What if Eric and Dylan had been girls?

Fairly random thought, but do you think perceptions of/reactions to the massacre would have been any different if they'd been members of the opposite sex?

If they would have been girls, I seriously doubt they would have committed that massacre. Statistics show that very rarely do females commit school shootings.

I think it would be totally different--it would have only been known as "that one shooting that was done by girls."

DaisyDelRey wrote:

I think it would be totally different--it would have only been known as "thatq one shooting that was done by girls."

Why? why do you think that it would be less famous for that reason?, I would like to know your opinion about it and why do you think that.

Mj2beat wrote:

DaisyDelRey wrote:

I think it would be totally different--it would have only been known as "thatq one shooting that was done by girls."

Why? why do you think that it would be less famous for that reason?, I would like to know your opinion about it and why do you think that.

Yeah, if anything I think it'd be more famous, since female school shooters are so rare.

I don't think it would be less famous at all. I just think the whole thing would be thought of differently--I think the fact that the shooters were female would make the perception and media depiction different.

Well, what if Eric and Dylan killed more people as girls (not that being a girl relates to that)? What if their bombs worked?
Also, Daisy, could you expand on how the media's depiction of a shooting like that would be different?

I guess their names might've been Erica and Diane?

Female spree killers are very rare. Brenda Spencer and Olga Hepnarova are really the only 2 I can recall. If they did go on a rampage as females, I think they would be far more (in)famous.

We would get an NBK squared effect. People would be even more willing to justify what they done, even more willing to empathize with them, the media would be more soft on them and putting mroe blame on external factors. They would have more followers, more tribute videos, more lesbian fanfiction and Quentin Tarantino would actually make a movie about them. There would be more exposure, more copycat killings.

Really, fallout would have been even worse than what really happened.

SeeMan666 wrote:

I guess their names might've been Erica and Diane?

Or Dylanne...

Sabratha wrote:

Female spree killers  are very rare. Brenda Spencer and Olga Hepnarova are really the only 2 I can recall. If they did go on a rampage as females, I think they would be far more (in)famous.

We would get an NBK squared effect. People would be even more willing to justify what they done, even more willing to empathize with them, the media would be more soft on them and putting mroe blame on external factors. They would have more followers, more tribute videos, more lesbian fanfiction and Quentin Tarantino would actually make a movie about them. There would be more exposure, more copycat killings.

Really, fallout would have been even worse than what really happened.

Could you go into further detail as to why you believe it would be worse? I'd be interested in what you have to say. Would there be more female or male copycats? Why do you think the media would be softer on them? I tend to think that because typically females aren't violent to this extreme that the media would demonize a female perpetrator more so than a male. Men are perceived as more violent, so when they commit crimes like this it isn't a huge shock. But if a female commits such a crime it completely catches everyone of guard.

I think there would perhaps be a bit more female copycats, because it would be easier to identify with the shooters.

I also think there would be more male copycats, because it would be two girls (fantasy fodder) doing something brutal, violent and macho (again fantasy fodder). You can see it all the time in the media.
Also it would be easier for men to "worship" and idolize female shooters becaus they would be able to avoid all the gay connotations as well would have it easier to look at the female killers without seeing them in any way as rivals or someone that needs to be "surpassed" or bested etc. They would have been easier to follow, without the pressure to surpass the deathcount etc.

Media would be softer on them imho, because the society in general is tougher on women with sexuality, outspoken-ess and prestige seeking (bitch syndrome), but its easier on women when it comes to violence. On average all around the western world husband killers get lower sentences than wife killers. Same for many types of violent crime, when a woman gets busted for being in a volent gang, she's more often painted as a victim of the gang etc.

Quote :

I tend to think that because typically females aren't violent to this extreme that the media would demonize a female perpetrator more so than a male. (...)But if a female commits such a crime it completely catches everyone of guard.

I disagree. Precisely because its rare, the media would imho look for excuses or "easy answers" why it happened (hell, it already happened with E&D as it was). If neither would be obviously delusional or psychotic, I think the media would focus even more on bullying, bad parents, seeking to find some abuse in their biographies, or rant more about how "evil TV/games/feminism/atheism/popculture/whatever" is "poisoning the minds of the young girls of this fair country, not like in the olden days were girls were sweet and gentle" etc.

Columbine already caught everyone off guard. Two white kids from suburbia, good middle-class homes etc. That's why imho people were seeking so many "easy answers" in the first place. I think female shooters would intensify all the trends that occured with NBK as it was, both from the media-government side as well as the fanboy/fangirl/loner side.