Okay, wall of text incoming. This article uses numerous factual errors and cherry-picked statistics to grossly manipulate the actual events themselves. Go pull up that "thorough analysis" that was linked. Out of all of the cited USA shootings, only 40% (8/20) are alleged to have targeted women directly. When you pull up all 8 of those shootings, only one of those actually targeted a woman directly, and that one shooting did so out of personal revenge, not systemic misogyny (wikipedia serves as the aggregator of sources that confirm the actual facts, I can link you to each individual page if you'd like). Check the sum of all individuals killed and wounded in USA shootings and you'll see that the numbers are roughly equal, with a slightly higher sum of killed males than females. If you look at the EU shootings, you will notice a staggeringly higher number of female victims compared to male victims. Of the cited EU shootings, 50% allegedly targeted women specifically. Again, out of those 4 shootings, none of them actually targeted women specifically. In fact, one of those shootings occurred in 1912. If the author is trying to make a point about modern attitudes towards women being related to school shootings, citing incidents from 1912 is not an appropriate methodology, as it is not only a statistical aberration, but attitudes towards women back then were certainly more misogynistic then.

Of all the cited shootings, the Polytechnique massacre is the only true anti-feminist event. Out of all mass shootings in recent memory, that event and the Isla Vista shooter stem from true, unadulterated misogyny. Anders Breivik certainly had a staunch anti-feminist component in his manifesto, but it did not translate into motive (targeting women specifically) and instead indiscriminately massacred children. I am going to write a separate post about why Roseburg shouldn't be labeled as anti-woman/feminism. The author of this article makes the logical assertion (based on the data I just analyzed) that, when a shooting occurs in a place where a woman is or can go, that the motives are automatically based on misogyny. Based on that logic, all mass shootings are not only misogynistic, but also homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and racist since non-white, non-cis, or disabled people also go there. It's an affront to any of the actual victims to make such a claim.

This article also cites a cultural anthropologist that talks about the effect of culture on mental illness. Her claim that men automatically resort to violence under duress is absolutely incorrect and not biologically plausible. She is an anthropologist first and foremost, and for her to make an assertion based in psychology, she would require education in that field. To my knowledge, she is not a psychologist, so that is a totally baseless notion. While she is correct and justified in stating how culture can affect manifestations of mental illness, she is referring to schizophrenia. In the US/the West, schizophrenics hear voices more angry in tone and speech, while other schizophrenics in eastern countries hear voices that are calm and soothing. This is a known product of societal culture, but it has nothing to do with feminism whatsoever. Another fact misconstrued to politicize mass shootings.

The article also claims that men resort to mass shootings as ways to regain control and establish dominance over others, and that this ideal stems from toxic masculinity. While there is truth in this, it is wrong to appropriate it when talking about mass shootings. Many shooters cite lack of control over their life circumstances and plan to take revenge on those who have wronged them. However, I don’t think that indiscriminate and unexpected murder fits any ideal of control. Mass shootings are absolute chaos. Shooters end their lives during their sprees and forfeit what little control they ever had in the first place. They have control over their agency and their actions and they choose to commit these atrocities out of learned helplessness. Their mental illness prevents them from handling adversity normally, and access to weaponry provides the means to fulfill an end born in insanity. This morning’s NAU shooting is an example of this toxic masculinity, where a fraternity brother tried to assert dominance in a confrontation with 4 other men (no women involved). To say that all mass shootings follow this mindset is a cop-out and does nothing to solve the problem.

Her quip at the end about this “not being about all white men” is the feminist equivalent of “I’m not a racist, but…” in this case. It does nothing to help solve the problem. People like Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (who herself was a mass shooting victim) are introducing legislation to help stem the tide of mass shootings by preventing domestic abusers from purchasing firearms. She is an example of how we all should act, instead of painting entire classifications of people with the misogyny brush. Misogyny is a large problem and is overly prevalent in our culture, but articles like this are essentially crying wolf. It desensitizes people to the cause and prevents future victims of misogyny from being taken seriously. Absolutely no fact-checking was done on this by the author, and it is not deserving of any web publication.