Update: Mark Steyn writes:
Kathy Shaidle on the annual December 6th massacre mawkishness. She makes a point that should be repeated again and again: Canadian women died that day not because Canadian men are too macho but because, au contraire, the ones in that room were quite the opposite — too socially conditioned to act as men. Radical feminist triumphalism — of which the December 6th observances are a particularly grotesque example — is part of a civilizational suicide cult. But at least when everyone stampedes for the lifeboats there won’t be any of this “women and children first” nonsense, eh?
Blogger TJIC writes:
“Relapsed Catholic goes on about how a mass murderer picked off a bunch of women [re: the Montreal Massacre] and absolutely no one tried to rush him and disarm him.
“She�s right; that is indeed pathetic. Long before 9/11, I was arguing that whenever anyone starts shooting into a crowd, or trying to take hostages, the only proper reaction is an immediate human wave attack…”
In my original post, I’d quoted James Fulford as saying there were over 200 students in the lecture hall. It looks like he misread a CrimeLibrary article, so I have added a correction to my original post and emailed Fulford.
Does anyone know how many people were in the lecture hall that evening?
More importantly, can anyone explain why Canadians insist on treating the Montreal Massacre like it was Dieppe? Boston doesn’t hold memorials for the Strangler’s victims every year. L.A. doesn’t fly flags at half-staff to remember Sharon Tate.
What is with us? Is this like the results of the CBC’s Greatest Canadian or the Post’s Public Intellectual contest? Canada is so pathetic that we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with something to either feel proud or ashamed of?
Discuss.
much as it pains me to use a government source-
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020925/d020925b.htm
are just the straight stats from 2002 back. give the civil servants some time to compile the next years up to 2005. anyway its a different picture than Pravda paints.
What is this an ignorance convention? A competition, to see who can display the least amount of knowledge about the issue of violence against women? How about this; instead of just looking inside your head for the answer, try reading something.
“I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart.” — Stephen Colbert.
Thank you to Kathy Shaidle for opening the discussion on this topic.
Thanks as well to the vast majority of contributors here who made genuine attempts to discuss thoughtfully and at length the numerous, weighty issues flowing from the topic.
I appreciate that this topic and the thread of comments inspired some very passionate responses on a number of sensitive issues but I offer no thanks to those whose contributions failed to rise above insults and name calling.
To those who felt compelled to resort to such tactics to the virtual exclusion of any substantive content, I would invite you to try to make a responsible and meaningful contribution next time.
Sure Wade, though I disagree with you that there have been very many thoughtful posts here. Mainly it’s been a lot of “here’s what I think”, as if thinking women are safe in this society makes it so.
The explanation, Kathy, is that the women were killed because men were being men. And so for one day of the year, and only one day, we are asked to reflect upon the violence that men do to women. Not just murder, as in this case, but the everyday kind of violence. From daterape, to abuse within a relationship — whether it be psychological or physical — to sexual harrassment.
No, violence is not a one-way street; on one side of the divide we have a freeway and on the other side we have a dirt road.
No, not every man commits violence against women. But when half of women in Canada have been the victim of at least one act of physical or sexual assault since the age of sixteen, enough men do that we can take one fucking day to talk about it.
As for some of the thoughtful comments on your post, of the, “why didn’t the men rush him?” variety, it’s generally well known that the more people there are on the scene, the less likely it is that someone will intervene. But really, these people are missing the point entirely. It’s not just about the women who died that day, it’s about all the women who have died since, and will die next year, at the hands of their husbands and boyfriends, because Canadians refuse to have a frank discussion about the problem with Frank, and Jim, and Bob, and so on.
Ted,
While I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your submission, you are in error on one fundamental point:
“is that the women were killed because men were being men”
Wrong. Those women were killed because of the actions of a disturbed, armed, individual, and the refusal of others to intervene. Abusing or being violent towards women is not a fundamental part of being male. Likewise, being abused is not a fundamental part of being female.
While I am in full agreement that spousal abuse, date rape, etc. are serious issues, linking those issues to the events in Montreal is wrong. It exploits a tragic event for political purposes.
I have a problem with the term “violence agianst women” because it links several seperate issues together in a misleading way. It over-generalizes the cause of these problems to the detriment of a mostly-innocent identifiable group. It would be like saying that the problem with gun crimes is “black people”, which is, of course, absurd. No one has said for example, that the recent shootings in Toronto, are a case of “blacks being blacks.”
Also, I don’t think “keeping score” on a gender-on-gender basis is a helpful means of discussing violence. Men experiance, on average, an equal degree of violence in their lives as women. The difference is that the violence is mostly man-on-man. The vast majority of murders and suicides in this country happen to men. Men overwhelmingly occupy the most dangerous jobs. But I digress. The point is that tracking violence in a men vs. women basis fails to capture the complexity of reality.
I’m in favour of raising awareness on spousal abuse and the other issues you’ve mentioned. But don’t link it to Montreal and don’t pretend that any amount of honest discussion amoung ordinary Canadian men would’ve changed what happened that day.
GM,
I debated not including that line, because it references a body of feminist literature that discusses in much greater detail than we can get into here, how agresssiveness and violence are instilled in boys as part of their development into men. I shall leave it at agree to disagree.
I disagree that the event should not be politicized. What is everyone’s problem with politizing things? What do you understand that term to mean that it is necessarily and always a bad thing?
Violence-against-women doesn’t deny that violence comes in many forms against many different people, men to. I also have a problem with the term, but only that it doesn’t make it more clear, the problem is male-violence-against women.
I’m sorry you don’t think gender is worth thinking about. It is the single most important factor when talking about violence and criminality. If I told you there were two people in a room and one of them was a murderer, then asked you to guess based on one question which was the murderer, the one question you should ask is “Are they both males?” If not, you pick the male. Isn’t it amazing that the most common characteristic of violent people is that they’re pretty much all males? Why isn’t that worth thinking about? Because for the longest time it wasn’t. Until women began policitizing the issue it wasn’t discussed.
Nothing we do today will change what happened that day, that statement is so true as to be idiotic. Why’d I say it, oh yeah, you implied I was suggesting it. Moving on, I will link it to Montreal, because male violence against women should be politicized. Because we can’t have a discussion about violence without talking about who does it. Men. Men to men, men to women, but pretty much men. I will continue to link it because of Marc Lepines reasons for going in there. He killed them because they were women. How much more politiced can we make that really? He took to the utmost extreme violence against women and what’s shocking is that it took that event to for us to recognize the everyday kind of violence that women experience.
Nothing stops these political movements from working together, so if you feel passionately about violence against men by men, then I may suggest that you will find much of value in the feminist literature on male violence. You will find allies.
If you don’t care to fight that fight then fine, but let those who want to talk about violence against women do so, without arm-chair theorists complaining that feminists aren’t solving the issue of all violence so they’re hypocrites, or wrong, or whatever.
PS. GM.,
The tone is all wrong, and I’m sorry about that. But I am just so flippin’ angry at the ignorance in this discussion.
I mean, take Ironlady, where she says “Frankly, I have more respect for a prostitute or stripper who’ll go outand work her ass off rather than sit passively and wait for the government to look after her.And you won’t find one among them who claims to be a victim, but they will be labelled victims by the left who have no qualms about using their lifestyle to further their agenda.”
Arggh! Like, I’d bet $10 she’s never talked to a prostitute, never mind actually read any research on the lives of prostitutes. Fuckin’ read some of the prostitutes stories, and how they’re dads fuckin’ raped them when they were fucking 11 and then fucking write that again Ironlady.
Ted, I think everyone in this discussion will agree that male violence against women is a serious problem. Where there is resistance to your viewpoint, it comes from your premise where you state that there is:
“a body of feminist literature that discusses in much greater detail than we can get into here, how agresssiveness and violence are instilled in boys as part of their development into men”.
Therein lies the concern. It is an oversimplication that violence is exclusively male malfeasance and that men are somehow raised to be violent specifically against women. I do not accept that premise. Most decent males are hugely indoctrinated AGAINST any violent condcut towards women. That is where the feminist literature is mistaken. I also have a real concern where a particular group suggests that another group is somehow inherently evil.
Also consider the following:
1) there are women who are the violent partners in a relationship
2) in those relationships the male partner is afraid of being ridiculed by reporting the abuse so the full extent of the problem is likely understated
3) in order to “even up” the physical differences, the female partner will sometimes resort to the use of a weapon in her assault on her male partner
Concededly the incidence of domestic violence is more often perpetrated by the male but that does not explain the feminist approach which asserts that violence is a trait reserved exclusively to men.
The feminist approach also fails to acknowledge that violence perpetrated by females is on the rise and that it is being perpetrated by younger and younger women. Furthermore the severity of that violence is escalating.
I would submit that we should not start from the premise that it is only a certain type of violence needs to emphasized over another. From the perspective of the victim, regardless of the race, ethnic background or indeed the gender of the attacker, the pain and injury of the assault is the same. It is the violence which must be condemned.
Another uncomfortable point for feminists is how to explain why boys are being indoctrinated to be violent when there are so many single parent families today where the woman is the primary caregiver. If women are anti-violence, why are we not seeing a reduction in violence by men in general, and against women in particular?
And please do not say it is because men are inherently violent. Male babies do not come out of the womb with an M-16 in their hands ready to annihilate the enemy of the day. It doesn’t work that way. The military must get a hold of the impressionable adolescent and literally brainwash him into thinking that the enemy must be killed. The military employs a lengthy indoctrination which plays upon the need to belong, the need to feel patriotic, that the male must protect society and ultimately it must dehumanize the enemy. The pysche of the young male must be bent and reformed in order to make him into a military killing machine—violence is NOT instinctive. We must TEACH violence in order for the individual to become violent.
I say again, the alleged indoctrination of the male for violence in our society is not indiscrimate as the feminists allege; if violence is taught at all, he is told he can only appropriately use violence to protect himself and those weaker members of society who cannot adequately protect themselves.
Those who oppose the feminist premise of indiscrimate male violence are the decent law abiding male members of society who are fed up with being lumped into the same category as those thugs who do perpetrate such violence. That approach does nothing to solve the problem and does not inspire any useful dialogue toward finding solutions.
Ted,
First, it was not my intention to imply that any discussion NOW would change the events that happened in Montreal. My point was that no amount of discussion between ordinary Canadian men would have done anything BEFOREHAND.
Why? Because regardless of the general societal consensus, there will always be certian individuals who act violently. My point is that it is not appropriate to ascribe a problem of a small minority of men to the entire population.
In my view, the actions of a single person not representative of any group is not a political issue.
You’ve referred to a body of femminist literature. I am familiar with it (I did a minor in philosophy, so I have some knowledge of it). The problem with this literature is that is (mostly) based on unprovable, vaguely-defined, and unfalsafiable [sic?] assumptions and largely annecdotal evidence. I know of it, but I need real evidence to take it seriously.
I will agree that there are people, (mostly, but not all male) who are conditioned to use violence as a means of asserting power over those they percieve to be weaker then they are. But my point is that this maladaptive characteristic is largely socially/economically determined and not an intrinsic part of being male, and being male is not an intrinsic part of being violent.
Labelling this “male violence against women” misdiagnoses the problem. It is both too general (because it implicates men generally, rather than only maladapted men) and to specific (because it only names one victim/perpetrator group). “Male violence agianst women” is a SUBSET of a problem, it is not the WHOLE problem, and treating this as a problem “with men” will not yield any useful answers.
Btw, thank you for raising the tone of this discussion. Please keep it that way.
PS:
I’m not suggesting that femminists don’t have good intentions, or that protecting women from violence is not a worthy cause (I’ve been in the anti-violence walks and I’ve worn the ribbons, occasionally donated to shelters. etc).
What I am suggesting is that in order to come up with a real solution to the problem, you have to address the entire problem on a fundamental level or it won’t work. Fixing a wheel on a totalled car won’t help the car get back on the road.
Well put GM.
The feminist assertion of inherent male violence is posited as a self-evident truth; it is in fact junk science. There is no empirical evidence to back up the premise.
On a more sinister level, those who dare to question that premise are ridiculed and demonized–thus effectively stifling responsible debate, alternate viewpoints and the possibility of refutation.
I archive all my rants so I don’t have to try remember MY talking points:
..sent last year
“RE: Ecole Polytechnique:
Thanks go to the National Media for their yearly reminder, that nothing is more
dangerous than a sexually frustrated young male college student(circa 1989).
In wide open Montreal, of all places, surely one of the female students could
have swallowed an extra shot of vodka sometime; maybe she would have found
something to like about this guy. He was smart enough to get to college. It’s
not like he was a Kennedy,annointed with lawyer and a free pass!
As it was, the college she-males (I won’t use the term “men”) you know the
social types, who the ladies all preen and fussed over, did nothing to help out
at all. They just could not get involved. Running around the corner and hiding,
guarding their precious “jewels”. Not a creative thought entered their capable
(?) minds. Cowering in their safe ratholes, while 14 women were gunned down,
you’d think the idea would pop up, that there was a crisis. Please keep
reminding us of THAT anniversary!
Reminds me of generaissimo Romeo Dallaire, of Ruwanda fame. Another ‘ti gar who
was frustrated in a situation, where he couldn’t do anything. Couldn’t leave his
cubicle to intervene and possibly jeopardise that nice pension soon to come.THAT
he surely would regret!
Remember, we disbanded the Airborn Regiment for playing too rough……see how
this works?
Meanwhile again on the other side of the walls, scores of people are
slaughtered,screaming. But we have justification, and our concience is clear.
This passes as the actions of a hero. One hundred percent pain averse, thus
risk-free. That spells success in our society.
You know something? There are times where you just got to do it, hang the
consequences. But if no one bucks the trend, the status quo, society suffers and
is weakened.
We desperately need risk-takers, doing what to them is right. History will judge
them fairly even if public opinion at the time dissapproves. Churchill,
MacArthur, and Sir John A. made their stands,and we benefited.
Standing still is a recourse today left to the timid; otherwise known as the
forgettable. The unremarkable. History knows not their names. Nor actions,for
they had none.Thank god the media reminds us of the names of these
lightweights….
We have become used to the notion that heros are only found on cable tv. Who’s
fault is this?
….tsk..tsk
“The feminist assertion of inherent male violence is posited as a self-evident truth”
Go ahead and find one feminist who has made this claim. Oh, and made it in a peer reviewed journal. If you do, I leave and never return.
I mean, feminist’s claim the exact opposite. That men aren’t born violent, so why are they?
“What I am suggesting is that in order to come up with a real solution to the problem, you have to address the entire problem on a fundamental level or it won’t work. Fixing a wheel on a totalled car won’t help the car get back on the road.”
Ah, well, your analogy is flawed. For the most part, feminism is concerned with protecting women. Nothing wrong with that. We all have our issues. Some people donate money to breast cancer research but not MS. Hey, we all pick our battles right? Ok, so the question is does feminism have to talk about all violence in order to deal with violence against women? This is a large debate in feminist literature. The answer, in so far as there is one, has been that some feminist’s have remained focused on violence against women, while others have taken on violence by men against women and men, and yes, even violence by women.
So your analogy. It would be more productive to think of violence like cancer. It may be the case that when femnist makes society safer for women from violence for men they’ll also make it safer for men from violence from other men. Or it may not. Maybe the cure for breast cancer takes care of colon cancer or maybe not. Violence is not some monlithic thing that is done in the same way to all people and all people are not affected by different types of violence in the same way. So your analogy is flawed in that presents as a clear logical fact that which is only plausibly true, but not necessarily. Thus, the cancer anology which seems to me to be more accurate since it shows what might be true and what might not, and also justified why feminists are not foolish for choosing to focus on that which is most important to them, though really, I believe that should be enough.
Okay Ted,
I’m starting to enjoy this debate….
Our fundamental difference, in my view, deals with methods.
Let’s take the cancer analogy. If there are several manifestations of the same underlying disease, I would think that the most effective way of dealing with the illness would be to identify the features common to all of the manifestations, and from those common features identify the fundamental mechanisms by which the disease operates. Seperating the common, fundamental features of the disease from the incidental particulars of each manifestation allows us to address those fundamentals, and perhaps develop a treatment.
So what is the fundamental mechanism of violence? I would say it has something to do with an inappropriately expressed desire for power/domination. Some femminists would say that gender is intrinsic to this. I disagree and think that making the discussion about gender merely clouds the issue.
Making the debate about gender, rather than power, also has the incidental effect of appearing to implicate an entire gender (though it is not the intention, usually)which adds hostility to the debate and clouds the issue further.
That said, the charitable work done by femminist groups is, of course, laudable.
I’ve gone on much too long, so this concludes my submissions.
Ted:
You challenged me to name a feminist whose views conformed to my quote:
“The feminist assertion of inherent male violence is posited as a self-evident truth”
Alright how about Gloria Steinem?
She states:
“Patriarchy REQUIRES violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself…. The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home.”
From Revolution from Within: A Book of Self Esteem (1992) pp. 259-261
Hardly can there be a more clear statement that physical menace towards women is the norm in our society.
Given your penchant for reading please have a look at the book “Who Stole Feminism” by Christina Hoff Sommers and in particular Chapter 9 which discusses the domestic violence issue.
There are two disturbing facts from that chapter. The first is that are surveys that found that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men assualt their partners. Those surveys found that this applies to both minor and severe assaults. p. 194
Secondly, she also notes that lesbians may be assaulting each other at the same rate as heterosexuals. She lists several books and articles which document the problem of violence among lesbians. pp. 199-200
GM has it right—-these are acts of a maladapted group. However they transcend any alleged patriarchy or gender bias. The vast majority of these acts are committed by the criminally inclined not by just by men who act this way because, as you put it, “they are men”.
We must get past the gender bias blame and start focussing on real solutions. That will not be an easy task. As GM points out this tends to be socially/economically based issue although it certainly is not restricted to that. In far too many situations it is the result of alcohol abuse, a problem that cuts across all socio-economic levels.
It should be of some small comfort that the problem is no longer hidden under a conspiracy of silence. It is out in the open and has been roundly condemned. Also the police and the Courts have adopted a zero tolerance policy. A jail term for a first offence is not unheard of.
GMSo what is the fundamental mechanism of violence? I would say it has something to do with an inappropriately expressed desire for power/domination. Some femminists would say that gender is intrinsic to this. I disagree and think that making the discussion about gender merely clouds the issue.
Well, at least we’re further along than we were. I of course am one of those who would argue that gender and power are intrically linked, but as i’ve worked out my anger at this thread, I am ready to leave it there. Regards.
Wade You have risen to the challenge, though I do not think you have met it. I read the quote by G.S. as saying that violence is inherent and implied to a system of patriarchy, a point with which I agree. Yet, it is possible for men and women to resist these larger forces. And if women ever hope to overthrow such a system they will need men as allies. I would hazard a guess that we are using terms like men differently, which is supported by your continued misunderstanding of my earlier remark that the women died because men were being men. A poor way to make a complicated point, I admit.
I am aware of the research that claims to show that women are as violent as men, at least, research that claims they are as violent but in different ways. Such research is support for GM’s position that gender and power are not related as closely as feminists would argue, but I disagree with you both that that conclusion can be drawn. We have had a fruitful discussion but one that cannot hope to change people’s minds. My beliefs are not based soley on what little was written here, and what little I have read is nothing I have not heard before.
Regardless, thank you for discussing it.
“…women were killed because men were being men”
Nice blanket condemnation, Einstein. Are the infanticides caused by women with postpartum depression symptomatic of babies dying because “women were being women”, too? Or would that be oversimplifying things too much to make a rational point? And it’s amusing how you trot out such a witless denunciation, and subtly retract it in your last post when others have taken you to task on it. Why not just admit it was a dumb thing to say, than to infer that readers here somehow can’t grasp its nuance.
One of the problems with typing long, huffily-worded diatribes is that you tend to become infatuated with your own boilerplate, and begin to mistake it for wisdom and insight. Nobody here is saying that violence against women (or “male violence against women”, as is your personal wont) isn’t an issue that couldn’t be reflected upon for “one fucking day”. What galls is the use of the Montreal massacre as the feminist rallying cry as the benchmark of same. As for “half of women in Canada have been the victim of at least one act of physical or sexual assault since the age of sixteen”, please cite a reliable source or that statement is simply flame-bait.
Now, please feel free to climb back upon your moral high horse and accuse me of being “insensitive”, or a “knuckle-dragging misogynist” who is “oblivious to the insidious culture of male-on-female violence” or any other highbrow-sounding epithet that makes you feel morally or intellectually superior. I can take it, man. And use lots of pointed interjections like “fuck”, too, as that seems to get you off and adds to the general flamboyance of your posts.
And GM, you’ve scored many interesting points in your posts, but you’re at least half wrong on this: “No one has said for example, that the recent shootings in Toronto, are a case of ‘blacks being blacks’ “. The majority of gun-related Toronto deaths this year ARE indeed black-on-black, it’s just too politically incorrect to summon the number of this particular beast in public, for fear of being branded a racist. That’s there are three levels of government happily strolling hand-in-hand down the wrong path to punish law-abiding Canadians with a potential handgun ban. If they were true to their own taglines, they’d find the “root” causes for the spate of Toronto gun deaths lie within a particular neighbourhood and culture, and look to problem solve from there; but it’s much easier to sound butch at a 10am press release and go total handgun ban on the law-abiding who have nothing to do with the issue, however.
To all the self-righteous armchair Rambos who berate the male students in Montreal for not rushing the gunman: if you haven’t looked down the barrel of a loaded firearm in a similar situation, you are just hogging bandwidth with your irrelevant opinions. The “Oh, yeah, if I HADDA BEEN THERE I WOULDA…” insinuation is macho on the surface, but really chaff before the wind upon second thought.
Those who practice the funded lamentation arts are entitled to do so but they are not entitled do special dispensations which free them from reasonableness and accountability. By the same correlative logic that Ms. Nancy uses when she asserts that “women were killed because men were being men”, one could equally say that drive-bys occur because blacks are being blacks, poverty occurs because Mexicans are being Mexicans, and prostitution occurs because women are being women.
Unpleasant, and ridiculous. Yet “women were killed because men were being men” gets passed off as not only reasonable but an expression of a higher level of consideration and awareness. It ain’t. In fact, dragging someone’s proverbial corpse around the hustings and appropriating a horrific tragedy for personal, political and ideological gains is what most people would call the low ground.
And shucks, making blanket statments attributing evil qualities to another identifiable, non-volitional group — left-handed people, redheads, negroes, — might feel awfully nice, and if we’re talking “men” it might get funding and a wing in the Humanities building, but it’s still not a very nice way to live.
Oh well, I guess gender politics, rage, funding and mass murder just don’t mix. Who’d have thought?
Gamil Gharbi (AKA Mark Lapine) made his point about the social damge gender fascism (which ride in with the posative aspects of Feminism) on the north American young male.
The entire incident was a graphic display of male roles being twisted by deranged political ideologies creating dangerous shifts in social orthodoxies.
On one end of the gun we have a craven murdering little turd who had never been exposed to the higher principles, self control and stoic gallantry of being a proper example of western culture’s traditional gentleman. He was raised in a society and culture degenerated by compromised ideals and steeped in unenlightened 14th century mysogyny…on the other end of the gun we similarly have a generation of young males imasculated by marxist gender politics and the same degenerated pop culture that rejects the traditional roll of a gentleman in a polite responsible society. They cowered and left those women to the mercies of an animal ( like the cops who hid behind their cars outside for an hour until they were sure Lapine was dead) because their value systems were self centered and their gender rolls had been depleted by destructive political social engineering.
I will call your attention to the fact that Lapine had to reload 3 times when 2 or more males were within arms reach of him. That means he had an unloaded gun for the time it took to find, insert a clip and recock the bolt of that mini…ample time to clothsline or tackle him and disarm him. This also displays the fact that years of propaganda have made young males reflexively “frightened” of all firearms and unfamiliar with their utility and operation…there’s the result of your repressed indoctrinated “culture of safety”…cowering defenseless eunuchs with no stomach for a scrap, self defense or civil responsibility to protect others…every man for himself in the brave new world sculpted by the keepers of malignant social orthodoxies.
Ted, perhaps this editing of your opening statement will open your eyes to how much of a bigot you are:
I debated not including that line, because it references a body of white literature that discusses in much greater detail than we can get into here, how agresssiveness and violence are instilled in blacks as part of their development into gangstas. I shall leave it at agree to disagree.
I disagree that the event should not be politicized. What is everyone’s problem with politizing things? What do you understand that term to mean that it is necessarily and always a bad thing?
Violence-against-whites doesn’t deny that violence comes in many forms against many different people, blacks to. I also have a problem with the term, but only that it doesn’t make it more clear, the problem is black-violence-against whites.
I’m sorry you don’t think race is worth thinking about. It is the single most important factor when talking about violence and criminality. If I told you there were two people in a room and one of them was a murderer, then asked you to guess based on one question which was the murderer, the one question you should ask is “Are they both blacks?” If not, you pick the black. Isn’t it amazing that the most common characteristic of violent people is that they’re pretty much all blacks? Why isn’t that worth thinking about? Because for the longest time it wasn’t. Until whites began policitizing the issue it wasn’t discussed.
Nothing we do today will change what happened that day, that statement is so true as to be idiotic. Why’d I say it, oh yeah, you implied I was suggesting it. Moving on, I will link it to Montreal, because black violence against whites should be politicized. Because we can’t have a discussion about violence without talking about who does it. Blacks. Black to Black, Black to White, but pretty much Black. I will continue to link it because of [Some Black]�s reasons for going in there. He killed them because they were white. How much more politiced can we make that really? He took to the utmost extreme violence against whites and what’s shocking is that it took that event to for us to recognize the everyday kind of violence that whites experience.
Nothing stops these political movements from working together, so if you feel passionately about violence against Blacks by Blacks, then I may suggest that you will find much of value in the white literature on black violence. You will find allies.
If you don’t care to fight that fight then fine, but let those who want to talk about violence against whites do so, without arm-chair theorists complaining that raci- erm, whites aren’t solving the issue of all violence so they’re hypocrites, or wrong, or whatever.
WL MacR:
“…years of propaganda have made young males reflexively “frightened” of all firearms and unfamiliar with their utility and operation…”
Oh, Man, isn’t THAT the utter truth! And adds to the tragedy, if Lepine had to reload a couple of times before continuing the slaughter.
We have friends that sniff “We’d never let our sons TOUCH a gun, and we hope they never see one up close”.
It’s sometimes hard to see when your head is buried that deep in the sand. Any thoughts as to how a child thus inculcated into the “danger” and “mystique” of firearms would react in a similar Montreal situation?
I’ve read articles that claim that most of the gun accidents involving children above the age of reason are situations where kids who’ve never been taught how to safely respect or handle a gun made a mistake. What a horrible waste.
My two sons are 8 and 10, and starting this summer, I started training them in firearms safety. They love to go to their grandparents’ place (in the country) & use my old .177 air rifle to plink away at cans, under my close personal supervision. Every chance I get I ram home that they must ALWAYS treat any gun as though it was loaded, and never point it at anything they don’t want to shoot. Not only are they learning potentially lifesaving firearms discipline, but I hope to dull the edge of mystique around guns, so that they’ll be less fascinated by these tools – which is all they really are.
In some distant future day, would they – God forbid – be able to take different action in a similar Montreal incident? Don’t know, as I’m not preparing them for same, and I pray they’d never have to find out.
But I’ll bet they’ll be much less at risk of accidental shooting than their “firearms-free” pals should they ever come across an improperly-secured loaded weapon.
sjd(at)cogeco(d0t)ca
http://wfw10.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/lingerie-scans.html – lingerie scans http://wfw10.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/lingerie-scans.html
http://wfw1.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/asian-tranny-dvd.html – asian tranny dvd http://wfw1.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/asian-tranny-dvd.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/pavel-pantyhose.html – pavel pantyhose http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/pavel-pantyhose.html
http://wfw7.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-xxx-videos.html – shemale xxx videos http://wfw7.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-xxx-videos.html
http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/panty-hose-grand-central.html – panty hose grand central http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/panty-hose-grand-central.html
http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/nearly-nude-asians.html – nearly nude asians http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/nearly-nude-asians.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/transgender-escorts.html – transgender escorts http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/transgender-escorts.html
http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-girls-on-web-cams.html – asian girls on web cams http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-girls-on-web-cams.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/aniem-shemale-porn-tgp.html – aniem shemale porn tgp http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/aniem-shemale-porn-tgp.html
http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-men-muscular-pictures-photos.html – asian men muscular pictures photos http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-men-muscular-pictures-photos.html
http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/stocking-tease.html – stocking tease http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/stocking-tease.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/she-males-in-chains.html – she males in chains http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/she-males-in-chains.html
http://wfw8.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/escada-shemale-pics.html – escada shemale pics http://wfw8.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/escada-shemale-pics.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-boy-sex.html – asian boy sex http://wfw4.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-boy-sex.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/latex-suits.html – latex suits http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/latex-suits.html
http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-xxx-asian-movies.html – free xxx asian movies http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-xxx-asian-movies.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/transexual-dating-service.html – transexual dating service http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/transexual-dating-service.html
http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-asian-porn-thumbs.html – free asian porn thumbs http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-asian-porn-thumbs.html
http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-schoolgirl-free-thumbs.html – asian schoolgirl free thumbs http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-schoolgirl-free-thumbs.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/hacked-xxx-pantyhose.html – hacked xxx pantyhose http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/hacked-xxx-pantyhose.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/pantyhose-and-foot-fetish.html – pantyhose and foot fetish http://wfw4.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/pantyhose-and-foot-fetish.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-sex-stars.html – asian sex stars http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-sex-stars.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/bra-and-panty-models.html – bra and panty models http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/bra-and-panty-models.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-asian-ladies-sex-sites.html – free asian ladies sex sites http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-asian-ladies-sex-sites.html
http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/panty-videos.html – panty videos http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/panty-videos.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-blowjobs.html – shemale blowjobs http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-blowjobs.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/single-chinese-women-seeking-men-london-ontario-sex.html – single chinese women seeking men london ontario sex http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/single-chinese-women-seeking-men-london-ontario-sex.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-pics-of-asian-pornstars-nude.html – free pics of asian pornstars nude http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/free-pics-of-asian-pornstars-nude.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/free-hermaphrodite-sex.html – free hermaphrodite sex http://wfw6.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/free-hermaphrodite-sex.html
http://wfw2.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/the-pantyhose-archive.html – the pantyhose archive http://wfw2.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/the-pantyhose-archive.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/traditional-thai-message.html – traditional thai message http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/traditional-thai-message.html
WBR TXhbUGWFfiMYtOQsj