Kevin–and the Post–suggest that optimism on the part of Net Neutrality activists may be warranted. In particular, ISP’s will be unable to discriminate against “applications and services on telecommunications, cable and wireless Internet networks” (from the Post article). Also, an additional rule will allow ISPs to manage their networks–something they do have to do–but will require them to do so in an open and transparent fashion. That should allow users to keep tabs on what their ISPs may be doing to influence their traffic.

It’s unclear whether–or to what extent–the new rules may effect wireless phone carriers.

The Czech has an excellent post up summarizing the back and forth on this (at http://theczech.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/keeping-blacks-out-of-st-bernard/). The Greater New Orlenas Fair Housing Action Center, whch has filed suit against the Parish (and won) three times, has a timeline here: http://www.gnofairhousing.org/stbernardparish.html.

This stuff is truly horrific. After three rounds of this measure have been quashed by the U.S. District Court, the Parish is still trying to circumvent the court’s clear ruling that these laws are discriminatory. This kind of racism is, truly, gobsmacking.

Can someone clue these people in to the fact that this stuff really isn’t now–and never was–OK?

Go read The Czech’s post–it’s a very good, incisive piece.

Others in the blogosphere have written some very insightful pieces about this nauseating event (here, here, here, here, and here, to list just a few). I want to focus on one specific point that came out of George Sodini’s blatherings that ticked me off. Consider this:

I actually look good. I dress good, am clean-shaven, bathe, touch of cologne – yet 30 million women rejected me – over an 18 or 25-year period. That is how I see it. (http://tinyurl.com/ls5wv8)

Think about that for a minute. He was rejected by 30 million woman. Really?

First: there is no treating woman as individuals here, as people, as even human. There’s no attempt to analyze his interactions with women; no effort to explore why he doesn’t seem to get along with women; no attempt to take responsibility for the way he deals with women–hell, with people. And note that we don’t even really know what his interactions with women were like. These encounters may have been perfectly cordial and polite. But women didn’t interact with him in the way he wanted them to. And so, by definition, women as a group rejected him, including the millions who never even met him.

Second: women, as a group, owe him. The fact that he hasn’t had sex, or been in a relationship, is because all attractive women (unattractive women, natch, should not apply) have rejected him, as a group. Why they owe him is not clear, beyond the fact that he has done, in his mind, all that is necessary to make him entitled to–what? conversation? affection? sex? probably the latter. But he’s well-dressed, and clean. And he shaves! So the only possible reason that he hasn’t gotten what he wants from them is that they reneged on their responsibilities.

This is the very definition of privilege. George Sodini does the absolute minimum necessary, in his mind, to put women in a position where they owe him sex. And they didn’t keep up their end of the bargain. And now, three women are dead, and nine are injured, because he paid them back.

I find very little in this to suggest that George Sodini is mentally ill. He may have been. But what I see in his writing is the whining of someone who is a complete narcicist–who thinks the world–especially woman–exist to meet his needs. And unfortunately, with respect to how our society looks at women, that seems like it’s a pretty damn common assumption. As others have discussed innumerable times, it fits in extremely well with the day-to-day level of misogyny that is an ongoing part of our culture. Women exist to serve men’s needs. They owe it to men to interact with them, to show them affection, to have sex with them, to do what is necessary to salve their fragile egos. And if they don’t fulfill that basic responsibility, well…consider this post, from the idiotic pickup site Roissy in D.C. (emphasis added):

When men kill women, the underlying reason is almost always an unfulfilled psychosexual need. This goes for spree shooters, rapists, and serial killers. I’m not surprised Sodini hadn’t had sex in nearly 20 years. As I’ve written before, to men on the losing side of the desireability bell curve celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate.

There is a sense of entitlement here that is unfortunately not at all uncommon. Although I don’t know whether or not Sodini is mentally ill, that’s not the point. This is someone who bought wholesale into a very mainstream, dominant cultural narrative that says that women exist to meet men’s needs. And if they fail in doing that, they don’t deserve to exist.

In the Shakesville comment thread on Bob Herbert’s article, commenter kaninchenzero has a spot-on summary of the problem. To quote, briefly:

You keep talking as though Sodini’s murders were something exceptional. They’re not. Women are beaten and killed all the time.

Yup.