LA Arsonist: Why assume it’s a man?
I’m sure there’s some statistic about the majority of arsonists being male. And, sure, there’s a murky photo floating around that shows a middle-aged white male with a ponytail near one of the Hollywood car fires (oh the suspicious middle-aged white men who still enjoy hair metal…there aren’t any of those every around Hollywood, right?). But even before reports of this picture surfaced, there was still the automatic, “I wonder who did it, what he’s like, why is he doing it? ” comments floating around dinner tables, newscasts, people’s minds. Somehow, some way, this recent string of arsons must be, in the minds of the populace, the work of a man.
Now, this person could very well be a man. I’d say, just passed on purely population figures, however, that it’s probably a woman. Certainly this is a sexist comment, though, isn’t it? How dare a man assume it’s a woman committing such a heinous crime. Women’s lib! Free us of brutality of men! But really, because there are more women than men, we should assume, by default, that it’s a woman. I mean, by any use of logic along this line, it’s clearly more likely that a woman would commit the crime, as there are simply more of them.
Now, is it a man? A woman? No one knows for sure yet. However, if we’re going to live a post-feminist world where woman have attained a majority in population, workforce, universities, etc., then shouldn’t assumption of guilt be just as equal (or unequal, and weighted more towards women, as the aforementioned are?). By assuming that this arsonist must be a man, there is clear use of sexism—not the usual sexism, but sexism against men, a minority, who should be treated more equally. May the police catch her!
