Tag Archives: Jihad

Oh I feel sorry for Dzokhar Tsarnaev, all right. I’m sorry he’s not dead.

3 May

Hanna Roisin, writing over at slate.com has an interesting piece up in which she waxes poetic about the “maternal sympathy” Dzokhar Tsarnaev is eliciting amongst her friends and acquaintances. Hanna doesn’t agree with the sentiments, she is just noting them.


Her condemnation falls a little short, in my estimation, but what really sent my heart rate soaring was her link to a pastebin site in which young women are writing fan fiction AKA erotica about this little piece of worthless human shit.

[Dzhokhar] sounded much more terrified than you could have possibly been. “Are you okay?” You begged him to tell you he was fine, nobody really knew. “I’m hit, in the leg, but I- wait what? You’re asking if I’m okay?” He was surprised, but calmer now. “I know you didn’t do it, and even if you did, I know you aren’t harmful.” He sighed with your words, he felt safe for the first time since he saw his face on the television.






We all know I do not approve of physical violence against children, but holy mother of god would I like the line these girls up and slap the shit out of them.  There’s a fancy word for this kind behavior: Hybristophilia.  It’s technically classified as a mental illness that falls under the category of paraphilias, but to me, that is one giant cop out.


This isn’t mental illness.  It’s straight up evil.  It’s a choice made by people who are so heartless and cruel they scarcely qualify as human.  Schizophrenia, which NO ONE volunteers for, is a mental illness. Creaming your panties over someone who BLEW THE LEGS OFF CHILDREN is pure, unadulterated evil.

And once again, because the perpetrators of this evil are women, and mostly young women, we refuse as a culture to confront it.

Let’s start with the obvious:  why do young women like Dzokhar?  Well, he’s cute!  Look at him!  What a pretty boy.


Of course he’s not so pretty here, smirking and dropping his homemade bomb at the feet of the children he mains and kills.


Funny, but I can’t find a whole lot of fan fiction eroticizing encounters with this man:


But then he’s kind of an ugly fucker, isn’t he?

The mainstream media like to keep up a constant conversation about how women are objectified and treated as mere vessels for the male gaze and how much this harms young women, but in a culture that has room for young women to write sexual fantasies about a mass murderer for no reason other than the fact that he’s physically appealing, exactly who is objectifying whom?




Let’s talk for a second about how the media has responded to Dzokhar and his equally appealing brother Tamerlan.


What irritates me beyond belief is that the action of these two deranged murderers is linked very specifically to masculinity.  Why are terrorists so often men?, wonders Irin Carmon at Salon.


I guess she’s just conveniently ignoring the 35 people killed by a female suicide bomber in Moscow then? And these ladies are just outliers, right?


female three

female 2

female four

Suicide bombers are not very common to begin with, but it didn’t take a whole lot of effort for me to locate multiple examples of women as terrorists, and those are just the ones pulling the trigger.



It looks like Dzokhar’s mother was pretty gung-ho about jihad and introduced her little darlings to the concept at the dinner table quite regularly.  When you include all the women working behind the scenes to promote and support terrorism and terrorist causes, there is precisely ZERO evidence that men are more involved in craziness than women.


Another example of formal/informal power structures.  When you account for informal power structures, women tend to have the upper hand.  Is it so hard to believe the same is true when it comes to terrorism?


So what is behind this effort to link terrorists and the Tsarnaevs in particular to the masculine and not the depraved?

“Large public acts of terrorism are very public displays of masculinity, making a statement in the biggest way possible,” says Abby Ferber, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who has studied white supremacist groups and masculinity. In her work, she said, she often encountered a “vulnerability to their sense of masculinity whether it’s their relationship with their father, their culture. And there are a limited number of ways in the culture to show your masculinity.” In the absence of the traditional forms of masculinity — including financial or social power — “you’re more likely to see extreme means. They’re showing that they’re real men, man enough to do something like this.”

Let’s take a close look at what our little sociologist is claiming.  She offers three definitions of masculinity:

  1. Social power
  2. Financial power
  3. Large public acts of terrorism

Then she claims that there are limited numbers of ways to show masculinity in our culture, and goes ahead and blames men’s relationships with their fathers for the resulting “extreme means”.

There’s kind of a sick admission written into that quote, isn’t there?  Men’s social and financial power has been deliberately and strategically limited and the relationship with their fathers fractured and their only response is to blow up innocent people because masculinity.

The heart wrenching truth is that men facing this new world of limited social and financial power do indeed take extreme measures …. against themselves.  Suicide is now outpacing traffic accidents as the leading cause of death for men in America.


Two men set off bombs and hundreds of men picked up the pieces and all of this is invisible to Abby and her ilk? Why is that?



You know, I wouldn’t have such a problem with the media claiming masculinity is the root of all violence and evil in our society if they were at least as willing to point to femininity as being equally destructive.  Those girls writing fan fiction for Dzokhar could be understood as simply responding to a perceived alpha male in a characteristically and predictably feminine way:  by offering to suck his dick.

But oh no.  Those girls are simply misguided.  Poor dears need some assistance and time to work through their hybristophilia. Dkokhar and Tamerlan, on the other hand, stand for everything masculinity wants to do to our culture and society.


Blow it up. Destroy it.  Smash it.  Pulverize it.  Terrorize us and turn us into whimpering children cowering in the corners.  Obviously, we need to contain this threat.  Destroy the masculine before it destroys us.

These women, and it mostly IS women who write so viciously about men and masculinity, appear not to have noticed the entire trajectory of human history.  It’s like they are trapped in a present, unable to see the past and completely unwilling to contemplate the future.


When has murdering innocent children ever been a hall-mark of manliness?  When has inducing fear and terror and loathing ever been a sign of masculine strength?  What men are these women talking about? What version of humanity are they subscribing to?

Has the world gone mad on occasion, descended into war and chaos and fire and blood?

bomb nuclear

Yes.  It has.  And what force set the world to right again?  Who is it that picked up arms or took on the leadership of nations or wrote and codified laws and rules and then enforced them to ensure peace and security?  Who did all those things?  Who built the fences that keep chaos at bay? Who patrols the edges of our world and secures the perimeter against encroaching wilderness?  Who is it that serves, protects, dies to guarantee our safety?


Do I really need to answer that for you?

Evil exists.  It always has and it always will.  Sometimes it comes in the form of two pretty white boys with exotic names and poison in their blood.


And sometimes it will come in the form of young women writing erotic paeans to monsters who would kill them.


When we take only one side of that, and use it to demonize half of humanity, we are adding to the evil. We are helping to create a world where the monsters are not outside the gates, but right here amongst us. Masculinity isn’t the reason for terrorism.  And stomping out men won’t protect us from the monsters.

Just the opposite.  Having sympathy for Dzokhar Tsarnaev is having sympathy for the devil.  It’s a way of admitting that he could be “any man”.  That all men have the capacity to load a pressure cooker with ball bearings and tear the legs off children and leave them to bleed to death in the streets.  If all men are capable of that, then all men are dangerous.

The media WANTS you to feel sorry for Dzokhar. They want you to accept that he could be you.

Don’t believe it.  The only thing you should feel sorry about is that Dzokhar didn’t end up the same as Tamerlan.  I’ll confess this picture gives me satisfaction.  It’s an autopsy photo of Tamerlan.  Obviously graphic.


“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

― Albert Einstein

Let’s not be those people.  Let Dzokhar have his justice. I won’t be shedding a single tear.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: