Media wrong on Col Russel Williams

The media coverage of the Russell Williams case is starting to piss me off big time. Media reports focus on his wearing of womens underwear. He did do that but that is not what made him break into some 70+ homes, sexually attack two women and murder two more. He was a predator. He broke into homes and stole underwear, sometimes he jacked off while in the homes he broke into.

It was always from a place of power. He wanted people he stole from to know he was there. In one case he left a note on a young girls computer saying "Merci". Thats saying to the person, "I can do whatever I want and you can't stop me."

Yesterday I pointed you to a blog that was raising concerns about this matter. The writer is right on. She noted the media language which was saying "Williams fetish escalated" missed what was really happening. It was not a fetish that escalated. It was his behaviour. I know a few guys (mostly straight guys by the way) that wear womens underwear, they didn't break into homes to get it. They bought it. They share their fetish with their partners and sometimes with others. They have no connection to the behaviour and actions taken by Russell Williams.

Russell Williams forced women to do his will. He had and sought un-consenting, complete, power over women. Read on here.
Oh, for fuck's sake. When the media latch on to a bad concept, they REALLY latch on and don't let go. Two days ago I blogged about how the Russell Williams case had been mischaracterized as a "fetish" crime. Did anyone get the memo?
The Star's Heather Mallick sure didn't. She went all melodramatic, and then right back to the ol' hinky-kinky:
Up to that point, Williams had been a pathetic panty thief and haunter of little girls. Panties don't talk back. They're mere containers for the living female that inhabits them. Williams later told police that underwear had been his fetish since his 20s, which shows the extraordinary power of a minor brain pattern. He was hopeless with girls. The evidence of his rapes shows that he didn't know how to talk to a victim, and there was even a strange, awkward politeness.
Oh sure. Just another socially awkward panty raider, who raped because he needed to get laid but didn't know how to talk to girls. Weirdo, weirdo. Case dismissed. That seems to be a pattern at the Star, because another article, one purporting to get inside his criminal profile, also misses the mark:

Read more here at News of the Restless. Thank you whoever you are for being so informed and sharing this information with the rest of us.

1 comment:

Bina said...

Ah yes, that would be me. I get so upset when the media use language so carelessly, and don't understand the very clear differences between a fetishist (odd but harmless) and a predator (who can seem normal but is way worse than merely odd.) We rely on them to convey the facts, and if they can't do so accurately, the public suffers.