Thoughts on Sodini
On August 4, in Pittsburgh, PA, George Sodini, a 48-year-old systems analyst, took a gun into a health club, went to a women's dance exercise class, turned off the lights, and began shooting. He killed three women and injured nine others. He then turned the gun on himself.
Why did he do it? He actually blogged about it. His hostility to women, especially young women, whom he called "hoes," his feeling of entitlement and rage against the women who withheld sex and companionship from him, is obvious, and it's an obvious start.
But lots of men have these attitudes, unfortunately. What made Sodini different?
Lonnie Athens is a criminalist who developed a theory of criminal behavior called Violentization. It requires a series of steps in which a person becomes a violent criminal. It is essentially a process of familiarization, motivation, practice, and success, a general process that results in a lot of behaviors both good and bad, applied to violence.
In looking at the acts of George Sodini, I think I see the same steps.
Furthermore, he wasn't in a real-life group where such behavior really would be accepted. PUAs have since come out of the closet half-condemning him but excusing him, much as right-to-lifers half-condemned but excused the killing of abortion doctor Tiller. But Sodini wouldn't really find any place in society where his behavior would be protected or allowed to go unpunished. In this sense, anti-woman communities on the internet with their concomitant violent objectification encouraged his behavior but it made it impossible to live with later. There is no real community that would accept Sodini as their own.
I have to wonder what the women he talks about having dated a few times would say about him. Was he threatening in any way? He says that he's been told by over a hundred women that he's a "nice guy." This is sometimes code for "there's something wrong with you but it's not something I can explain directly, and I'm not about to have a discussion about it with you because you might kill me over it."
You can read more about Lonnie Athens and Violentization in the book Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist by Richard Rhodes, and the source book by Athens himself, The Creation of Dangerous Criminals.
Why did he do it? He actually blogged about it. His hostility to women, especially young women, whom he called "hoes," his feeling of entitlement and rage against the women who withheld sex and companionship from him, is obvious, and it's an obvious start.
But lots of men have these attitudes, unfortunately. What made Sodini different?
Lonnie Athens is a criminalist who developed a theory of criminal behavior called Violentization. It requires a series of steps in which a person becomes a violent criminal. It is essentially a process of familiarization, motivation, practice, and success, a general process that results in a lot of behaviors both good and bad, applied to violence.
In looking at the acts of George Sodini, I think I see the same steps.
- Violent subjugation. This is where you are compelled to do something you don't want to, or forced not to do something you want to, under force or threat of force by someone who has power over you. In Sodini's case, it's more of a sexual subjugation, not getting laid, not having a girlfriend, not having female attention, with the "someone with power over you" being women. He also mentions his brother being a severe bully, so he's personally familiar with the concept of someone being physically overpowered.
- Personal horrification. This is where someone close to you is also subjugated. It's not just you. In Sodini's case, it's reading about other men who don't get laid, don't have a girlfriend, don't have female attention either. Finding the Pickup Artist (PUA) community fulfills this stage. The PUA community has a general mindset of women as a class withholding sex and interest from men because they are either callous or mean.
- Violent coaching. This is where you are taught and encouraged to use force to resolve conflict. "it's them or you." The PUA community coaches men in how to overcome women's personal choices with 'tricks'. These tricks are not "be yourself" or "think of interesting things to say." They are couched in adversarial terms, where the man wants to "win" by getting sex and attention from the woman against her will.
- Belligerency. This is where you get into a situation where you must take things into your own hands — literally, a call to war. You find yourself in a situation which is not just unpleasant but intolerable. You may go out of your way to find such a situation, it may be a natural part of your environment. In Sodini's case, it was probably when he decided that he hadn't been rejected by two, or ten, or even a hundred women. It's when he decided that 30 million women had all personally rejected him. The enormity of this crime against him meant he could not fail to respond, and responding in proportion meant it had to be big.
- Violent performances. This is where you perform for others to show them how dangerous you are. "Don't fuck with me." It's also where you learn if you have the stomach for violent behavior. It is typical for the experimenter not to do well, or to back out, before having a successful performance. Sodini started but then aborted a few times before carrying through. Eventually he "succeeded."
- Virulency. This is where you become famous for your performances, and proud about it, and use your fame for personal gain. In less extreme examples, the perpetrator is known as a person you don't want to fuck with because he will fuck you up. In this case, Sodini is only getting the fame, and he's getting it post-mortem, since he killed himself, the brave little shit.
Furthermore, he wasn't in a real-life group where such behavior really would be accepted. PUAs have since come out of the closet half-condemning him but excusing him, much as right-to-lifers half-condemned but excused the killing of abortion doctor Tiller. But Sodini wouldn't really find any place in society where his behavior would be protected or allowed to go unpunished. In this sense, anti-woman communities on the internet with their concomitant violent objectification encouraged his behavior but it made it impossible to live with later. There is no real community that would accept Sodini as their own.
I have to wonder what the women he talks about having dated a few times would say about him. Was he threatening in any way? He says that he's been told by over a hundred women that he's a "nice guy." This is sometimes code for "there's something wrong with you but it's not something I can explain directly, and I'm not about to have a discussion about it with you because you might kill me over it."
You can read more about Lonnie Athens and Violentization in the book Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist by Richard Rhodes, and the source book by Athens himself, The Creation of Dangerous Criminals.
Posted by oldfeminist at 8/7/2009 1:00 AM 
Categories: sodini, pickup artist, lonnie athens, pua, violentization, killer
Tags: pickup artist sodini lonnie athens pua violentization killer
Categories: sodini, pickup artist, lonnie athens, pua, violentization, killer
Tags: pickup artist sodini lonnie athens pua violentization killer
""PUAs have since come out of the closet half-condemning him but excusing him""
I do have to say you're not exactly reporting it fully correctly. I've only done a browsing of a dozen such blogs on this case, and didn't see a single case of "excusing".
I think the right word here would be "understanding"... As in, understanding the mental dynamics that lead to that situation. Excusing would mean they say its OK because of the circumstances, and I don't think I've seen a single person say its OK anywhere on any sphere of society, puas, blogs, news or feminist sites... No such post/comment.
""But lots of men have these attitudes, unfortunately. ""
And lots of women encourage them through passive inaction, simply passing the problem to the next woman, as its considered woman-hating to say that women have any educational power.
I have personally seen misogyny removed from many men, and it usually works in a simple manner. Either they meet an ex-misogynist male, who compassionately points out the problem and guides him from removing it... Forever. Once misogyny is removed, and once you know what it is, its removed forever.
or...
He meets a woman who has the courage to educate him. Instead of her just running away and leaving the problem for the next woman... She has the courage to (compassionately) confront the guy, explain the patriarchy to him. Explain how he's been brainwashed.. and what misogyny is. Its actually an easy process if you care for society and other women, instead of just short-term interest.
Reply to this
Jorko, I don't think it's my responsibility to directly educate individual men on feminism and the patriarchy, especially when they're being dismissive.
There's all kinds of information out there for them to read, in books, magazines, and most especially on the web. A modern guy who can use the internet for recreation doesn't really have much excuse for not knowing what feminism is or what patriarchy is.
Sure, it's great if someone chooses to try to help. Like you said, other men who have feminist ideals can explain these things to him.
But your scenario of "he meets a woman" is a potentially dangerous one for that woman. If I don't know you well, educating you can turn into you calling me out, or even having you assault me for my temerity.
And if he's already typically offensive because of a Neanderthal view of women, most women won't put up with it long enough to get close enough to have a chance to explain it even if they did think he might "get it" eventually.
I'm sympathetic, because patriarchy is everywhere. It isn't a conscious decision on the part of most men to be sexist. But there are limits to how responsible women should be in training it out of them.
I look at it the same way I look at racism, that it's the responsibility of the power class to educate itself. Racism generally doesn't subside until White people call other White people out on racist speech and behavior, and it doesn't go away until White people deconstruct and fix their own attitudes.
Reply to this
"Jorko, I don't think it's my responsibility to directly educate individual men on feminism and the patriarchy, especially when they're being dismissive."
I agree. I don't think its women's **responsibility**.
I do think women have POWER and ABILITY to influence it. There's a huge difference between being responsible for it, or being completely passive and just waiting for it to handle itself on its own.
"""There's all kinds of information out there for them to read, in books, magazines, and most especially on the web. A modern guy who can use the internet for recreation doesn't really have much excuse for not knowing what feminism is or what patriarchy is."""
Actually... He has. because most feminist websites will insult him, accuse him, berate him for asking help too. If you don't believe me, try an experiment of seeing what it would be like for a misogynist to attempt to ask for help by feminists and see what responses you get.
If a man explains that he has problems meeting women, the ONLY people who understand why he has them will call him a loser, insult him, blame him for it and tell him vague statements like "you just need to see women as human beings"
---> which is true. He does need to simply see women as human beings. But what you don't understand is how that sounds if you're in his shoes. It sounds as "Oh, they're saying I'm a monster"... Which just makes the problem thicker.
The problem is that he isn't CONCIOUS he has them. The way the only people who can help him treat him is AS IF he was conscious of the problem.
He first needs to be made aware, not insulted and berated.
""I'm sympathetic, because patriarchy is everywhere. It isn't a conscious decision on the part of most men to be sexist. But there are limits to how responsible women should be in training it out of them.""
I understand too, so let me clarify what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting that a 100% of women try to educate every single man they meet. Of course not. That would be ridiculous of me to suggest.
What I am suggesting is that the current percentages are un-excusably low. Yes, in some cases that attempt is not wise.
But I don't see an excuse for 99% of women failing to *try* to educate men in 99% of cases.
I'm sure the percentage can be higher. Much higher in fact.
I'm not talking about women who fail to attempt this with a stranger in a dark-alley.
I'm saying its extremely rare for women to even attempt it with their brothers, neighbours, close male friends, cousins... acquintances... etc.
And again... If done with understanding and compassion (for the fact he's been brainwashed and its mostly not a conscious decision on his part) its extremely unlikely that he get mad and inflict retaliation.
Most women who do attempt re-education... do so in an accusatory, hostile tone.
It doesn't work.
Reply to this
Feminist websites exist for feminists and their allies to discuss feminism more in-depth than on general discussion websites. We've done the reading, we've made the personal observations. We are already feminists.
So basically, you're looking in the wrong place. Feminist websites do not exist in order to answer men's questions about feminism.
If you went to a train enthusiasts website and started asking why they spend all their time talking about trains, what made them such a big deal, why don't they join modern society and get with air travel instead, you'd expect to get rebuffed.
There is, however, a site called Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog. It addresses a these kinds of questions and is a good source for answers.
Any question someone wants to ask about feminism is probably also easily googled, because it's probably been asked before.
I think a lot of women do try to explain these things in person. They get ridiculed, ignored, called names. Eventually it doesn't seem worth it.
Really, how many times would you try to explain something to a hostile audience? Especially a hostile audience that has power over you, that has others basically encouraging them to think of you as a different species that has no reasoning power? One that is in fact trained to ignore you the moment you show any emotion, whether it's anger or disappointment, because emotion in women is a sign of brainlessness?
Men can argue angry and no one thinks they're off the rails or automatically not thinking when they become angry. They "have conviction," are "fiery." Women are dismissed the moment they get angry.
The deck is stacked against women. Even ones who really want to explain to you how it is. If you grew up in a family that supports patriarchy, the women in your family are already at a serious disadvantage in talking to you about anything serious.
I don't think most women who attempt reeducation do it in an accusatory, hostile tone, at least not at first, at least not in person.
I think that a lot of women do get sick of being asked to explain themselves over and over again, of having their personal experiences challenged as if they're crazy or unobservant or just plain stupid. For more thoughts on this, try this post on Shakesville.
When they're asked on a feminism website to defend the whole idea of feminism, that's a whole different thing. It is really kind of presumptuous of those visiting the feminist website that someone take the time to explain individually to them what is written in a dozen different easy-to-find spaces on the web.
Reply to this
""So basically, you're looking in the wrong place. Feminist websites do not exist in order to answer men's questions about feminism.""
Of course not. But I don't think they exist to bash any men who doesn't get it on first try either.
Most do not say "Go and read such and such". Only maybe 1 in 20 cases does it begin with "go read f101" Most (95) immediatelly bash the man for asking the question, as if though its his hundreth time. It might be the 100th time they have gotten the same question from A man. But its the first time this ONE individual man is asking the question.
How many men do you think continue the research after this first encounter? After being made to feel like a monster for showing interest?
""I don't think most women who attempt reeducation do it in an accusatory, hostile tone, at least not at first, at least not in person.""
I disagree a 100%. I think they do think they're not angry or hostile. But they're not doing it on purpose.
I have a friend who confronts men on any misogynistic statement on any situation, anywhere, party, college... And she keeps saying (what's with these men, why do they get so hostile just because I try to explain this stuff!)
Well, I've been next to her when she does it. Her face reddens, she develops this intense stare and she literally gets inches away from people's afaces and uses languaging like "YOU HATE WOMEN"... as her very first words.
She then is completely unable to figure out why men back away, avoid her, or get defensive.
She's an extreme example, but it shows how unable we are to interpret our own actiosn.
"""Really, how many times would you try to explain something to a hostile audience? Especially a hostile audience that has power over you, that has others basically encouraging them to think of you as a different species that has no reasoning power? One that is in fact trained to ignore you the moment you show any emotion, whether it's anger or disappointment, because emotion in women is a sign of brainlessness?"""
What you are describing is the worst 20% of men... Heck, let's even say its the worst 50% of men.
What I am saying is that women generalize and don't attempt to re-educate 99.99999% of men.
I see absolutely no excuse for the percentages of women being passive being so high.
Reply to this
Jorko, if you have trouble understanding that I am a human being and deserve to be treated like one, I'm not going to be very patient in explaining it to you. You know why? Because I shouldn't have to.
Most feminist websites are frequented by advanced patriarchy blamers. It's annoying when some knob (who usually isn't starting out with good intentions, anyway) busts into a nuanced conversation with ill-informed, privilege-laden opinions and then demands that the rest of us stop what we're doing and personally explain the entirety of sexism to him, preferably in a concise manner like bullet points because he doesn't have all day, you know. It would be like if you were sitting in calculus class and every day, some high school algebra student wandered in and expected the lesson to stop while the teacher got him up to speed. Oh, and the whole time it's being explained to him, he's denying that math even exists in the first place.
"She's an extreme example, but it shows how unable we are to interpret our own actiosn."
Yeah, you should probably take your own words to heart.
Reply to this
P.S. Your comment right here sums up the problem:
"I see absolutely no excuse for the percentages of women being passive being so high."
Yet most of your post before that is complaining about women who are too aggressive in trying to educate men. You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that we aren't putting in enough effort into teaching men how to behave like decent human beings and then complain when we actually try to raise awareness of misogyny.
Look-you are on the personal blog of a feminist, published right here on the internet for the entire world to read. And yet here you are complaining that feminists don't do enough to try and win men over to their cause. The fact is, this person HAS made all of her arguments for feminism available to you. GO READ THEM.
All of your whining about our tone and approach is just a very common means of deflecting attention away from the real issue: that sexism exists and that you, as a man, participate in it and benefit from it. Seriously, just shut up and read for awhile, and maybe it will sink in.
Reply to this
Thanks, plainjane. It's very annoying to have to explain the same thing over and over.
What Jorko wants is someone to kindly and patiently explain feminism to him, and to every man who's not convinced. To do it in a non-confrontational way. To do it without calling out or embarrassing him, ever. Essentially, to do it without challenging his position in the patriarchy.
This is by definition impossible. Part of his privilege is to have the patriarchy as the "baseline model" of how things work, and to have to have any other arrangement treated as an exception that requires discussion, agreement, and lots of time and niceness on the part of those who have already been oppressed for pretty much all of history. All so he won't have his little feelings hurt, and basically so we are still in the position of having to have him decide whether we are right or not. As if there's really some question about whether women really do "deserve" equality and we have to get some kind of majority of men to agree to it before it's true.
I'd like to think it's just because men are eminently fair and cooperative and want to get everyone on board amicably. But when it comes to things like "that's how business works" or "that's the way of the world, baby," suddenly there's no compromise. Anyone who complains about the message or even the tone is a crybaby and/or an idiot.
So I say to those men, tough. Walk it off. Suck it up. You made a mistake, now you've been told, deal with it like a mature adult.
Reply to this