Nearly every mass killer is a man. Why aren’t we talking about that?

And the idea that educated men aren't violent is such utter nonsense I don't know how you believe it. No one group of men commits more rape than another - in fact most of the high profile cases of rape in the news recently were carried out by well-educated professional men.

It's not a small proportion though, is it? Two women a week are killed and 85,000+ women are raped in the UK alone, not to mention the others who don't report and the still others who are subject to domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, coercive control etc etc. Practically every single woman in the world is subject to some sort of threat or violence from a man at some point in their lives.

Spaghetti,

On a species level, yes.

I am saying that statistically there will always be a small proportion of violent men (and an even smaller proportion of violent women).

That is not an excuse for violence, but an acceptance of reality. Nor does it mean that violent people should not be punished.

I'm struggling to understand your point larry? Is it that we must have testosterone so violence is just a side effect we have to put up with?

The vast majority of men are brought up and educated not to be violent.
As I have repeatedly said, male violence is a pathology, not the norm.

In a society where violence is glorified it becomes the norm. You even used a competitive sport analogy that illustrates that glorifying violence is the norm.
However, the overwhelming assumption on here is that the greater prevalence of violence in men than women is somehow caused by socialisation and the 'patriarchy'. And that if men somehow 'tackled' male violence, it would all go away and everyone would live happily ever after.

This statement is so dishonest that I have quoted it so that it can hang there dripping with denial.

No he directly said That yes Male violence existed BUT.... I thought that one was a teensy bit on the side of minimising and apologism.

Yes the socialisation being a layer on top has been discussed prior. I think we’ve agreed on that. Just wondering if you’d like to expound your sport analogy to any of the lassies from Chibok...

This is exactly what we mean when we say men dont understand the problem. Just like I’m sure I’m oblivious to plenty of racism, not by deliberately ignoring it, just being it not being my lived experience. I can well imagine why the author listed upthread doesn’t talk to white people about race. She must feel like she’s whacking her head against concrete.

Did i miss the personal attacks

Dammit i always miss those

Could someone either point them out or better still repost

Please and thank you

You just compared the wholesale rape, murder and oppression of potentially half the planet to people cheating in sport

Men are violent and start wars

But the upside is we have sport

Yay

That's certainly how i read it

Happy to believe that larry just wasn't explaining it very well

I do agree with the socialism he was on about though

So we have had derailment accusations and personal attacks.

I'm waiting for the term 'sealion' to start getting thrown around and we have a full house.

Babel

What are you talking about? Larry was comparing the nature of the act, not it's severity. As a comparison, it served the purpose of his point pretty well.

Disagreement is not derailment.

You just compared the wholesale rape, murder and oppression of potentially half the planet to people cheating in sport.

It’s not a good analogy is it? It’s NAMALT. Again. And yes, it’s derailing.

Woman,

No, it is addressing the thread precisely, just with a different opinion to yours.

How can addressing the cause of male violence be derailing on a thread about male violence?

Testosterone does not systemic subjugation of women make. It's the rationalisation of male violence into "he just snapped"

It's derailing again

Lass,

I am agreeing with you, I think. Am I really expressing myself so badly?!

I think both men and women have the ability to be violent. I think testosterone lowers the bar for men. In a sense, men require greater socialisation to overcome their innate tendency for violence (which I believe that we all, as animals, have to a greater or lesser extent).

Is this trade off of testosterone versus a greater prediliction to violence worth it? I believe that it is on a species level. This does not excuse those that are violent in any way, however.

Most well brought up, well educated men are non violent. You said upthread that you did not know of any violent men. I am in the same position (at least as far as I know). Why some men, despite awful upbringings, remain unviolent and a few men, even from great backgrounds, are still violent, is a mystery to me.

There are clearly many interlinking factors at play here.

That, however, is different, to saying that, if we are sexually dimorphic species, and males need more testosterone, then it is a part of the human condition that some males will always be poorly socialised and their aggression misdirected

I'm struggling to follow what you are saying here. Even if we take as a given that men produce more testosterone than women and testosterone can make some men violent it still comes back to what other distinguishing feature is there between men who are not violent and men who are?

And what is the distinguishing feature between women who are not violent and those who are? For both the answer must be socialisation with a dash of education.

I agree that "it's the patriarchy innit" is too simplistic (particularly as one occasionally sees excuses made for the small number of viiolent women that they are victims of the patriarchy)


However, condemning the fact that men are more violent than women is a little bit like condemning competitive sport because it can lead to injury, misuse of illegal drugs and, in many cases, abusive interactions between trainers and athletes.

It is absolutely not comparable.

Bowl,

As I have repeatedly said, male violence is a pathology, not the norm. I condemn it unequivocally. Violent men should go to jail for a long time.

However, the overwhelming assumption on here is that the greater prevalence of violence in men than women is somehow caused by socialisation and the 'patriarchy'. And that if men somehow 'tackled' male violence, it would all go away and everyone would live happily ever after.

I don't buy this (and find it somewhat misandrist, to be honest). Male violence has to be seen in the context of men having much more testosterone than women. This has pluses and minuses (IMO). If you entirely neglect this context, of course, 'men' are 'prone to violence' and all need condemning. You would need to neglect biology and the effect of anabolic steroids on aggression, however, to do this.

I don't think you will find anyone on here who think INCEL are anything but violent loonies. Or anyone who agrees that any man has a right to be violent.

That, however, is different, to saying that, if we are sexually dimorphic species, and males need more testosterone, then it is a part of the human condition that some males will always be poorly socialised and their aggression misdirected.

However, condemning the fact that men are more violent than women is a little bit like condemning competitive sport because it can lead to injury, misuse of illegal drugs and, in many cases, abusive interactions between trainers and athletes.

I’m a bit at this analogy. It’s somewhat apologist don’t you think?

There is no ‘but’ or ‘however’ with the condemnation of Male violence. Male violence is A Very Bad Thing indeed. It doesn’t have any redeeming points. It doesn’t have any benefits for women.

You’re basically saying that well, men are just more competitive/aggressive and that’s a good thing and that some of them (and it’s not a tiny minority who are violent for gods sake) and that violence is just an unfortunate side effect

I absolutely despair. Women on this thread are saying this again and again and again - male violence is a fucking massive issue and not a single bloke is saying ‘yeah it is.’

It’d be like me saying that well I don’t see much racism because I’m white, and I’m not racist, so it’s probably all a bit overblown... 🤦🏻‍♀️

Violence should always be condemned.

However, condemning the fact that men are more violent than women is a little bit like condemning competitive sport because it can lead to injury, misuse of illegal drugs and, in many cases, abusive interactions between trainers and athletes.

Well, yes, all the above are true, but competitive sport also has huge benefits and the above problems are limited and not normal.

With male violence, I would posit that the testosterone which leads to aggression and competitiveness can be channelled both positively and negatively. The vast majority of men are brought up and educated not to be violent. Focusing on the few who are (especially the tiny minority of mass murderers) without acknowledging there is anything good at all about male competitiveness is a very one sided way of looking at things.

That’s brilliant LaSqrrl!

But on a lighter note, this:

outabouter.com/2018/04/28/involuntarily-underpaid-women-mark-6000-years-of-not-resorting-to-violence/

As this is a thread about male violence, found two links today on my facebook feed that may be of interest.

This first one, a men-for-men site:
xyonline.net/content/mass-shooters-and-mens-will-change

The second, more focused on one of the common themes emerging ("incels"):
www.facebook.com/joyofresistance/photos/a.1988123431428508.1073741828.1935960663311452/2105242509716599/

There is also another theme which is gaining more notice (will need to find a link or two), but of the common thread that many of these mass killers have a history of DV against the women in their lives.

Hating women, beating women. Smells a lot like male entitlement.

Cards: But I do usually engage long enough to say, "Buy a fucking book."

LOL, perfect!

the testicles of objectivity seem to be swinging in unison on this thread.

Babel

Maybe ask why you are perturbed by women on here not agreeing with you

Eh? I'm not and never have been.