from nytimes.com
Bob Herbert's column in this Sunday's New York Times, "Why Aren't We Shocked?" made modest waves in the blogosphere, though primarily with feminist sites, less so general media site or general news sites. So even though we're a few days late we think it's worth calling attention to. Herbert wonders why, in the coverage of the recent Amish schoolhouse shootings this month, so little was made of the fact that the victims were specifically, deliberately girls. Herbert rightly points out that the focus of the shock was on the fact that it happened in a sheltered Amish community, and obviously on the general horrendousness of the crime. But the fact remains that killer Charles Carl Roberts entered the schoolhouse with specific intent to victimize the girls, and likely to sexually assualt them as well, given what he brought with him (including KY jelly). Per Herbert:
In the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania and a large public high school in Colorado, the killers went out of their way to separate the girls from the boys, and then deliberately attacked only the girls.Ten girls were shot and five killed at the Amish school. One girl was killed and a number of others were molested in the Colorado attack.
In the widespread coverage that followed these crimes, very little was made of the fact that only girls were targeted. Imagine if a gunman had gone into a school, separated the kids up on the basis of race or religion, and then shot only the black kids. Or only the white kids. Or only the Jews.There would have been thunderous outrage. The country would have first recoiled in horror, and then mobilized in an effort to eradicate that kind of murderous bigotry. There would have been calls for action and reflection. And the attack would have been seen for what it really was: a hate crime.
None of that occurred because these were just girls, and we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that violence against females is more or less to be expected. Stories about the rape, murder and mutilation of women and girls are staples of the news, as familiar to us as weather forecasts. The startling aspect of the Pennsylvania attack was that this terrible thing happened at a school in Amish country, not that it happened to girls.
Herbert's column is right on. Unfortunately, it's no Man Date or Shamu; though it's currently the only TimesSelect item on the Most Emailed List for the week it's already receded from the current list (providing a compelling reason right here to unlock the columnists from TimesSelect). So despite great pickup on Feministing and Broadsheet and Echidne and BlogHer and Ezra Klein, it has slipped quietly off the radar. Given all the hand-wringing that went on over how the media covered the JonBenet Ramsay case (here and here, for example) It's surely worth examining why crimes targeting girls and women haven't gotten the same analysis (c'mon, Howie Kurtz, after covering Mark Foley and Bob Woodward each for two straight weeks surely you can spare a segment? Hey, CBS News, here's another idea for a "Free Speech" on the subject...surely no less radical a theory than your first version. Yo, Michelle Malkin, since you're so concerned with what information women receive in the media, why not step on up up give this some airplay?).
It's hard to cover everything, hard to pick up everything — we all know that well. But this is the case of a systemic problem in commission — and coverage. As such, on both fronts, it deserves a little attention. We'll leave the last word with Herbert:
You're deluded if you think this is all about fun and games. It's all part of a devastating continuum of misogyny that at its farthest extreme touches down in places like the one-room Amish schoolhouse in normally quiet Nickel Mines, Pa.
Full Column: Why Aren't We Shocked? [Feminist Law Professors]
Readers Respond: Culture of Misogyny [NYT]
