Free, loud, public girls
Soraya Chemaly nails it in one paragraph.
Ariana Grande’s audiences aren’t just filled with children but specifically with free, loud, public girls. This is a strategy and it’s explicit. It’s not only about targeting spaces filled with young people in hedonistic settings but very focused on the role and presence of girls in these spaces. Recruiting disaffected young men is enabled by misogyny and toxic masculine ideals everywhere. Most of the on-air public commentary that I’m hearing is ignoring what this means and what it means in terms of our own governance and lack of women in our governance. It’s very frustrating and one of the reasons why our attempts to address the threats represented by all kinds of extremist violence, include white male supremacist violence in the US, are anemic. Am also adding here, because it’s related and pertinent that she also has a large gay male following. Several people have pointed that out and there is zero doubt that homophobia and misogyny are two sides of the same coin. #ManchesterBombing
I’m not entirely sure.
I lean to thinking the bomber was simply picking a large, soft target. Misogyny was undoubtedly an element (wasn’t it even in Bataclan?) but mainly as part of the religious parcel. If he could have as easily targetted a convention of military veterans, or the House of Commons, I’m guessing he would have. Sophie Gilbert has an article – https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/05/manchester-attacks-ariana-grande/527736/ – making arguments similar to Chemaly’s, but some of the commenters have made valid criticisms.
But that’s the point. Misogyny doesn’t exist as a free floating entity, it’s always a part of a philosophical system that justifies and reinforces it. There are plenty of soft targets around – cinemas, shopping centres, festivals etc etc – and I’m sure the ease of access to a large number of people was important to the murderer, but why that soft target? Why not a crowded pub like the IRA targeted in my city? I’d be very surprised if the fact that a disproportionate number of the victims were young women out late at night didn’t factor into the choice, even if only subconsciously.
@2,
That soft target because it was larger and softer… than cinemas and shopping centres. Or even a pub. The satisfaction of misogyny was a bonus, not, I doubt, the main goal of the attack, which, if a suicide note is ever found, will likely be expressed in the familiar language of Islamic terrorism, i.e. avenging Allah, restoring the “Caliphate”, punishing infidels, etc. Each attack may have Individual, specific motives, but it’s the overall religious justification for them that provides the explosive fuel. It’s the religion that carries – and amplifies – the misogyny not the reverse.
Larger than a big busy shopping centre? I doubt it. And some of the pubs in the city centre where I live will easily take a couple of thousand people. If you include the buildings either side – often also entertainment venues too – and the huge numbers of young people out and about in areas devoted to that kind of service industry. A 20 screen cinema in the centre of an area like that? I don’t see those as smaller or harder than a theatre. In fact they may well be considerably softer – single exits, large spaces that aren’t subdivided, little security on a week night etc – though where I am, security does tend to be stepped up on a Friday/Saturday night when the street known as the “Golden Mile” of bars, cinemas and nightclubs can see as many as ten thousand people. In fact, you wouldn’t even have to enter a building on one of those nights. You can just set your bomb off in the middle of the public street and you’d probably take out more people than this guy did. As a bonus you’d probably get a few police or PCSOs into the bargain (not to mention the Xtian clergy outreach who wander the area looking for unhappy folks…) So, why pick a venue where you’ve got to get inside, at a time when people are coming out, that will have multiple exits, where your blast will likely be absorbed by the crush of bodies, reducing the casualty count significantly?
Misogyny always dresses itself up in a philosophy, whether it’s religion, pro-life, or men’s rights. The language used will reflect that justification. Just because, in this case, misogyny is reflected through a religious lens doesn’t make it any less about punishing uppity women – which is a goal that connects every form of religious extremism I’ve ever come across.
in other words, it’s a feature, not a bug.
@4,
Shopping centres may be big but it’s persons-per-square-foot that is what’s important and I can’t think of any area in a shopping centre, even a cinema – these days, given the advent of Netflix and similar services, many are sparsely attended and have tight security (no cellphones in many places) – that has the sheer density of a packed pop concert. Some big restaurants and bars, maybe, but the most murderous venue in Paris Nov. 2015, by far, was still the Bataclan… though the Stade de France might easily have surpassed it had the bombers succeeded in getting in.
Misogyny may wear all sorts of “philosophical” clothes, but none are as murderous as religion. And right now, no religion is as murderous as Islam.
@1 Helene,
Yes, don’t mention the probability that there’s a toxic religion that motivated the atrocity whose followers have a particular animus to ‘free, loud, public girls’. Chemaly is using the standard apologist technique of false equivalence.
@4
“Soft targets.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/arts/music/despite-security-concerts-provide-target-rich-environments.html
An article at The Guardian discusses the idea of soft targets, as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/terrorists-see-reason-in-madness-of-targeting-public-events.
I think they are going to find it harder to find recruits. The PLO and the IRA found bombing to be a self-defeating action in terms of gaining their political goals. People will be increasingly afraid, so that goal is achieved: but I can see it being harder to find people willing to justify killing little girls and their parents at a fireworks and music show.
@Helene – remember this is the UK we’re talking about, where I can personally attest, large cinemas are always full in the evening, have no security – at least in the large city I live in, which is about the same size as Manchester, (London may be different) and mobile phones certainly aren’t banned in them! (Many of us who enjoy films really wish they were…) Equally during the week, there is unlikely to be security in any of the other venues I mentioned. Even on a Friday or Saturday the security is most likely a pair of bouncers with indifferent training. Police and PCSOs patrol the city centre streets. Unarmed.
Equally, it really doesn’t matter what happened in Paris because this is not France. The culture is different, the expectations of security are different – etc etc.
Actually, assuming one is “armchair quarterbacking” as we are, there is a rule of diminishing returns regarding crowds, assuming one’s main aim is to kill/injure as many people as possible. I mentioned it in my first post. There’s an optimum crowd density and it isn’t everyone mashed in together trying to leave a venue. In this situation, the force of the blast and any projectiles included (nails, for instance) will be absorbed by the bodies standing closest. The more of a crush the fewer bodies that is. A big crush – all your force gets absorbed by the bodies immediately next to you. They get seriously torn up but people just a little further away are sheltered by the crush of bodies around the bomber. If the area is more open the blast and projectiles travel further and hit more people. Plus, you get the bonus of flying glass from windows which adds to your damaging projectiles, and possible wall collapses due to the blast wave.
Of course, we have no idea what this guy thought. But I won’t rule out misogyny as a factor in his choice, not least because he could have found a “better” target. It;s instructive to compare this with the 1996 IRA bombing which was on a public street in a large shopping area, and injured 200 people. The lack of fatalities was because the IRA always telephoned a warning and the emergency services had already evacuated 75 000 people 1.5 miles away from the area. That took place on a busy Saturday at 10 am. In contrast the 2017 bombing killed 23 people and injured 59. OK, the IRA bomb was a damned big one – but scaling up/down, the IRA was far more successful even with evacuation.
Dammit, buggered up the italics, sorry…
@9,
The NY Times piece (in #7) and, especially, the Guardian piece (link in #8) have good explanations why “soft” targets are picked. Sure, misogyny is an ingredient, but I doubt Salman Abedi canvassed sites based on the percentage of young girls he could kill. The target was western “lifestyle” and had a venue with more young boys (girls are bigger consumers of pop music than boys) become available – and convenient, say a convention of video game heroes… hmm, he may well have thought of Mohammed as some sort of uber “superhero” and Batman as an infidel – I’m sure he would have considered his chances. The no. 1 rule in considering motives in these attacks is: cherchez la réligion! It may be useful to point out the inherent misogyny, but only as part and parcel of the theocratic terror. Attempts to offer narrower “explanations” for these acts (weren’t we given a whole array of them after 9/11?) smack of apology.
Helene – I see what you’re saying, and I think there is some validity in it, but…
Manchester has two prominent football teams. I don’t know about football stadiums in the UK, but in the US you have your bag searched, but it seems to be really perfunctory. I open my bag, they stare inside, see the book nestled on top of everything else, and wave me through. It could be the fact that I am a middle-aged white woman, but still…there are a lot of ways that bombs could be smuggled into a sports stadium. Or, it could be targeted just like the concert, where they waited outside until the crowd emerged, and exploded the bomb at that time.
So while we cannot assume a misogynistic choice of targets without verifying information from the bomber, I don’t see it as impossible that misogyny played a larger role in the choice of targets, while it was the toxicity of his religious belief that created the urge to become a suicide bomber. And from what I’ve read (I am not an expert, just a very interested lay person), it appears that a lot of the initial impetus for building this terror organization was western decadence, which seemed to begin in the idea that women are walking around like they’re actually people. So the possibility of a strong misogynistic underpinning to the choice of venue is definitely there, even as we should acknowledge that his religions convictions undergird the misogyny and the instinct to bomb.
In short, it doesn’t have to be either/or.
Previous bombings in the UK involved specific targeting of women. Specifically, a botched attempt at a pub’s ‘ladies night.’
Friendly Atheist has already found an American Xtian’s video praising the killing in Manchester, just as we had christo-goons cheering for the Orlando shooting. When it comes to misogyny and homophobia…they really do practice an amazing level of ecumenicism.
Steamshovelmama @ 9 – is that the other Manchester bombing you’re talking about? It was at Arndale, which is very near Victoria Station and the Arena. I don’t have a point, it’s just mildly interesting.
@Iknklast #12
This is one of the things I was trying (less succesfully!) to say. The main target of hate of religious fundamentalists, whether Islamic or Christian is a quality that can be variously described as “Western Decadence” or “Liberal Elitism” or similar. It’s the set of views that are specifically opposed to the idea that all human beings have equal value, dignity and rights – and that even includes uppity women and people whose sexuality doesn’t conform to what is considered the norm of of the patriarchal family structure. Misogyny (and homophobia) are so intrinsic to these philosophical systems that they cannot be untangled. They inform and underpin all of the decisions made by followers of these hatefilled thought systems. An appropriate target that is symbolically appropriate will, by definition, be a target that can be described as misogynistic, homophobic or both. To suggest that either of these stances did not inform the choice is to misunderstand how utterly fundamental they are to this world view.
Oh, and yes, it’s pretty much the same at UK football games. A quick check of a bag but not a full emptying. I’ve been occasionally patted down at the larger concert venies too – but all this is done by privately employed, often poorly trained, and very poorly paid security guards. Big football matches will have a police presence but that’s more to do with preventing the opposing supporters killing each other than terrorism….
@Ophelia #14 Yes, that was the “Arndale Centre bombing” – though actually the bomb was placed on Corporation Street. It’s power (1500 – 1600 kg of semtex, plastique and nitrate fertiliser) was such that it took out the Marks and Spencer branch that it was parked outside, the skybridge that led to the Arndale centre and a goodly chunk of the centre itself. It’s the most powerful peacetime bomb to explode in the British mainland. It was hugely surprising that there were only 200 casualties – which was down to an amazing effort by the emergency services.
When you look at these kind of stats it makes you realise how pathetic most suicide bombing is, Oh, not to the victims or their loved ones, of course. But compared to the IRA campaigns of the past (well within my lifetime) your average suicide bomber achieves so little, even in terms of their chosen currency of fear and insecurity. They are, with certain major exceptions, insignificant.
On the other hand …
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/islamists-obsessed-controlling-young-girls/
The Sun (no link for obvious reasons) had a headline claiming that the singer’s brief stage outfits played a part. They could have said it was misogyny of course, but then they wouldn’t have been able to print pictures of those same outfits.
And just for the record, at this late date…
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2017/06/the-culture-of-female-hatred.html