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

@sawdustformypony Sounds like a different type of offender to those involved in domestic violence - no hunting involved there, it would seem.

Different kind of hunting: perp has to find a suitable victim then begin a pattern of control to wear the victim down so that, by the time the physical violence starts, the victim doesn't consider leaving to be viable. It's a psychological version of persistence hunting.

Failure to object is viewed as acquiescence. We have had this conversation about rape jokes over the years. Men who laugh along with the joke are bonding with the rapist and signaling their approval.

Men are capable of considering class analysis of every group except their own? No. The denial is a tool, and a very effective one.
10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

It's been said before, but we need to bring our boys up to be more like girls.

But how?

How can people, en masse, be encouraged to do this?

Ever since I saw it I can't get over the difference in violent crime statics between men and women. Imagine a world where men had the same violent crime stats as women. There would barely be any.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#Worldwide_homicide_statistics_by_gender

@WichBitchHarpyTerfThatsMe

Ekphrasis, sorry if I'm being a bit thick but are you saying that in children with autism both boys and girls are equally physically assertive? If so, are both sexes less or more physically assertive than children who do not have autism?

This is observational anecdotalism

There are some children for whom receptive and expressive communication is extremely difficult and life is very challenging and they get very frustrated. Some revert inwards. Some may become physically challenging and if severely dis-regulated display what the average onlooker would interpret as violent behaviour. Some discover they enjoy the predictability of what happens if they do certain actions. I don't see a difference in the sexes here, but in neurotypical children, without any diagnoses of anything, there can be differences in primary age children between the sexes in terms of physical behaviour. However, it's interesting that there are considerably more boys in settings for children on the spectrum than girls. So it's extremely complex and I've confused myself.

I do think that when I've worked in primary schools in deprived areas there is a difference between the sexes which I can pin point to the social stereotypes those children are surrounded with at home but in culture and the children themselves can perpetuate. Calmer boys might get picked on for just being gentle etc.

I disagree with you strongly there Babycham. History is always written by those in power.

To understand male violence one needs to understand that there is a significant minority of men who are predator-like. Imagine a cat stalking a mouse and relishing it - enjoying the hunt and the kill - that is what these men are like. It's impossible to tell most of them apart from other guys, on the surface.

Sounds like a different type of offender to those involved in domestic violence - no hunting involved there, it would seem. Any idea as to the extent as to this level of significant minority - is there a reference ?

To understand male violence one needs to understand that there is a significant minority of men who are predator-like. Imagine a cat stalking a mouse and relishing it - enjoying the hunt and the kill - that is what these men are like. It's impossible to tell most of them apart from other guys, on the surface.

The other men are largely pack animals according to them, who follow what their leaders do and "just follow orders" by enlarge - and as we have such poor quality moral leadership from most politicians - we get the NAMALT syndrome but no advocacy on behalf of, nor standing up alongside, women.

the neuropsychological status of perpertrators of domestic homicide and nonhomicidal domestic violence, the empirical literature is extremely limited.

Actually Jacqueline Campbell at John Hopkins is one of world's experts on DV and it's perpetrators and has developed a successful risk management framework that has significantly reduced DV homicides

4/10 guys feel nothing when women talk about sexual harassment

www.news1130.com/2018/02/28/one-four-canadian-men-feel-nothing-women-talk-sexual-harassment-survey/

or 'NAMALT is a cop out' is the real cop out.

There is pressing work to be done on finding out more about violent males that are out committing crimes such as homicides - as the authors say in this interesting paper ...re: the neuropsychological status of perpertrators of domestic homicide and nonhomicidal domestic violence, the empirical literature is extremely limited.

Determining what makes people violent and why men are by far and away the largest perpetrators of violence should be a top priority for all societies.

However this article is little more than virtue signalling by Gary Yonge. "Why are mass killers male" is discussed as any search would show.

Again posters are right that it's by no means a done deal, but this constant narrative of male collective guilt doesn't help bring the less progressive men onside either.

I dont think there needs to be collective guilt. Thing is if you’re one of the decent men, like my DH then we are preaching to the choir anyway - you’re not the problem and you’re the ones engaging, talking about it etc, so I suppose you’re seeing the anger even though that anger isn’t directed at you personally (if that makes any sense.)

I think all men need to acknowledge that Male violence is a thing. I think all men need to be aware of their behaviour, call out bad behaviour when they see it and be good role models for children. You’re doing that - we do t expect you personally to shoulder the guilt of any individual action on top of that. At the same time i think we get antsy when men deny there’s an issue (and again, you’re not doing that, this is more aimed at men generally rather than you.)

I know I was speaking to my SIL about a similar issue and she made a very generic point about Male violence. My brother got incredibly pissed off and refused to continue the conversation. That’s what makes me angry - refusing to talk about it. He was NAMALT ING away like mad and it turned the convo back to soothing his feelings rather than discussing the point at hand.

I'm a man and I'm not violent. I teach my son not to be and I don't associate with people who are. Outside of those actions, why should I take responsibility for other peoples actions or share any kind of collective guilt?

Guilt no. I don’t expect my husband to feel guilty over the Toronto van killings. I DO expect him to acknowledge (and he does) that Male violence is an issue. I don’t expect a grovelling apology from any religious group every time one member kills someone.
I would like acknowledgement- and self reflection. Because it’s only when that happens that you get progress.

Look at the peace process in NI - while both communities were predominantly made up of individuals who were not actually committing violence, both communities had to look at how the set up of their community fed, encouraged or simply turned a blind eye to violence. With that acknowledgment that at a group level something is happening, there is no progress.

NAMALT is a cop out.

I think you're right in that there has been a historic culture of acceptance of certain types of violence, however I genuinely think that culture is changing. People do call it out far more than they used to. I see these behaviours challenged a lot, even in my own (male dominated) profession.

Again posters are right that it's by no means a done deal, but this constant narrative of male collective guilt doesn't help bring the less progressive men onside either.

I'm a gradualist, not a revolutionary. Things that are important take time to change. As long as they are going in the right direction, I'm generally happy.

Isn't part of the problem calling it male violence? Its violence, committed by violent people. All violence should be condemned whoever does it.

It is generally accepted that it is everyone's responsibility to question racist behaviour when it is seen - sexist behaviour too. To not do this is regarded as colluding or accepting through silence.

But when it comes to male violence that changes - suddenly it is the responsibility of the perpetrators and none of your business.

A failure to acknowledge that male violence is a problem (by men in particular) is a huge issue. I fear it is because men understand that they have their own repressed violent tendencies. To admit it is a male problem is to admit it is their problem.

I really need to work - so I'm sorry if I don't address anymore after this.

I'm a man and I'm not violent. I teach my son not to be and I don't associate with people who are. Outside of those actions, why should I take responsibility for other peoples actions or share any kind of collective guilt?

I don't think you need to share collective guilt for an individual mass killing or anything else an individual does.

I think we all need to look at the issue and say what can we do to address it. I am sure you bring up your son not to be violent just as I have and I am sure you are not individually responsible for incels just as I as a human am not responsible for all human behaviour.

Someone on this board recently wrote something like this (I don't have time to search) but in situations where women are put down, where a misogynistic comment is made, where a woman is being pestered by a man - do we (and men in particular) call it out do we address it or let it pass? Do acknowledge the parts of culture contribute to this (porn, casual misogyny etc.) or do we shrug it off as not our concern?

As individuals we are not responsible for individual acts of violence but we are responsible for how we individually address the problem. If the response is Not All ... anything we are being rather cavalier when evidence suggests a trend. It is almost redundant - clearly not all men are murdering people nor are all Muslims, far from it but we can address behaviour and language within our communities be it Muslim, Christian, men, women or whatever. I find the 'Not all' approach dismissive when discussing issues like this.

I'm sorry if that wasn't the most coherent or comprehensive response but I better go and be responsible.

Silence is collusion only if you have a very authoritarian and absolutist world view.

Aren't you thinking as men think — but not necessarily as groups who are oppressed think? I wasn't asking men to take responsibility for it. I was asking men to speak out about it and make it clear to those around them, men and women, that they don't condone it. Silence can be read as failure to admit there's a problem or even collusion in the problem.

Kitty

This is the rub. To make a comparison, some people view all Muslims as a group, while Muslims and most ordinary people view them as individuals. So when an act of Islamic terrorism takes place, some people want to blame the entire group and expect them to actively show they are against it while individual Muslims and most normal people can see clearly that the group can't be held responsible for individual actions, even if those actions are carried out supoosedly in the name of the group.

So saying that violence is an overwhelmingly male problem is true, but it's then the same leap of logic to say that all men must take responsibility for it.

I'm a man and I'm not violent. I teach my son not to be and I don't associate with people who are. Outside of those actions, why should I take responsibility for other peoples actions or share any kind of collective guilt?

Yes that is the problem. It was said recently here, that feminists see men as a class. Trouble is that men see themselves as individuals. So your position is somewhat fucked if you think this is a staring match and you're waiting to see who blinks first, cos men are just gonna say 'meh' and turn away.

This is true but how do we reasonably discuss this problem if we don't see male violence as belonging to a class or group of people?

Also apologies for telling you to feck off, it was unnecessary.

Oh feck off. If you can't acknowledge male violence in men as a class then we get no further in dealing with that issue.

Yes that is the problem. It was said recently here, that feminists see men as a class. Trouble is that men see themselves as individuals. So your position is somewhat fucked if you think this is a staring match and you're waiting to see who blinks first, cos men are just gonna say 'meh' and turn away.

I sometimes post on another website which is full of educated, middle class, older types. Someone started a thread about the Vancouver Incel attack and various men responded in a way that made it clear they didn't think it had anything to do with them and criticising the women who were talking about patriarchy and misogyny for making it seem as if all men were like that.

I asked whether they'd talked about it with the women in their lives, female colleagues and so on, and whether they'd made it clear they sympathised with women and supported them. They were outraged that they might be expected to do so: they really don't regard it as being anything to do with them. What's more, several women piped up on their side saying they didn't see why the average man should take it on himself to say anything. I pointed out that elsewhere white people were posting in support of the Windrush immigrants denied rights. So we have examples of people supporting each other even when they're not directly affected. But no.

When men do dreadful things to women, other men don't seem to feel the need to support women — because it's not men like them who murder and abuse women. And they don't think this attitude has anything to do with the fact that the violence continues.

sawdustformypony are you just randomly picking bits of my first post to comment on at different times - am I to look forward to your wonderful commentary all day? I have to work now so I won't be able to play I'm afraid.