?” Your purely academic question inspires alienation and objectification – which too quickly turns to something approaching blaming the victim.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
For what it’s worth, the archive.org archives would tend to confirm the hypothesis that the journal was always locked, since the archive.org spider has a way of getting into anything not password-protected.
While I agree that the social rules of islamic regions have created a perfect storm of disenfranchised young men – you trip over some really important things here getting to your point – most women in islam do not have a choice in whom they marry – it is a contractual wealth exchange between families.
My own interaction with individuals from this population leads me to believe that most women would prefer, even in an arranged marriage, to have a husband “of their own” and are not seeking wealth – You’ve used a western stereotype of ‘gold-digging’ improperly here… and what does that say about how you view women and their motivations in this culture as well?
Homosexuality (if it were to be socially allowed) is not a valid release of sexual pent up tension and frustration for those who are not also bi or homosexual – heterosexual men, denied marriage, are not going to go have gay affairs simply because they “need to fuck something that moves.” What does this say about your perception about homosexual orientation?
Are men seriously dehumanized by some Cosmo article that ask what men want? I mean seriously I think most men understand the context.
I think that they are, and if any male doesn’t feel dehumanized, that’s a sign that they suffer from the point of view of being part of a “majority” category that often benefits from discriminatory behaviours, which, in this society, is typically the white male category. This is most often characterized by white males not being able to *see* subtle forms of racial or gender discrimination because they’ve never personally faced it. Any form of discrimination happens in their favor. You’ll hear statements like “But black people can get a job if they want to” which leads to assumptions that, if they don’t have a job, it’s because they don’t want one or aren’t trying hard enough for one because the speaker can’t *see* discrimination that doesn’t take the form of cross-burning or dragging behind a car.
As a female, I come face to face every day, with examples of “trivial” generalization, and it has a very real, practical affect on my ability to maneuver through life simply because the generalizations made about women tend to be subordinate, less than, inferior than, more negative than, less in favor than the generalizations made about men. Many of the generalizations that appear to be positive are actually condescending, negative in hiding, which makes them more insidious.
So yes, by definition, generalizing any individual by placing them in an arbitrary category of people that is not merely descriptive, but assigns traits to the category that are not actually shared by all members of that category, is dehumanizing.
And even when the generalization is favorable, everyone suffers for the placement of any individual into a category in this manner.
Cosmo, in particular, is notorious for its atrocious arbitrary categorizations. In fact, there have been several male writers who have spoken up recently about being fired because they did not write what the female editors at Cosmo wanted them to write because it *was not true*.
There has also been studies that show that people’s relationships and their perception of how “happy” they are suffer directly for watching romantic comedies … which happen to have the exact same messages that magazines like Cosmo sell.
The variance among women and among men is far wider for any tested category, than the average variance between women and men as competing groups, and the bell curve between the genders overlaps very, very closely on most things, including such gems as physical strength and ability.
The sooner people realize that there is no such thing as “what women want”, and the sooner they realize that, even academically, placing people in a category to describe a single physical feature and using that to encompass a range of mental and/or emotional traits is a complete waste of time, the better off *everyone’s* relationships will be.
Are men seriously dehumanized by some Cosmo article that ask what men want? I mean seriously I think most men understand the context.
I think that they are, and if any male doesn’t feel dehumanized, that’s a sign that they suffer from the point of view of being part of a “majority” category that often benefits from discriminatory behaviours, which, in this society, is typically the white male category. This is most often characterized by white males not being able to *see* subtle forms of racial or gender discrimination because they’ve never personally faced it. Any form of discrimination happens in their favor. You’ll hear statements like “But black people can get a job if they want to” which leads to assumptions that, if they don’t have a job, it’s because they don’t want one or aren’t trying hard enough for one because the speaker can’t *see* discrimination that doesn’t take the form of cross-burning or dragging behind a car.
As a female, I come face to face every day, with examples of “trivial” generalization, and it has a very real, practical affect on my ability to maneuver through life simply because the generalizations made about women tend to be subordinate, less than, inferior than, more negative than, less in favor than the generalizations made about men. Many of the generalizations that appear to be positive are actually condescending, negative in hiding, which makes them more insidious.
So yes, by definition, generalizing any individual by placing them in an arbitrary category of people that is not merely descriptive, but assigns traits to the category that are not actually shared by all members of that category, is dehumanizing.
And even when the generalization is favorable, everyone suffers for the placement of any individual into a category in this manner.
Cosmo, in particular, is notorious for its atrocious arbitrary categorizations. In fact, there have been several male writers who have spoken up recently about being fired because they did not write what the female editors at Cosmo wanted them to write because it *was not true*.
There has also been studies that show that people’s relationships and their perception of how “happy” they are suffer directly for watching romantic comedies … which happen to have the exact same messages that magazines like Cosmo sell.
The variance among women and among men is far wider for any tested category, than the average variance between women and men as competing groups, and the bell curve between the genders overlaps very, very closely on most things, including such gems as physical strength and ability.
The sooner people realize that there is no such thing as “what women want”, and the sooner they realize that, even academically, placing people in a category to describe a single physical feature and using that to encompass a range of mental and/or emotional traits is a complete waste of time, the better off *everyone’s* relationships will be.
Are men seriously dehumanized by some Cosmo article that ask what men want? I mean seriously I think most men understand the context.
Actually, yeah, I think we are. It’s just that it’s such a socially pervasive kind of dehumanization that we’re accustomed to it.
The same could be aid to be true of, for example, comedians performing in blackface in the 1930s. Were blacks really dehumanized by that? Yeah, they were–but it was so socially pervasive that I bet a lot of folks, white and black, weren’t consciously aware of it.
In fact, in that vein, would your reaction change if, say, a magazine published an articke about “what Jews want” or something like that?
Ugh, thank you for saying what I was trying to say in a much more concise manner! I don’t think I got my point across at all, for all my verbosity in my response.
Are men seriously dehumanized by some Cosmo article that ask what men want? I mean seriously I think most men understand the context.
Actually, yeah, I think we are. It’s just that it’s such a socially pervasive kind of dehumanization that we’re accustomed to it.
The same could be aid to be true of, for example, comedians performing in blackface in the 1930s. Were blacks really dehumanized by that? Yeah, they were–but it was so socially pervasive that I bet a lot of folks, white and black, weren’t consciously aware of it.
In fact, in that vein, would your reaction change if, say, a magazine published an articke about “what Jews want” or something like that?
As a sociologist, I have to disagree that
“We seek different things in employment
We seek different things in relationships
We seek different things in academics”
That does not hold true in robust, well done studies and it most certainly does not hold up on the “micro” level.
And no, I don’t actually have to watch the depressing romantic comedy, because I can choose to date people are are similar enough to me that I don’t have to do something I absolutely detest just to appease them.
As a sociologist, I have to disagree that
“We seek different things in employment
We seek different things in relationships
We seek different things in academics”
That does not hold true in robust, well done studies and it most certainly does not hold up on the “micro” level.
And no, I don’t actually have to watch the depressing romantic comedy, because I can choose to date people are are similar enough to me that I don’t have to do something I absolutely detest just to appease them.
Ugh, thank you for saying what I was trying to say in a much more concise manner! I don’t think I got my point across at all, for all my verbosity in my response.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
you can be picky about partners for reasons that other people can’t immediately see. i’ve frequently dated people who others didn’t find physically attractive even though they felt that i was physically attractive. i’m generally in decent shape, a good dresser, reasonably cute etc. so i’d get comments like ‘eew, why are you with her (or him)’, often with the implication that i should be with the speaker instead and that somehow this comment was all it’d take for me to be like ‘dude, you’re totally right… i never realized you were so sexy’
they’d imply that i was just going for these people because they were an easy catch ’cause i couldn’t possibly care for someone so hideous. but none of them were actually hideous, they were just average looking people. a few too few pounds or a few too many, a nonsymmetrical face etc.
in my case, i’m not interested in giving birth, so i don’t need to find male partners who look like models so that we can have children that can strut around while vogue plays in the background. and sometimes my partners are female.
so obviously you don’t want to date someone who you aren’t sexually attracted to… that’s no fun. but it’s not only possible to have hot sex with someone who doesn’t look like a model, it’s sometimes more likely. i’ve dated models and extremely physically attractive people and they were often on the lazy side in bed. they seemed to feel that i would orgasm merely at the sight of them. and maybe that was the case for their male partners initially =P but it takes a little more effort over here.
anyway, to give you an idea, i won’t date people for any length of time who can’t spell and punctuate, who aren’t witty, who aren’t good in bed or quick learners, etc. etc… but my list of “hell no” just doesn’t happen to include “overweight” or “not physically beautiful”
the way i see it, people all get progressively more physically unappealing as they get older. we all get wrinklier, saggier, less “cool”, and many will get fatter.
but not everyone gets progressively more psychologically unappealing as they get older. far from it, many people learn and grow and accomplish all kinds of awesome things later in life… scientific discoveries, writing novels, artistic achievements, etc. etc.
that isn’t to say that i view everyone i sleep with as a potential life partner. but assuming that you’d want to date someone for an extended period if you liked them, it’s a value proposition. do you want somebody who’s gonna look good on your arm for another 10 years, or do you want somebody who’s gonna make you laugh until tears come to your eyes for another 50 years?
i see it as most efficient to invest my energy into people who thrill me psychologically because their body is a lot more likely to devalue than their mind.
Umm… I would like to point out that even though homosexual and bisexual men combined probably only make roughly 10% of the population… and allowing their needs to be met would not very much affect the portion of the straight population which has no sexual outlet… does not seem to be a good reason to deny them that possibility. True, doing only that would be unfair, but I think fin9901 was suggesting to do all of those things, not just any one of them.
Huh. Given that, in my own very anecdotal experience, most of the poly people I know are women, it seems a bit, you know. Odd.
Also, given the feminist involvement in poly movements, the way that most of the major Poly Spokespeople (TM) seem to be women, and, let’s be frank, the way that girls tend to have a lot more socialisation in communication and relationships than boys..
um…
yup.
I may have to go with *blinkblink* as well here.
Re: It’s about not being so damn picky
but that you are not tremendously picky about partners.
Can you be anymore conceited and full of yourself?
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
IAWTC.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
Thank you.
Is your name Eliza, perchance?
Re: It's about not being so damn picky
I could try. Is there any money in it?
This was awesome. You’ve articulated beautifully the things I’ve been muttering incoherently since this all went down.
We need to see more and more people thinking about how he fits into the pattern of *normal* social behavior and what that says about society rather than focusing on what was aberrant about him.
This was awesome. You’ve articulated beautifully the things I’ve been muttering incoherently since this all went down.
We need to see more and more people thinking about how he fits into the pattern of *normal* social behavior and what that says about society rather than focusing on what was aberrant about him.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
I thought you said that you used Archive.org to confirm that this page was not a fake?
I think that was suggesting that if a guy couldn’t get a wife cause some rich slob had 3 or 4 he was doubly doomed because he couldn’t also have sex with himself or another guy. I think the implication was that heterosexual men would want homosexual relationships as a supplement or band-aid to not being given a female partner to marry.
The bad side effect of these three rules is that young men can’t find a wife, because women would rather be the 3rd or 4th wife of a successful guy than the 1st wife of someone in their 20s; furthermore they have no other sexual outlet, either with themselves or with other men.
I’m not disagreeing that sexual repression is negative.. and that things aren’t rather socially fucked up. But to miss the lack of personal choice most islamic women have and to say that they wold were ‘choosing’ to be the 2nd, 3rd, 4th wife and that the 20 year old guy needs a sexual outlet and would go to having one with men once denied a wife is such a twisted view of the oppression of women and sexual orientation, from my point of view, that it needed to be pointed out.
In my ideal world – the original poster would respond with.. “whuups! ..yeah I took a lazy shortcut and the next time I tell this to my friends I am going to stop referring to women as gold diggers just wanting the successful guy and that with the oppression of women in many of these societies and the arranged marriages for political reasons.. marriageable women are sometimes scarce.. And I didn’t really mean to imply that homosexuality was a fallback for brideless young men, but maybe I should say that the sexual needs of the homosexual population are also denied.” .. all creating disenfranchised young men without healthy sexual relationships.
*snerk* I am told that my original language choice was pointy – and I feel a little bit strongly enough about this that I didn’t mind so much if there were points, but I would like to be able to express myself without alienating others – so perhaps I should give it another try.
I think all individuals need to speak up and not allow others to get away with these sorts of inaccurate statements.. the next time a news reporter says of an islamic town that “children are playing in the streets” ..no. BOYS might be playing in the streets.. the girls might be watching from behind a screen while being made to stay indoors.
I don’t think your point about sexual repression would have been
lotLOST while losing the misogynist statement about women only choosing to marry successful men as additional brides – when they have no choice at all – and while losing the indication that all 20-somethings should at least have homosexuality to fall back onto.Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
I used archive.org to confirm that the domain has been present and active for at least five years. The journal entries don’t extend back that full five years in the archive, but to propose that the journal is fake would mean to assume that the person responsible for faking them had at some point in the recent future taken control of the domain and gotten the entries into the archive, which I find a little farfetched. 🙂
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
maybe I don’t understand how it works, but if the page was password protected, how would archive.org know that THIS PAGE was updated in real time? And if the entries are in the archive, how were they locked?
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
It wouldn’t. But it does confirm that Sodini did use that domain for a long time, which I think takes the wind out of the sails of the “someone else fabricated the journal” hypothesis.
I’d find that hypothesis less implausible if he had no online footprint whatsoever and then suddenly someone said he had this journal, but that isn’t the case.
Re: I think there's a critical point being missed here
ah, I see. Fair enough.
ditto.
Even if there is one fish out there that you think is just perfect for you, catching that fish is not consented to by the fish and most often is not beneficial for said fish, either.
This saying, while I understand the general sentiment, does still smack of onesidedness in a relationship, and entitlement on the part of the fisherman. What does the fish get out of the exchange?
Ferret!!!!!
I love your icon. Just had to share. 🙂
That’s making the assumption that said fish isn’t looking to get caught. If the fish doesn’t want to get caught, then I would argue that wasn’t the fish for that particular fishermen.
It could also be a problem with the analogy and the dynamic it sets up.
Regardless, I do think that there is someone for everyone. I don’t think there is “The ONE!” but I think there are a number of people in the world who could fit that bill for each other just on pure statistical chance alone.
This.
I’m coming late to the game, and I don’t know anything about George, but I have a different take on the “poly is selfish” comment. I never interpreted it as “You’re taking all the chicks (or guys) and not leaving any for the rest of us.” I always thought it was more the “having your cake and eating it too” argument. There’s an assumption that poly people just want to screw as many people as they can without regard for their primary partner’s feelings. To me it’s people being unable to comprehend that the partners of poly people 1.) Don’t necessarily feel hurt by their loved one pursuing other partners and 2.) Have the freedom to do the same if they wish.
I’ve heard the “having your cake and eating it too” argument, and never understood it. (What’s the “cake” that’s being referred to? Relationships? Sex? Is it the notion that you’re having a relationship while also getting the casual sex you’re only ‘supposed’ to have when you’re not in a relationship?)
An old sweetie of mine responded to that argument with “Polyamory isn’t about having your cake and eating it too, it’s about taking on the responsibility of managing the whole damn bakery!” 🙂
An excellent comeback! I feel a lot like I’m managing a bakery these days.
I’m coming late to the game, and I don’t know anything about George, but I have a different take on the “poly is selfish” comment. I never interpreted it as “You’re taking all the chicks (or guys) and not leaving any for the rest of us.” I always thought it was more the “having your cake and eating it too” argument. There’s an assumption that poly people just want to screw as many people as they can without regard for their primary partner’s feelings. To me it’s people being unable to comprehend that the partners of poly people 1.) Don’t necessarily feel hurt by their loved one pursuing other partners and 2.) Have the freedom to do the same if they wish.
The only time I ever felt dehumanized was when a girl said “I know a lot of guys just like you”. That I was irked that on a micro scale she couldn’t see me.
This is the behavior that many women face all the time. Near constantly. “I kow what women want and like ..all women like _____.” Other people, often men and sometimes other women, make gross generalizations that should not be tolerated.
What if you felt like that all the time – every time you met someone new? What if they didn’t bother to get to know you until after you lived up to their expectations about you? I’m sorry you felt dehumanized, objectified, invisible. Perhaps you, too, could now encourage yourself and those around you to stop using generalized statements about what ‘geeky guys’ want.. or what all women want.
The only time I ever felt dehumanized was when a girl said “I know a lot of guys just like you”. That I was irked that on a micro scale she couldn’t see me.
This is the behavior that many women face all the time. Near constantly. “I kow what women want and like ..all women like _____.” Other people, often men and sometimes other women, make gross generalizations that should not be tolerated.
What if you felt like that all the time – every time you met someone new? What if they didn’t bother to get to know you until after you lived up to their expectations about you? I’m sorry you felt dehumanized, objectified, invisible. Perhaps you, too, could now encourage yourself and those around you to stop using generalized statements about what ‘geeky guys’ want.. or what all women want.
Interesting, for my response encouraged you to come respond to it?
Also, I am not seeking responses or attention – I am challenging, in good faith gestures, things that appear false or ‘wrong’ to me so that as a whole my community of people I might interact with or exchange ideas with can become better as a whole. Most people work out their ideas about race, prejudice, sexism, etc. among their family and friends and an idea left unchallenged or undiscussed among a whole community of individuals does not allow the dialogue to improve, evolve, or synergistically expand.
To recap I essentially said:
I agree with your basic premise!
I have a problem with two parts of your supportive argument
Part A of your supportive argument seems false to my experience because of this – perhaps you should consider revising your statement?
Also, this might reveal something kinda embarrassing about the way you view Part A – what do you think about that / what are you going to do about it?
Part B looks like a logical argument fail that ignores what a lot of people say is their basic way of thinking/being/feeling. That might be pretty messed up!
What are you going to do/say about that?
While my questions WERE pointed questions about what these 2 things (A and B) said about – I did not attack the individual personally, name call, or lambast the point that was attempted to be made. Actually, it is my hope that dialogue such as this would encourage a more articulate statement on the main point that can be used in the future!
Similarly to my disagreements with your statements in the thread you and I originally encountered each other in, I feel that it is important not to ignore it when others around us make statements that lead to further disenfranchisement of a section of the population and misunderstanding based on stereotypes.
Going back to yours and my disagreement I think allowing gross generalization statements according to gender by any friend or associate without nudging them under the arm and saying – “you know that not all are any one thing right? maybe you should revise your statement to say what you actually mean..” – is turning a blind eye to the patterns of thinking and objectification that lead to misogyny, racism, hate crimes, murder, and even genocide.
I will CONTINUE to nudge under the arms of others when they unapologetically fall back on these gross generalizations because I wish to increase the quality of the dialogue which occurs in our public and private lives.. I wish to be surrounded by reasoning individuals who are willing to examine their beliefs/opinions/prejudices/mannerisms to improve them.
Interesting, for my response encouraged you to come respond to it?
Also, I am not seeking responses or attention – I am challenging, in good faith gestures, things that appear false or ‘wrong’ to me so that as a whole my community of people I might interact with or exchange ideas with can become better as a whole. Most people work out their ideas about race, prejudice, sexism, etc. among their family and friends and an idea left unchallenged or undiscussed among a whole community of individuals does not allow the dialogue to improve, evolve, or synergistically expand.
To recap I essentially said:
I agree with your basic premise!
I have a problem with two parts of your supportive argument
Part A of your supportive argument seems false to my experience because of this – perhaps you should consider revising your statement?
Also, this might reveal something kinda embarrassing about the way you view Part A – what do you think about that / what are you going to do about it?
Part B looks like a logical argument fail that ignores what a lot of people say is their basic way of thinking/being/feeling. That might be pretty messed up!
What are you going to do/say about that?
While my questions WERE pointed questions about what these 2 things (A and B) said about – I did not attack the individual personally, name call, or lambast the point that was attempted to be made. Actually, it is my hope that dialogue such as this would encourage a more articulate statement on the main point that can be used in the future!
Similarly to my disagreements with your statements in the thread you and I originally encountered each other in, I feel that it is important not to ignore it when others around us make statements that lead to further disenfranchisement of a section of the population and misunderstanding based on stereotypes.
Going back to yours and my disagreement I think allowing gross generalization statements according to gender by any friend or associate without nudging them under the arm and saying – “you know that not all are any one thing right? maybe you should revise your statement to say what you actually mean..” – is turning a blind eye to the patterns of thinking and objectification that lead to misogyny, racism, hate crimes, murder, and even genocide.
I will CONTINUE to nudge under the arms of others when they unapologetically fall back on these gross generalizations because I wish to increase the quality of the dialogue which occurs in our public and private lives.. I wish to be surrounded by reasoning individuals who are willing to examine their beliefs/opinions/prejudices/mannerisms to improve them.
I’ve heard the “having your cake and eating it too” argument, and never understood it. (What’s the “cake” that’s being referred to? Relationships? Sex? Is it the notion that you’re having a relationship while also getting the casual sex you’re only ‘supposed’ to have when you’re not in a relationship?)
An old sweetie of mine responded to that argument with “Polyamory isn’t about having your cake and eating it too, it’s about taking on the responsibility of managing the whole damn bakery!” 🙂
An excellent comeback! I feel a lot like I’m managing a bakery these days.
Thank you.
Years ago when I was a teenager and a virgin, I did as many kids do I sought out advice of my contemporaries when trying to decide if pre-marital sex was a good idea.
A male individual I thought of as a friend decided to add his bit of advice to the conversation.
He explained to me why he would not marry a woman who was not a virgin. I can’t remember his exact words, but the whole little speech made perfect sense to him. And sounded very much like your summation. He wanted to buy brand new cars, not used cars.
I thanked him for his input. He puffed up quite proud of his accomplishment. I then explained that his opinion had convinced me to rid myself of this virginity thing as quickly as possible. I did not want to wind up with an asshole like him, even by accident.
“I did not want to wind up with an asshole like him, even by accident.”
*rolls on desk laughing* I’m glad I came back for another look at this comment thread just for that – it’s classic. Very well put!
Thank you.
Years ago when I was a teenager and a virgin, I did as many kids do I sought out advice of my contemporaries when trying to decide if pre-marital sex was a good idea.
A male individual I thought of as a friend decided to add his bit of advice to the conversation.
He explained to me why he would not marry a woman who was not a virgin. I can’t remember his exact words, but the whole little speech made perfect sense to him. And sounded very much like your summation. He wanted to buy brand new cars, not used cars.
I thanked him for his input. He puffed up quite proud of his accomplishment. I then explained that his opinion had convinced me to rid myself of this virginity thing as quickly as possible. I did not want to wind up with an asshole like him, even by accident.
“I did not want to wind up with an asshole like him, even by accident.”
*rolls on desk laughing* I’m glad I came back for another look at this comment thread just for that – it’s classic. Very well put!
His very first sentence should prevent that misunderstanding.
However, I think most sheeple are unable to even comprehend the concept.
Even if you used large print and simple words.
Some things you just have to write for the target audience. I think the article was brilliant and refreshing.
Great post! Here’s my thoughts on the same subject:
http://www.blackdove.wordpress.com
Also. . .I know it’s hard to understand, but after so many years of rejection, a persons perspective gets really SKEWED. They blame, starting with themselves, then turning it outward.
People need love to survive, really, and this guy is just proof to that effect.
He was obviously sick and fucked up, and there’s no excuse for that, but I do feel for him.
Thanks for the informative entry!
wait, that’s just to my blog. . .sorry, here’s the link to the relevent post. . .
http://blackdove.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/isnt-one-enough/
Great post! Here’s my thoughts on the same subject:
http://www.blackdove.wordpress.com
Also. . .I know it’s hard to understand, but after so many years of rejection, a persons perspective gets really SKEWED. They blame, starting with themselves, then turning it outward.
People need love to survive, really, and this guy is just proof to that effect.
He was obviously sick and fucked up, and there’s no excuse for that, but I do feel for him.
Thanks for the informative entry!
wait, that’s just to my blog. . .sorry, here’s the link to the relevent post. . .
http://blackdove.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/isnt-one-enough/
Actually, I really really doubt this. The social dynamic toward same-sex relationships is entirely different.
What makes some men feel entitled to sex with women, to having a woman of their very own, is in part due to a lot of societal pressures to do with patriarchy, mysogyny, and ubermasculinity. To be recognized as a Real Man, you have to have a woman… And women are just possessions to be owned, status symbols to be acquired… To claim your place at the top of the heirarchy, you need to get you a woman!
These pressures and poisonous messages don’t really have analogues in male same-sex relationships. The sought-after sex is the same sex as the seeker, so there’s less temptation to view the sought-after sex as being lesser than oneself. And, sadly, the patriarchy (or, better put, kyriarchy) reserves its rewards for men getting themselves a woman, not another man. There are certainly mainstream messages telling us all “without a partner, you are incomplete!” but there are very few carrying that message precisely to gay men; and there are a lot of mainstream messages, tragically, telling gay men that finding a fulfilling relationship or even a satisfying one-night-stand will only confirm their failure to be Real True Men.
This isn’t to dismiss that someone with violent tendencies, entitlement issues, and narcissism might not go Sodini just because he’s gay–but the social dynamics at play simply don’t map cleanly onto the example of Sodini himself and the scary legions of Sodini wannabes out there.
I always interpreted the “greedy” comment similarly. People making it to me, without even knowing that *I’m* poly (hi! female poly person!), make it about sexual morality:
* Can’t you be satisfied with your loving partner? It’s greedy to want more than they can give you!
* Don’t you have responsibilities to your loving partner? It’s greedy to seek satisfaction elsewhere and neglect them!
None of those can be easily countered by “My partner can find other lovers too! I’m not hogging all the freedom here!” because the basic premise my correspondents have here is that we are all obliged to be satisfied with one person, and that if we are seeing other people we are by definition neglecting the needs of that one person.
The one time I tried to explain how two people might simply not require monogamy from each other as part of the wedding vows, I got some vicious sarcasm and assumptions-of-bad-faith-arguing in response. I really don’t know what to do with conversations like that. I marked the person down mentally as “Someone not to ‘come out’ to about being poly,” and moved on. Uncomfortably.
Re: I think there’s a critical point being missed here
Hey Dyer ( Cubs’ Fan?) – Great post on George Sodini! I withdrew( or
was thrown out as women would say it) from the ‘dating game’ a long time ago as too square, too boring or whatever.
I am destined to be alone,and that is fine, but I now wear the same “asshole” label that they gave George Sodini.
As long as I just eat it, forget it and accept the sick, loser,
loner label, everybody is O.K. George Sodini had another way to
“cope” with the label. Let us try to improve life and prevent
some of these tragedies from happening!