Cho's rampage in Virginia is inexcuseable. We can look at possible autism, bullying, mental illness, demons, and a host of factors, and have to conclude that evil had its run. That said, people do want to see what components contributed to his choice to kill and one interesting element caught the eye of several people. I admire the thinking of Camille Paglia -- for her courage in going outside the box of conventional academic group-think and questioning the reigning theories. Here, she ponders the clues left by the killer:
“There is nothing happening educationally in these boring prisons that are fondly called suburban high schools. They are saturated with a false humanitarianism, which is especially damaging for boys. Young men have enormous energy. There was a time when they could run away, hop on a freighter, go to a factory and earn money, do something with their hands. Now there is this snobbery of the upper-middle-class professional. Everyone has to be a lawyer or paper pusher.”
Cho is a classic example of “someone who felt he was a loser in the cruel social rat race”, Paglia says. The pervasive hook-up culture at college, where girls are prepared to sleep with boys they barely know or fancy, can be a source of seething resentment and alienation for those who are left out.
“Young women now seem to want to behave like men and have sex without commitment. The signals they are giving are very confusing, and rage and humiliation build up in boys who are spurned again and again.”
The sex, Paglia argues, “is everywhere but it is not erotic”, as can be seen by the sad spectacle of Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears flashing their lack of underwear during a night on the town. “It’s not even titillating. It’s banal and debasing.”
No matter what religious background Cho had to pull from, the social situation overwhelmed him and added to his frustrations that may have already been physiological.
Political scientist Francis Fukuyama believes the common denominator between the terrorist suicide bomber and the suicidal mass murderer is their sexual frustration and gender. “It really is young men between 15 and 30 who are responsible the vast majority of crimes, although it is politically incorrect to say this too loudly,” he says.
Suicide bombers and the Virginia Tech killer, Fukuyama suggests, “fall into the same demographic of young males, a lot of whom are unemployed, without a clear place in the social hierarchy. These guys have the most to gain and the least to lose by martyrdom”. And often, he adds, they are upset about girls “whose attention they can’t get”.
I cannot stress enough that nothing justifies his behaviour, but it is instructive to consider the milieu that fed his demons -- and a large part of that is the hormonal insanity of young men, made worse by girls who tease and tempt, who play games and don't take seriously the potential for widespread damage.
How many boys, from 14-15 and older, are holed-up in apartments, bedrooms, ghettos -- surrounded by girl-flesh in lingerie ads, movie posters, vidoes games, internet sites, music videos, and magazines? I don't doubt that it becomes "banal" as Paglia says, but to an outsider with broken family, alienated father and the confusion that goes with adolescence, the lack of formation and faith leaves many young men swirling in more chaos than anyone should be asked to handle.
Feminists, as usual, may scream and rant at this thesis -- likening it to "blaming the rape victim." They need to go deeper and ask themselves if there is room for authentic masculinity to express itself in modern society. If there is not, we are likely to see more examples of such frustration leading to destruction, for it must lead somewhere.
This stuff is so sad that I just feel all dizzy and incapable of serious thought.
For men without any faith-background that tells them otherwise, they swim in a sea of moral
relativity.
I do think that being a secular average or slightly-below-average man in this culture is becoming an increasingly pointless and empty thing. Self esteem for a young man, in a hook-up culture depends on his ability to hook up.
The hook-up instruction manuals tell men to make sure they find a way which a woman will think of them as being "the best guy there". If you aren't the best guy there, you're nothing. Being that guy is about looks, money, charm, and ability to manipulate.
Thus dehumanized, the winners in this game part ways after brief banal physical encounters. But what about the losers? They get even less out of this game. They get continual messages that they are nothing.
Those on the bottom of this ladder feel like crap. Was this part of the killer's emotional scar-tissue? Even so, it's no excuse, but it is enlightening to consider the possibility. How can we know, really?
W
Posted by: warren | Sunday, 22 April 2007 at 04:19 PM
Brilliant! Tragically, so true!!
Posted by: elena maria vidal | Sunday, 22 April 2007 at 06:52 PM