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

What most men consider violence is incongruent with what women consider violent and harmful. Instead of deferring to our experience, being the ones who are most victimised by male offenders, which would be the healthy response, they prefer to talk over and mansplain where and why we are wrong.

I find it so odd that people really expect an ‘answer’ as to why some men are violent.

It is clearly an interaction between genetics, hormones and environment. What are people after? There has been much research into violent crime, all of it googlable. The results have really not amounted to men making a conscious decision to be violent (please point me to some research if I am wrong).

Why do some dogs bite and some don’t?

There seems to be a reductionist idea that our society could be cured of its ills if ‘men’ somehow changed their ‘attitude’. This is ‘evidenced’ by comparing us with societies like Sweden. There are so many confounding factors here (population density and cultural diversity being 2 of them) that it is absolutely meaningless.

There are some things that could be done (I posted some ideas upthread which were ignored). However we will never change the fact that we are animals, some of us not very nice.

I think the answer is - they don't want, or feel a need to be violent. They control themselves.

The fact that many men don't want to control themselves is at the heart of the issue.

[Many] men are very emotional, and [many] of them let their emotions run away with them.

Much, much, much more than women (the supposed emotional ones) do.

Most men are not violent, so it is not something that is inevitable. Why can some men control violent urges or just don't have them? What makes them different to other men?

13 pages on and I haven't seen an answer to this.

I quite understand when men are upset by the realization that what they thought were important debating points are recognized by women as expressions of their misogyny. I think it is one of the unwritten rules that women are not to point that out. We aren't supposed to write down and share the rules either.

Absolutely

Im totally copacetic as long as no-one disses the rules

The horror of the rules in polite company is that they name the behavior right out in front of everyone. The delight of the rules is there is one that covers that response.

'It’s a bit Kevin the teenager isn't it? ‘I can’t say annnnything’

Yes, it's along the same lines as men saying they now can't possibly ever flirt with a woman because of the danger of being accused of assault - the whole 'you've complained about a legitimate problem but because I'd rather not be bothered about that problem I'm now going to make it seem like you're whining about nothing and use the whole thing to my advantage to make me seem like a victim.'

It's pathetic.

I'm struck by how often men use that as a tactic when it comes to actually saying anything meaningful.

It’s a bit Kevin the teenager isn't it? ‘I can’t say annnnything’

Perhaps what could be fruitful is a look at how societies across the world differ in rates of violence and violence against women and how that compares to societal characteristics? The nordics / scandiwegia tend to score well in equality and from my experience (Brit living in Sweden) things like gender equality are more of a focus here. Iceland is particulyequal and safe for women.
There isn’t the rigid stereotyping of little girls and boys at nursery for example. Because the weather is utterly shit 9 months a year you send your kids to school in practical outdoor gear, and it’s expensive so parents buy stuff in bright primary colours rather than pinks vs blue. I’ve never seen a girl dressed in froth at nursery - it’s all stuff you can climb in.
Sounds trivial but small things like that repeated across multiple areas seems to lead to a society where there is markedly less machismo than the UK and USA. I’ve never been catcalled or groped here and I do see a marked difference in how the sexes treat each other.
I’d be interested to see an analysis of how this translates to adult crime (not sure how you’d quantify it though - Sweden records rape as individual incidents for example of its abuse over years, which is not what other countries do.)

But yes, perhaps looking at societies that have higher and lower rates and seeing what we can learn from each is a good starter?

s opposed to being about 8 when the response to an argument was to quote a set of made up rules which clearly closed rational debate

Dont diss the rules...just don't

Assassinated,

That is not what I meant about being a Luddite. A lot of the msecure potentially violent men can gather together on social media and give each other courage. I am talking about properly controlling social media.

Ban violent porn altogether (which would be very hard to do but may be possible).

No free passes for cultural reasons. Violence is violence whoever you are. So much rap should be banned.

You do need, however, to protect genuine free speech, however unpalatable.

Promotion of positive male role models including actively encouraging male primary school teachers.

Those are just a few things that I think are worth a try.

Any thoughts on the glorification of sociopathy?

God, too many 'actually's

I'm struck by how often men use that as a tactic when it comes to actually saying anything meaningful.

If you actually engaged you might find that you actually relate to us in some way Larry, that actually this is not just a 'rational debate' but a real problem faced by real people, some of whom you actually care about.

You don't seem to know what mansplaining means Larry. Or, I'm guessing you know exactly what it means but you're using it as a way of dodging the question while implying that it's our fault you won't answer. What a mature tactic to use in a 'rational debate.'

Come one that's a cop out. Mansplaining is not giving your opinion as a human being on a major issue of our society.

Why would attempting to tackle male violence be like being a Luddite and going backwards?

Assassinated,

If I knew, I would not be posting on the internet!

Also if I propose solutions I will be mansplaining etc.

Democratised media is a huge part of the problem. However, do we want to be Luddite and go backwards?

So, larry, what do you think is the most urgent priority to address male violence? What would be the most effective steps we could take as a society? Who should lead on this?

The Bewilderness,

As opposed to being about 8 when the response to an argument was to quote a set of made up rules which clearly closed rational debate.

Do men just pretend to themselves that the men in generations before them (and many men in the current generation too) treated women absolutely abhorrently? Do they play pretend to make themselves feel better?

It feels like being 16 and having the nature/nurture argument with boys who cannot accept that it is both because they would lose their justification for perpetuating the dominance/submission paradigm.

It's a flight of fancy to expect men ever to do anything that isn't entirely in their own interests. So just as we'll never be able to get crime down to the mythical 4% we'll probably never get it very much lower than it is now because men can't be bothered to take any measures that might inconvenience them in order to protect women.

This is my last word on this one Patriarchy because it is boring now, I agree. You said:
'I never said it explains male violence, it was a throwaway example of one small aspect of dominance hierarchies and their effect on societies. I was explaining the link between female attraction to masculine stereotypes.'

I never said a word about it explaining male violence. What I said was the notion of women having a choice over mates and therefore having an influence on the value of violence to men is nonsense, given that there has never ever once ever been any time in recorded history (apart from now) when women have had one iota of control over anything - not their own vaginas, not their own children, not their own money or property or any aspect of their own lives. For women to have influenced male competition they would have had to have the freedom to choose and they have never had that. Ever. You positing some nonsense based on primates and paper wasps really annoys me because it totally whitewashes the fact that at every known point in history the main thing that men have done is restrict, trade, buy, sell, rape, maim, abuse, terrorise and kill women. This fantasy land of women choosing mates is ridiculous. And the fudgey answer about aeons of history is nonsense too - why anyone would believe that women had more control in the past is beyond me, given that in the most technologically, socially and economically advanced period of known history women are still struggling to get control over their own lives.

a thought experiment if you will

Yes less crime m, fewer police, it would be like the country was in the 50’s. No need to lock your door.

That’s how I picture it.

The hierarchical structures we have always (?) lived under are propped up by sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour, Kings were in the job because they were the most murderous (dressed up as being anointed by god) and surrounded theirselves with the most murderous.

Democratising movements have attempted to neutralise this "dangerous man" at the top way of running human life but it's constantly under threat, even now, with nut jobs in charge in the USA, Korea and Russia.

We seem incapable of stopping the rise of violent sociopaths, who are frequently as Lass Wi'a delicate air said, actually inferior bullies really. They are simply without any empathy. The culture of nobility around violence supports this, watch the news, it's all there, the sheer amount of money spent on weapons is boggling.

I don’t think that number is remotely possible.

It’s based off the well documented figure that 98% of violent crime is committed by males. If you could, in theory or our ideal world reduce Male crime patterns to those of females you’d be left with both males and females committing that level equivalent to 2% each. Hence the 96% of crime disappearing figure.

And yes of course it’s a flight of fancy - a thought experiment if you will. But just imagine what would happen of overnight men’s crime pattern and rate was that of women’s.

As I said it’s a revolutionary thought.