Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I have too much estrogen (or whatever it is) for anyone's good.

I have this semi rant in my head that has fuck all to do with the above sentence about Eileen Wournos and serial killers in general and how first of all, most people don't understand that there's a murderer (someone who kills) and then there's a mass murderer (someone who kills a lot of people all at once) and then there's a spree killer (someone who kills a lot of people over the course of a sort of rampage, usually involving cross country travel and a lot of other crimes as well), and then WAAAAAY out away from all of them is a serial killer.

There's just too much to fit into a semi-sane entry. So I probably will never make that rant. Because in addition to people not understanding the difference between all of those things, I have even *more* issue with people who do, but then are fans. There's a difference between a big tongue in cheek membership in the Ed Gein fan club (Fun Fact: Ed Gein wasn't a serial killer by the FBI's standards of definition), and someone who is HONESTLY a *fan* of a serial killer.

You'll note that Dhamer lacks a huge following if you look around on the web. Bad jokes and 'good riddance' is all you'll see about him. About the same as Dennis Nielsen, his british counterpart. Dhamer wanted a live in love slave and so tried to lobotomize his victims, Nielsen just wanted someone to be a companion and so nicely killed and then kept his victims. Neither of them were 'out', both of them came from super masculine fathers who would have been horribly ashamed of their sexuality.
I have a theory that the reason the gay killers don't have as much of a fan following as the straight ones is that most of the serial killer fandom is actually pushed by *women* not men or boys.

It's hard to find someone to have an intelligent conversation about all this with. They're either fucking squicked by the whole thing (which I think is the more normal response), or they're a fan and think it's fucking cool that so and so did this or that. I used to think that this was becuase these people had never actually experience death. And in some cases I think that's part of it but then I think it has something to do a disconnect between real and 'it's only tv' that some people seem to have. and on and on and on.

and ya know what? This *wasn't* the rant. heh.


Mar. 18th, 2004 08:53 am (UTC)
Re: old comment but i still think about this stuff
herm... depends on the kind of school shooting.
At my high school there was a chicky who brought a gun to a game (happened a lot actually, even after the metal detectors, they'd just come over the fence that backedup to the woods) and shot at some girl who she thought was getting it on with her boy/man.

She didn't hit anyone and the crowd jumped her pretty quick, but well, it was a school game, she brought a gun....

I think it depends on the circumstances. In the case of school shootings, you have to take into account the developmental differences in females and males and their age. A full grown woman and a full grown man aren't really that far about developmentally. But a 16 year old boy and a 16 year old girl are *entirely* different creatures.

I've heard people tell me , in all seriousness, that if there were no men there would be no war, no hate, etc. These people were witches of the Dianic persuasion... but still. It's a concept that's out there.
I think underestimating The ability of women to commit terrible crimes against others is a dangerous and probably far too idealistic a mind set.
I know that we're a hell of a lot less likely to be violent, but to reduce that to "just won't" is taking it too far.


A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow