Let’s get one thing straight, if you replace the word ‘infidel’ for every time Elliot Rodger said ‘women/girl’ in his video or 140-page manifesto, America and the world would have branded ‘terrorism’ onto every newspaper headline following the Isla Vista massacre in California last week. Hell, Obama would have given a national address on TV, there would’ve been a manhunt all over town and one more broke-ass Muslim country would probably have been invaded – my money’s on one of the -Stans. If Rodger was a psycho extremist and not a psycho misogynist then the police who questioned him beforehand would have shipped him off to Guantanamo faster than he could have said ‘Al-Qaeda’ and not walked out, unconcerned, describing him as a ‘wonderful human being’. If he were to have said: ‘you infidels…I will punish you all for it’ (as opposed to girls) or ‘I will slaughter every single Western infidel…I will take great pleasure in slaughtering you’ (rather than spoilt, stuck-up blonde slut), it’s not hard to imagine just how polemical the reaction would have been – I can see the YouTube comments section now.
It seems to me as if society is dismissing women as the victims in this massacre because they are not regarded as undeserving, blameless targets, yet we are confounded if a maniacal extremist were to victimise members of Western society. We victimise our women so frequently that it does not come as a shock when one member goes rogue and takes it too far. We are all used to quotidian misogyny: it’s what allows the Daily Mail to run a feature on a bikini-clad girl who ‘teased’ Rodger, clearly implying he was nothing short of provoked by one more wily woman. If this was a terrorist attack, would the Mail or any other paper for that matter have run a feature on how the gunman’s neighbours were Islamophoic/xenophobic towards him? Obviously the two cannot be compared as cleanly as this, but I’m trying to point out the media’s double standards.