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

I should add that the law on rape in marriage was only changed after a lot of argument and campaigning - men actively resisted changing it - while they weren't stupid enough to say they were ok with men raping their wives, there was a general sentiment that actually in marriage women do owe men sex, and the fact that a man could be charged with raping his wife put in jeopardy a man's right to bully his wife into letting him use her as a wank sock. Poor old men eh?

Well said, Spaghetti. Well said.

From Larry:
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.

I am sure many wives of 'respectable men' (solicitors, judges, professors etc) would beg to differ of your learned opinion there Larry. Just google 'domestic violence in upscale marriages' and you will see a number of books, both UK and US mainly, on the subject. That you personally don't see it, or don't know about the extent of the problem among these men, counts for exactly zero.

Also in my research into DV, these 'nice well educated men' or 'respectable men' are the ones more likely to be Family Annihilators.

As an example of the above, until 1991 it was legal for a man to rape a woman as long as that woman was his wife. Now, if men gave any sort of a shit about protecting women from violence, that loophole wouldn't have existed in the first place, I mean, it should never be acceptable to rape a woman, no matter what your relationship to her, right? But no, men decided that ok, we'll have to seem civilised and say you can't just forcibly stick your penis into any woman out there (but of course when it comes down to it, if you do do that, the justice system will take every effort to blame her for it) but of course if a woman signs a marriage cert she has effectively signed away all rights to her body and her husband can just use that lump of meat as and when he sees fit - it's not like she's a human at that point who should have a say, right? A man has taken her as his possession and it's up to him what he does with his possession.

Individual men may be violent but the system supports and condones them, perhaps not quite so explicitly any more but enough that millions of men get away with destroying women's lives every year.

'The only thing you can do is mitigate the socialising factors that make it worse.'

That's what feminists and others have been trying to do for a long time, but it constantly meets both subtle and fierce resistance from men (and not just violent men). Not only do men not want to name male violence they also don't want any measures to be taken to tackle male violence that may inconvenience them in the smallest way. Meanwhile many men feel it is perfectly acceptable to expect women not to wear certain clothes, not to go to certain places, not to travel alone, not to drink alcohol etc because apparently inconveniencing and restricting women is just fine.

It doesn't matter if she's a transwoman or a woman. The statistics would still show that the overwhelming number of perpetrators of mass violence are men. That video does not show what you think it does, imo.

She doesnt confirm it at all!!

Er, because you can’t go round forcibly medicalising people!

It's interesting to me that the idea of forcibly medicating people seems outrageous, while the status quo (men routinely assaulting and killing women) doesn't seem outrageous enough to require an urgent solution.

But perhaps the idea of introducing a curfew for all men, along with forced hormone treatment, is a realistic and rational response to men's hysterical insistence that male violence is perpetrated by individuals acting alone, as if there were no systems or structures that facilitated this violence.

It would be an interesting school excercise wouldn't it? Rewrite these headlines in a more honest and literal way.

Man drives car into crowd, killing ten.

There was also the one recently where the husband killed his wife after she challenged him over the amount of debt they were in and he’d got another loan, fraudulently, in her name.

The entire tone of the piece was that she was to blame for loving the high life. Not her martial arts trained husband, who strangled her with his bare hands after she found out he had committed fraud in her name. Even saw one comment saying she deserved it for ‘nagging’

Man kills wife with bare hands after committing extensive fraud.

Man kills wife after she raises objection to his crime.

So true Bowl. Do you remember years ago there was a case where a man shot a policeman dead because his ex girlfriend had lied that her new boyfriend was a policeman.

There were internet comments that she was to blame for the policeman’s death and should be ashamed about lying. I was stunned by the woman-blaming. She was obviously just trying to protect herself from a violent ex, but no people always find ways to blame the woman.

The passive way the media covers violence is notable. I read something along the lines of “car ploughs into crowd, killing ten” as if the car drove itself.

I think it’s more complex than ‘just’ testosterone or ‘just’ socialisation.

What I see is a complex mix of biology and society, creating feedback loops that reinforce or reduce existing behaviour patterns in the individual.
And then on top of that, the tone of society as a whole acts to modulate what is and is not acceptable. And the law reacts - often in an inadequate manner, which sets the tone further.

That last level - the way society and the law condones or frowns on behaviour sets is very important. Because I think that is the level that really makes a substantial difference to women’s lives and I think that’s whats changed over the past twenty or so years. In a climate where violence is glamourised in media and pop culture and crucially, NOT punished adequately by the courts, savaged in the media or condemned by society, those individuals get bolder.
The rise of the web as way of connecting people who would otherwise have held an ideology alone is also important.

The media for example: the first DM headline I saw on the news stands was along the lines of ‘man does awful thing, kills ten, in rampage sparked by rejection by woman. as if she was to blame.

The courts for example: a woman in a trial near us had her case dismissed. Her husband had beaten her and financially abused her over a period of years. Apparently she should have ‘asked his family to stop him as that was the cultural norm.’

When attitudes like that prevail, it isn’t trivial. It sets the tone, the framework through which society perceived violence and the value of women and girls.

This is not a problem that can be solved on one level. The current trend for blaming women for everything and glamourising violence, in the media, in porn, in pop culture, has to change. If we can create a legal system that actually punishes violent men properly, a media that calls the problem out and examines it WITHOUT all the NAMALTing bollocks we’ve seen on this thread, and reign in the accessibility of abusince porn, we might stand a chance of getting somewhere.

It's hardly inevitable if testosterone causes it, is it? We know the cause, so why not deal with it?

Apparently it's testosterone Bowl. Which begs the question - if testosterone causes such destruction and suffering shouldn't we do something about it?

Er, because you can’t go round forcibly medicalising people!

The only thing you can do is mitigate the socialising factors that make it worse.

Reduction of testosterone in transgender males does not decrease their violent activities so obviously the assertions larry makes is clearly false.

Every experience in life tells you men are more violent. It's innate.

The most successful movies, video games have violence throughout. Violence, be it legal, organised, fiction or illegal is everywhere. It's mostly consumed by and committed by men.

Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson are sporting legends. Predominantly due to their ability to knock other men unconscious.

Most men arent violent but they consume violence happily.

Apparently it's testosterone Bowl. Which begs the question - if testosterone causes such destruction and suffering shouldn't we do something about it?

Ok if we take the standpoint that violent crime is inevitable (at our current dire levels of social progress anyway) why is 98% of it done by men?

If a woman really wants to be violent she can be. Guns don’t take much strength to shoot. Yet in societies that have strength levelling weapons widespread, it’s still men doing most of the crime.

You’re still trying to make the point that you as an individual Are not violent. We get that. Now why are men as a class so violent? Try to look past the implication that you personally are at fault. Why are men so violent?

It's hardly inevitable if testosterone causes it, is it? We know the cause, so why not deal with it?

Nope,

Our legal system is right to punish violent offenders harshly.

I am saying crime is inevitable. It does not excuse it. You are making a (false) nexus from my posts that I have been clear to say is not the case.

Domestic violence is ubiquitous across all levels of society, only there is a greater sense of shame about it the higher up you go so women tend to shut up and suffer in silence more.

I don't think we have to 'put up' with anything! We're the human race, don't like the rain? Build a house. Want to get about faster? Here's the wheel. Your welcome. We can innovate the crap out of anything no reason violence can't be any different.

That said I'm still stuck at the class analysis thing, if we are examining the problem of violence we need to examine the subset of humanity that have the descriptor 'violent'. It is of course crucial to ask why are more men violent than compared to women. However the answer could just easily be the 15% size/strength differential between men and women. Thus those who do have a physical advantage are more likely to use it.

The number of women who do abuse tend to do it to those weaker than them. In addition a quick look at domestic violence stats show women are at similar risk of DV in same sex relationships if not more so, although the risk posed by a much larger man is obvs greater.

I'd be happy to target men for anger management as in a world of finite resources that is where you'd get the most bang for your buck.

As the late Golda Meir said when told she should put a curfew in place on women after a series of rapes:

“But it’s the men who are attacking the women. If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay at home, not the women.”

The problem with saying it’s inevitable is that it is excusing it. It’s not namin the problem and saying it’s unacceptable. It’s an extension of boys will be boys.

With the exception of specific mental states, out legal system holds adults culpable for their actions. The only acceptable level of violence is nil. Are we really saying that men can’t control themselves as well as women can?

As I have repeatedly said, male violence is a pathology, not the norm.

Yes, but the values and attitudes that when taken to their extreme lead to male violence are the norm.

If men's violence is inevitable due to how ridiculously hormonal and out of control they are, shouldn't men's movements be restricted, for the safety of the people around them? I mean, women are the ones who are restricted at the moment but that doesn't really make sense does it?

In short: it’s inevitable? Not fucking good enough.

It’s not a small proportion though really, is it? and the damage done is certainly disproportionate.

We are sentient creatures. We have control of our actions. 3.6 billion women on the planet manage to commit only 2% of the violent crime. To say that violence is an inevitable side effect of there being men is unacceptable to me.

Women manage to control ourselves. Why don’t we hold men to the same standards?