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

seeing themselves as individuals eh ? Tsk.

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.

Just saying NAMALT and washing your hands of it is ignoring the issue. We are all individuals but we still have to consider groups/classes of people when the situation calls for it.

Also not related to the above comment but I've looked again and quite a lot of the comments have now been deleted.

NAMALTing away to themselves so nothing changes

seeing themselves as individuals eh ? Tsk.

I've read the comments and survived without loss of limb

I wasn't suggesting they were wielding machetes.

Some of them were reasonable but others were the usual. I was reading them in a tremendously bad mood though so perhaps I am being harsher than necessary.

I've read the comments and survived without loss of limb - they really weren't that bad were they ? .....its all subjective I suppose.

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?

Testosterone kicks in at puberty. I really do believe the impact of how young males are socialised in the early years, the messages the receive about their sex and how they identify their own sex with what they see and hear in adult men lays down foundations for what ever the hormones do later on. Risk taking can be focussed on a personal hobby or breaking into houses. It could be in an extreme sport, dealing stocks and shares, or risking personal injury and prison through violence.

I've taught in primary schools for many years and I do see how social attitudes or backgrounds, role models etc gradually affect a child, especially boys. I've also taught children with autism for over 12 years. In children who are quite severely effected and therefore don't really absorb socialisation due to limited communication skills, there is no difference between the sexes in how they may learn to be more physically assertive due to frustrations. I do notice that the hormones, and physical size, affect each in different ways as they get older though.

I dunno enough men manage to not be violent I don't see it as necessarily inevitable. Although if you'll notice nature itself is pretty violent and that is what we've evolved from. We probably wouldn't have risen to the top of the food chain without some capacity for violence, and without a willingness to fight tyranny we wouldn't have Liberty, so maybe civilisation itself owes an awful lot to male violence.

The thing is that violence is also a choice and the benefits that violence accrues can also be achieved in other ways. If you take an in depth view on the philosophies of Martin Luther King or Mahatma Ghandi tremendous things can be achieved without the use of violence, and indeed can sometimes overcome violence itself.

If you read the comments, you will understand why it’s an issue and why people don’t want to talk about it.

I was coming on to say just this having read it. I thought there would be a thread here and I thought the comments below the line were very telling. A whole lot of defensive apologists and no suggestions for improvements, NAMALTing away to themselves so nothing changes ... what a fucking surprise.

Indeed, TheDowagerCuntess - and even easier when you are allowed access to higher education (or indeed any education at all) and are able to stand for public office.

Equally, the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs, artistic accomplishments and socially progressive breakthroughs have been delivered by men.

Much easier to do when you're not effectively chained to the sink, barefoot and pregnant.

But it's a temptation that needs to be resisted, because there simply aren't enough points of commonality

I’ll offer you two biological examples.

1. Bonobos vs chimps. Both almost identical genetically. Chimps are violent and engage in frequent rape and infanticide. They actively enjoy hunting and have a society structure that allows Male violence.

1. XYY individuals - VASTLY over represented in the prison system and also vastly more likely to commit violent acts. Have higher testosterone levels.

Ok and another one :)

There are types of vole whose testosterone level drops through the floor after their mate gives birth. It lowers their tendency to violence and increases their tendency to cooperative parenting, increasing the success rate of breeding and raising mini voles.

Testosterone is linked to violence.

Equally, the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs, artistic accomplishments and socially progressive breakthroughs have been delivered by men

That's because, historically, it has overwhelmingly been men who have had the opportunity to achieve these things. Women couldn't go to university, stand for election and so on until very recently. Nevertheless, women are responsible for a lot more than people generally think, as women's achievements are too often ignored. Look at the case of Rosalind Franklin only a little over 60 years ago - the major player in discovering the structure of DNA and so on, yet she received almost no recognition for decades.

Indeed, the vast majority of violent criminals are men, violent states led by men, and risk-taking behaviour committed by men. Equally, the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs, artistic accomplishments and socially progressive breakthroughs have been delivered by men.

Many on thread seems to be attributing the ‘bad’ behaviours to some kind of innate masculinity, while ignoring the good as if they’re aberrant or simply a function of ‘patriarchy’. What if the same factors that drove the good, also drove the bad? What if equalising one set of behaviours between the sex’s also equalised the other?

When 'societies break down' (primarily war) - the gloves are off - you see them for what they are, especially the rape and murder of women and children. That is inexcusable, really it is.

Yes, what Bowl just said. Especially 'society is the cap'!

Six thousand years and counting, and males cannot get their violent shit under control? Well, either they very much like it that way, or they are beyond redemption. Take your pick, neither answer is terribly comforting.

I also think socialisation is acts as a break on male violence.

When societies break down in war etc male violence goes out of control. All social restrictions disappear. I think men are actually socialised to be less violent.

But it's a temptation that needs to be resisted, because there simply aren't enough points of commonality

Big wrong there! The commonality is that most, well in excess of 90% (and way higher in the serious violence stakes) violence, the perps are male. Most of the mass killers and serial killers, again male. Most of the DV abusers, male. Most major crime, male. Male, male, male, male.

Of course, the papers will milk any female violence story to the max - they are the exception. But if you count it on actual incidents, not coverage, male violence and criminality is the overwhelming pattern.

But further than that, media coverage will quite often minimise or excuse male violence, and emphasise female violence and denounce the perpetrator.

I am astounded that most people seem blinded to that pattern. Really, it is easy to spot (but patriarchy will shut you up about it).

I tend to agree with PatriarchyPersonified, it is a bit too widespread across time and space to write it off as conditioning. It's a flaw, a fundamental flaw.

Bowl

Agree completely. To clarify, a predisposition towards anything does not equal an excuse for that kind behaviour.

There is a big difference between a 'reason' that something happens and an 'excuse' for it.

Agree with patriarchy there.

The propensity to violence is there to begin with.

Socialisation acts as a brake or modifier on that latent tendency. It’s a restraining layer over the top.

What we do need to be careful of is the argument that violence is innate and thus inevitable and not truly men’s fault. We are a sentient species who are capable of modifying our behaviour. Evolutionary psychology is sometimes hijcaked as an excuse for behaviours rather than being confined to explanations of them.

Men are responsible for most of the violence in every single society and culture on the planet.

The cross cultural nature of that statistic would indicate that its not a socialisation or cultural issue, its a genetic one.

Blaming socialisation and culture puts the cart before the horse.

Societies promote images of male violence precisely because of the underlying male predispositions towards conflict and risk taking.

But it's a temptation that needs to be resisted, because there simply aren't enough points of commonality

I beg to differ.

Care to tally up the number of violent female criminals versus male?

Violent nation states led by women versus men?

To take the exact question in your title, it's because mass murder is very rare, so it is unwise to put weight on any particular factors because the people concerned are so very few in numbers. Once a very rare event has happened, the 'sense' of what matters in relation to that incident is nearly always wrong.

Rare event/large deviation is not a place from which to look at more general societal phenomenon, and it's the basis of the 'why what you think is wrong' debunking books (based on actual evidence) come about.

So that's why the debate isn't, and shouldn't be, framed in those terms.

If looking at crime, and violent crime, it needs to be more specific. It is tempting to read across and make assumptions about what makes someone criminal. But it's a temptation that needs to be resisted, because there simply aren't enough points of commonality as more and different offences are considered (it's hard enough even when looking at a narrow group)

Why interventions don't work is a fascinating subject, and the short answer is often that people lumped assumptions in together.

I think the real question is - which men do to want us to open up - does the current system work well? No.

But we're led to believe it's the lesser of two evils. Chaos or this. But who does it benefit really? And are the men in power really the best to give our trust to?

Don't mean to derail - my thoughts led me into what I believe is the real issue and maybe I need to set up another post sometime- not feeling entitled to take up space today

Good question - the answer being most men will always side with other men.

they say one thing and do another -

does the media coverage alter at women's protests? No.

Do women's conditions alter materially through their protests? No.

Do men stand with women when their rights are under threat? Are men standing up presently and actively advocating for women in their fight to have their legal rights maintained - a very very few.

Do men award grants/ investment funds to women led businesses even though they perform better than male led ones - No.

When I realised men will rarely give anything up for women - money/ status/ power / media content - I realised little has changed for women since the Dark Ages. We have the vote but who is there to vote for - the choice is rigged and has been for eons