Once most of the facts were known, discussion, analysis and debate of the Virginia Tech massacre began. Much of it, rightly, has dealt with the role of guns in society and on campus.

The other concern has been Seung-Hui Cho’s mental state and what should have been done about it. Lots of words have been used to describe him: angry, sullen, creepy, autistic, depressed and shy. And he has been called many things: Immigrant, stalker, loser, killer, and loner.

Cho referred to himself a “pathetic boy” in one of the video clips he left behind. The one thing I haven’t seen or heard him called is a man.

Yet being regarded as a man seems to be the thing Cho wanted more than anything. But at age 23, he didn’t feel like one. And now, even after his brutal murders and self-inflicted, yet imaginary, martyrdom, no one thinks of him as a man.

This story continues below
Advertisement

The term “madman” came up, but it doesn’t quite fit. Rather than a force of masculine aggression, Cho’s scowling poses with guns and knives project a wounded petulance. His monotone rants are, well, pathetic.

He’ll always be the crazy kid who shot up that campus. So how could Cho have become a man?

He apparently tried another route suggested ubiquitously by modern American culture: sex.

No doubt Virginia Tech is every bit the casual hookup environment like every college, but no one would hook up with Cho. So he created on online persona to meet girls, and when that didn’t work, he leered and snapped pictures with his camera phone. Reports show he also hired a prostitute about a month before his murders.

Cho wouldn’t have felt any different if he did get what he wanted. No man ever found himself because of a woman. A man has only a shot at finding himself, and learning how to interact with women, through the fellowship of other men.

Little of the media and entertainment we consume shows that. The extra-cool guys are bachelors who get the girl of their choice. The rest are inferior. Ask yourself the last time you saw a sitcom in which the dad wasn’t a lazy oaf or a dim bulb. Or a commercial in which the ineffectual husband wasn’t bested by the clever wife.

Women are certainly objectified, but men are infantilized.

It’s no surprise that men respond viscerally when something or someone portrays real manhood in a deep, true way. The films “Braveheart” and “Gladiator” did that in an inspiring way, “Fight Club” in a much darker manner.

HBO’s “Rome” was built on the characters Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, two strong men who made each other stronger through a fiercely loyal friendship.

Male identity is also a central theme of “The Sopranos,” where all relationships are dysfunctional. Last Sunday’s episode struck an eerie chord so soon after Virginia Tech [spoilers ahead]. Senile Uncle Junior is in a psych ward after shooting Tony Soprano. While there, a young Asian man with anger issues latches onto Junior, who puts him to work running scams on their fellow patients. Junior’s protege comes out of his shell and thrives, looking on the mobster as a replacement for his own distant, controlling father. When Junior withdraws his approval, the young man’s rage rushes back in to fill the void, with hard consequences.

Iron sharpens iron, as the prophet said. Cho didn’t have that. Perhaps that’s part of the reason he chose to become dull and deadly.

Aaron Keith Harris is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.