Posted on | May 19, 2013 | 19 Comments
Dan Riehl points out that “three Hispanic males” were implicated in the murder of a gay black man in Greenwich Village, a potentially relevant fact that the New York Times couldn’t be bothered to mention in maundering on about the historic vicinity of the crime:
Mark Carson did not hide that he was gay, and when he went out on the town he would often head to Greenwich Village, where years before he was born, much of the struggle for gay liberation unfolded. Yet late Friday night, just blocks from the Stonewall Inn, among the most important landmarks of that struggle, he was confronted with a man screaming antigay slurs, who then stalked him before pulling out a silver revolver and fatally shooting him, the police said. . . .
“There was a time in New York City when two people of the same gender could not walk down the street arm-in-arm without fear of violence and harassment,” said Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, whose district includes the Village and who hopes to become the city’s first openly gay mayor. “We refuse to go back to that time.”
No, Ms. Quinn, we are going forward to that time: A deluge of immigration, the breakdown of the family, the failure of public education, economic malaise — pious liberal sermonizing cannot eliminate the sources of social friction that lead to crimes like this.
Tres hombres decide to go swaggering muy macho through the West Village on Friday night, looking for somebody to fight:
According to Mr. Kelly, the gunman was in the neighborhood with two other men shortly before midnight when he urinated in front of the Annisa bar and restaurant on Barrow Street at West Fourth Street.
The man then went inside and angrily confronted the bartender with antigay slurs, the police said, pulling up his gray hooded sweatshirt, and revealing a silver revolver in a shoulder holster. He threatened the bartender that if he called the police, he would be killed, the police said.
Gun-control laws, hate-crime laws — none of New York’s laws could protect a “fabulous gay man” from Harlem and his boyfriend:
Both the victim and another man with him were wearing tank tops, cutoff shorts and boots.
“Do you want to die here?” Morales asked the victim.
Does this involve the Men on Strike phenomenon?
American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. . . . [M]en aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers.
In a culture where the ordinary sources of male self-esteem are stigmatized, doesn’t violent machismo become more common?