The Orlando Nightclub Shooting

The Real Issues Here, not Fear Mongering

My thoughts are with the survivors of the Orlando Pulse shooting, the families and friends of the deceases, and the souls of the murdered. There is nothing that can be said, no comfort that can be given after such a horrific event, and all I can say is that I am so sorry for their losses.

I am once again sickened and horrified by the latest shooting event in the US. This has become an every week thing, if not more often. 2 shootings in 2 days. One was a rising talented youtube singer at a concert shot by a supposed unbalanced fan. The other was the largest mass shooting event in the history of the US resulting in the deaths of 50 people with another 50 or so injured, some still in surgery and in critical condition.

All day yesterday and today all that has been reported on the radio is the connection of the shooter in Orlando to ISIS, Trump's insinuation that Obama is in some way to blame for the shooting, the constant obsession over the ethnicity and religion of the shooter, etc... The internet is full of forums of people talking about how the shooter was an immigrant and we need to close our borders, how our decreased military presence worldwide is why this tragedy happened. People are liking posts about how it's Obama's government that has led us to this point and allowed such a thing to happen, people are retweeting disgusting comments about how the shooter is the hero for killing gay people. This is reminiscent of the shooting that occurred several months ago at a Planned Parenthood, where people were applauding the nutjob who shot up a waiting room, claiming he was a hero saving babies lives. I wrote a blog post about that as well when it occurred, disgusted by the so called "Good Christians" outpouring of hatred against dead people, and how they somehow deserved to die for aborting helpless freaking babies.

Now, instead of focusing on what the real issues here are, the media is completely ignoring the real reasons why this horrible tragedy happened. Homophobia and a lack of gun control. That's the real root of this shooting. I am the first to usually look at religious extremism as a motive, and yes, that may be the reasoning behind the homophobia, but it's the homophobia that resulted in the shooter choosing this particular target. A club that is frequented mainly by the  LGBTQ community and it's allies was the target, and if this is not put down as a hate crime then i'm not sure what the hell the media is doing anymore. It was a hate crime committed by a domestic terrorist. Not an international terrorist working for ISIS, not a muslim immigrant, but a U.S. citizen born in the U.S., raised in the U.S., who didn't like gay people. That is domestic terrorism - the same cause of the Planned Parenthood shooting - and homophobia.

What I want to know is when is enough going to be enough? There have been 998 mass shootings (where 4+ people died) in the 912 days since the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting on December 14th, 2012. In 912 days 1,105 people have been murdered by guns in mass shootings, and another 3,929 people have been physically injured - not even counting the emotional damage from being in this situation, the PTSD that some survivors must have, the impacts on the family members and friends of those killed. In just over 2 years since the first "wake-up-call" shooting we have done nothing to prevent this from happening. We blame it on mental health issues, which undeniably have had a hand in these shootings in some cases. We blame it on immigrants and Islam - which also have played a role in some of the cases. But when have we ever blamed it on christian-based motives and "morals"? When has anything actually changed to make the acquisition of a gun more difficult? When have we had the nerve to call it what it really is: Domestic Terrorism? When have we looked at the perpetrator and said the words that really show the underlying motives? Pro-life, Homophobic, Christian, Islamic, Pro-gun, white supremacist, racist. 

First, people manage to somehow confuse hate crimes with mental illness. Sandy Hook can be attributed to a combination of mental illness and developmental/behavioural issues and was probably not a "hate crime". On the other hand, the shooting at a Charleston Church with a predominantly black congregation can probably be classified as a hate crime brought on by racism and the perpetrator there seemed obsessed with white supremacy. And therein lies the difference. On one hand you have a person with actual mental and psychological deficits, and on the other you have a person with an intense hatred of a specific group of people. Once again, after the Orlando shooting, republicans are calling for more mental health awareness but saying that there is no need for gun control. Because obviously every person who uses a gun inappropriately must have some mental illness. It can't be for any other reason. The mass shooting in Orlando was not a crime committed due to mental illness, rather a crime committed due to homophobia and hatred against the gay community.

Second, there is the discussion of the shooter at the Orlando nightclub and how he has connections to ISIS and international terrorism, rather than domestic terrorist and his homophobia. The man's own father says he showed his disgust and hatred of men who liked other men. There has been no link found between the individual and ISIS. ISIS put out a statement congratulating the shooter and saying how wonderful it was that so many had died. ISIS exists to monger fear, to sow distrust, and to turn us against one another to make it easier for them to cause havoc. The media says that this statement shows the terror group "claiming responsibility" - which it does not actually claim - and this just gives more weight to ISIS's campaign to terrify everyone. But, it has nothing to do with the shooting event itself. NOTHING has been found to indicate any connection between the shooter and ISIS other than his religion. As far as the information shows, this was purely a crime against the LGBTQ community and was a hate crime. Discussing connections to international terror groups distracts from the real horror of what happened and diminishes the suffering of those injured, the families and friends of those who have died, and those who survived the traumatic attack.

Third, there is a ridiculous amount of emphasis being put on the fact that this man was a Muslim and followed the religion of Islam. People seem to think that his religion dictated that he must go and kill gay people. This could have easily been a white Christian man, and no one would dare insinuate in that scenario that he would have been following the orders of his god and Jesus by killing gay people, even if he chanted that very thing as he shot people. While the shooter was probably motivated by the belief that his religion taught against homosexuality, it doesn't actually matter what his religion actually was. All of the major world religions teach against homosexuality; Christianity, Islam, Catholicism, even some sects of Judaism and Hinduism. The fact that he was religious and was taught that homosexuality is wrong by his religion is of note because it was a religiously motivated hate-crime but the individual religion is completely unimportant here.

Fourth, hate crimes in this country have been increasing since extremist views about race, religion, and sexual and gender orientation have come to the forefront of our countries politics. Donald Trump is a political figure running for the highest office in the U.S. who is openly homophobic, racist, sexist, and who feeds the rabid masses foaming at the mouth for vindication that their hatred against certain groups of people is justified. He eggs on his supporters to violently assault people that don't agree with him. He promotes the illegal barring of an entire race from entering the U.S. on the basis of "they might be terrorists". And he regularly slanders people based on race, religion, and gender. All of the extremists out there now have someone to rally behind and they are becoming more and more comfortable expressing their views in physically violent ways. With a person like Donald Trump running for President, it's no wonder that we have a racist kid shooting up a black church, a radical pro-lifer shooting up a planned parenthood clinic, and a homophobic man shooting up a LGBTQ community gathering place. 

Fifth, we once again have a discussion on our hands about gun control. All the things that have been pandered about different communities; "good guy with a gun" nonsense, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, "the liberals are trying to take away our guns" diatribe... What we "liberals" want is for more people with sketchy backgrounds not to be able to get ahold of dangerous weapons that can cause this amount of damage to other humans. We want the system to be improved so that people with histories of narcotic convictions or domestic abuse or mental disturbances that could lead to psychotic breaks or extremist viewpoints about sexual identity, race, religion, women's choice, etc... won't get ahold of deadly weapons. If you are a sane person who has no history of violence or drug related charges and who shows no inclination to violently attack someone because of their race, gender or sexual orientation, religion, or life choices, then by all means go ahead and buy a gun. But something needs to change in the system now, not in 10 years when even more people are dead. 

And Finally, can we please acknowledge the insanity of people CONGRATULATING the shooter on killing people. It doesn't matter if these people were gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, other, or even straight... they were living breathing human beings. For people out there to celebrate their deaths is disgusting and horrifying. Sure, it might be a small group of people out there that feel this way, but the fact that they exist proves that we have a broken society. They wouldn't have this intense hatred if people didn't tell them that it's okay to hate gay people, that it's okay to believe they should "burn in hell" or "die for their sins". If prominent individuals (pastors, priests, ministers, preachers, rabbis, reverends, imams, politicians, government workers, parents, groups like WBC, etc...) did not actively promote homosexuality as evil and abnormal and sinful and wrong, then these extreme viewpoints would not exist and we wouldn't have evil little fuckers making comments like the ones below. Just read them and let it sink in that the things that you might think most important in your world (god, religion, holy texts, preachers, etc..) can cause people to actively celebrate the deaths of 50+ people and congratulate mass murderers.

  

 

 

 

 

Boys will be boys...

How we raise boys to be sexist
assholes...

Recently, the news feed on my Facebook has blown up with articles and posts about Brock Turner, the Standford student who sexually assaulted a young woman behind a dumpster. The only reason he wasn't convicted as a full-blown rapist is that he was interrupted before he could stick his penis inside an unconscious young woman. Now, people have been saying that it's reprehensible that even though a jury found him guilty of 3 felonies of sexual assault, a judge decided to give him just a 6 month jail sentence, and that this has now been reduced to 3 months is just shy of criminal behaviour in itself... 

All of this I agree with whole-heartedly, but not much more can be said that I have not already read or heard or said myself. The brave young woman he attacked wrote an amazing letter to him which she read in court, detailing the many ways in which his assault has affected her life. She said it better than anyone else could, because she lived through the experience. Anyone who disregards her feelings on the matter does not deserve to breathe the same air as her. 

However, I want this blog post to focus more on an article I read today about how we are taught from a young age the the way boys and men treat us is okay and just part of what makes them boys, something they cannot help and something that is pointless and unnecessary to discourage when they are young.

The author talks about her experiences growing up with her male family members and with strangers and how her parents unknowingly indoctrinated her into a world where women are actively supposed to protect themselves against men and unwanted advances, but boys are not taught to treat women with respect as basic human beings. The article "3 ways my parents unintentionally taught me that my consent didn't matter" discusses three different lessons learned in early childhood that set the stage for how she was supposed to view the world as a woman, and what she should expect from the men and boys around her.

1. 'You're Not Allowed to Say No' - Girls are supposed to be gracious and sweet and acquiescent. We're not supposed to raise our voices, or argue and talk back, or really stand up for ourselves in situations where we feel uncomfortable.
2. 'Boys Will Be Boys' - Boys can pick on girls, force them to play in a certain way, or be cruel little jerks and we just push it aside as exuberance and "the way boys play" without teaching them not to be oversexed monsters.
3. 'This Is What It Means to Be a Girl' - Sexism is just part of the system and we're supposed to get used to it because that's the way it's always been and it's not going to change...

These 3 lessons come into play with how children are raised in the modern world. Boys play exuberantly, like toys that make a lot of noise, destroy stuff, run around crazily ignoring their parents, and mercilessly tease girls (often cruelly). Often times, parents do nothing to curtail this behaviour and teach their male children control, manners, and basic human decency toward one another and the young girls around them. If another parent even suggests that they should discipline or control their male offspring, the parents are likely to get offended, shout about "how dare you tell me how to teach my child", or mutter something about how "boys will be boys" as though there is nothing they can do about their children and/or no need for anything to be done. 

When a girl comes home crying from school telling her parents about how a boy was teasing her, or pinching her, or pulling her hair her parents are likely to tell her that if a boy is mean to her that means he likes her. This sets the stage for years of putting up with abusive and manipulative males in her life because somewhere in her subconscious she thinks that the men in her life just don't know how to express them and that they're not trying to be assholes, just merely shy about telling her how they really feel. The other side of the coin though is that if the parents take the appropriate action and call the boy's parents to talk about how their child hurt or upset the girl. The response is usually "well that's just how boys play", or "he doesn't know how to express himself". This is not an acceptable response form a parent... its a cop out, a lack of responsibility for one's own teachings to their offspring, and does nothing to fix a problem rearing it's head. Instead of making excuses for "that's just how he plays", wouldn't it be nice if they sat their child down and explained to him how his actions affected other people, and that being mean to girls (and boys) wasn't an acceptable way to behave? Might that not solve problems down the line, if he learned how to treat other people in his life with respect?

When a parent ignores a negative action that their child displays early on, that is the same as giving permission to the child to behave in that way. When you teach your child table manners and to say 'please' and 'thank-you', you consistently make sure that they follow the established rules you have set forth. You teach your child to be polite, to chew with their mouths closed, and to show proper respect to adults. What if - and I know this is a crazy idea here - we approached teaching our children to be kind to each other (and for little boys not to be crazy lunatic assholes) the same way, instead of letting them run wild and figure out social interactions with no guidebook. 

In schools, you often hear about how teachers spend a disproportionate amount of time helping boys with their studies, or how boys are more likely to have ADHD, a short attention span, and an inability to focus. Are boys really more likely to have ADHD than girls? I don't know the real answer to this, but I think it is very unlikely that only boys can have ADHD. The difference is that girls are taught early on not to run around crazily, to sit down and pay attention, and to be polite. More time is spent teaching girls to have good manners because that indicates good breeding and will make her attractive later in life. Boys on the other hand are supposed to be "macho" and "manly" and "authoritative", so they are allowed to act like little hooligans rather than be taught self control and manners and to sit still and pay attention in class. So it is likely that just as many little girls have ADHD, but were taught manners and self control, and therefore pay attention in class. If teachers didn't spend so much time trying to control their male pupils, maybe they would have more time to teach the girls too, and the boys would learn like normal people and not take extra attention. 

Teaching boys and girls different sets of manners does no good in the long run. Girls are supposed to be maleable, soft, polite, quiet, intelligent, unobtrusive, and above all things not provoke aggression from boys and not display herself to 'tempt them'. Boys are supposed to be strong, authoritative, manly, unemotional, protective, assertive, and be the 'man of the household' the 'provider', the loudest voice in the room. 

Pictures like this do so much unintended damage, reinforcing that little girls and women are supposed to be happy and pretty all the time, are supposed to make the people around them feel good about themselves. While boys are not supposed to cry, and if they do then it must be something really serious and important and everyone needs to pay attention immediately. If a girl cries it's no big deal because they must do it all the time anyway, they must be super emotional and unable to control themselves... But if a boy does it we must call the fire brigade immediately. 

This is supposed to be sweet and touching and make girls feel special, but it does so much more harm than good, teaching them that boys expressed feelings are more important than those of girls. Why are the boy's tears more valid and important than the girl's?

These types of quotes are meant to show how much a girl means to a boy if she willingly expressed feelings, but just diminish the validity of a girl's feelings and physical demonstration of emotions. They add colours and cutsie fonts and hearts that are supposed to give us warm and fuzzy feelings inside, but are really just part of a culture teaching girls from a young age that it's okay for boys to be mean to them, and that if a boy cries its time to drop everything and treat him as though he's made of gold, and that when she cries it isn't nearly as important and doesn't mean as much.

And even things like this, sweet in theory but harmful in practice. Teaching your boys to beat someone up (although it is good to teach your son to look after his little sister) is less effective than teaching your daughter to stand up for herself and do the beating on her own. If a boy hurts her feelings, she shouldn't have to wait around for her brother or her father to come to her rescue. She should be taught that she has self-worth and that if someone if mean to her, she can stand up for herself and give them a piece of her mind. Instead of dissolving into tears as her only option, why not teach her that she is allowed to get mad?

What is it in our culture that reviles strong women who can take care of themselves? Now don't get me wrong, it is important to show our emotions, to cry (therapeutic even). But that's not our only option as females. However, so often when we do stand up for ourselves, shout, throw things - act the way men do when they get angry - we are called "crazy", "bitch", and told we must be "on our periods", as though it's unthinkable that we might have real human emotions and express them violently too, just the way boys and men do. 

We women need to stand up for our daughters, sisters, friends, and even strangers we do not know. We need to move beyond the age where girls are pretty little flowers and can't do anything for themselves. We need to teach girls to stand up to the men in their lives. We need to teach boys from an early age to respect women and girls, and change the way we raise our boys so that they grow up to be decent, patient, kind men. Things need to change and that starts with parenting. 

And more than that, men need to learn to stand up for us too. Feminism isn't just for women, and it's not about only giving rights to women, or putting men down. It's about giving women the same rights as men around them and equaling the sexes. Its about equal pay for equal work, and it's about teaching your boys that they're allowed to cry when they're upset. It's about deciding who gets child custody based on the good of the child, not the gender of the parent. Its about believing women when they say they were raped and letting them decide if they want to bring an unplanned for child into the world. It's about supporting men who decide to pursue typically female career paths like nursing and standing up for them when others laugh. Feminism isn't some dirty word to be pushed around and hidden from. It just means treating people with fairness and human decency, regardless of gender. How is that a bad thing?