All 'attackers' are young male, is this relevant?

[camaleon]

Not sure whether there is a point to make about this. I have been reading all kind of articles and listening to analysis trying to work out the 'reasons' behind the many mass killings that have happened recently (for instance, here. However, nobody highlights the most obvious feature all these attackers share: they are male and they are young.

Perhaps there is nothing to highlight. It is taken for granted they will be male and it would only be news worthy if they were all female/all over 60/all with green eyes, etc. Still, it seems to me that something must be totally wrong in the way we bring up boys to make them the vast majority of our prisons' population and authors of most crimes one can imagine, particularly violent crimes. I am sure there are tons of books/articles written about it. Would any of you be able to direct me to some good resources on this (rather than me googling at random)?

Fascinating thread - thank you to all contributors

I often think, even if one discounted extremist religiously motivated terror starting from, say, 9/11, that as a society we 'tolerate' male violence in a way that we would never accept female violence.
If the majority of simple Saturday night disturbances/pub fights/stabbing/drunk+disorderly behaviour were carried out by women there would be an outcry.

I think deep down the whole 'boys will be boys' has a lot to answer for.
And early socialisation (maybe as early as intra-uterine?) has a lot to answer for. I have 4 boys and there are some behaviours that astound me and appear to me to be gender specific.
I hope that none of them will ever be disenfranchised enough to want to kill themselves and/or others.

There has been quite a lot of research into radicalisation with the aim of combating terrorism. There is a great summary paper here pdf link sorry <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396030/preventing-violent-extremism-systematic-review.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwisnsvX0pHOAhXGIcAKHQsLApsQFgg4MAc&usg=AFQjCNGERXRdV4H_UjHCnFFFNr-6hbzilw&sig2=4rvMXJDIzkJ6gxocIRZoqA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396030/preventing-violent-extremism-systematic-review.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwisnsvX0pHOAhXGIcAKHQsLApsQFgg4MAc&usg=AFQjCNGERXRdV4H_UjHCnFFFNr-6hbzilw&sig2=4rvMXJDIzkJ6gxocIRZoqA

I was going to summarize it but its pretty hard! For me the fact that terrorists show similar demographics to other criminals is interesting (impulsive and risk takers). Also the sense of isolation from wider society is pretty interesting too and where I think there could be a parallel between terrorists and other mass murderers like Elliott Rodgers.

The Florida nightclub shooter is kind of a hybrid of both it seems from the reports. Very angry at the gay community due to internalized homophobia and able to use the ISIS agenda to justify his attack to himself

The review found that the evidence base for effective preventing violent extremism interventions is very limited.

I read that PDF/study with interest.

What I always miss in research papers (not just on this subject) is that there is a lot of collecting of data and definitions etc etc, but very little practical advice by the end of it.
And it also does not answer the question why the vast majority of young/Muslim/disenfranchised/socially isolated/befallen by adversity/male people do NOT opt to commit suicide/murder/massmurder
What protects those unhappy non-violent people?

I'm not a fan of the term "radicalisation" and I find the idea that we can do something about it rather foolish.

Sadly I think some men seek out excuses to commit violent acts.

I remember reading Sudhir Ventakesh's work on gangs and a lot of that did make sense to me - not that I'm an expert on anything - and I suppose if these men think that belonging to a religious movement is giving them a sense of family, that will be connected. But ultimately, surely the desire to hurt others is there whatever happens?

I've read about a study that showed a link between genes and the environment in a specific population. It found that most criminals had a particular version of the gene but so did a large proportion of non-criminals. They then showed the criminals also had some environmental factors known to predispose to crime.

Hypothesis was gene + crime inducing environment = criminal, gene + non crime inducing environment = law abiding, no gene + crime inducing environment = law abiding

I'm sure that's an oversimplistic interpretation but could be a partial explanation of pacifics point

(After a quick Google I think it might be the Warrior gene but I can't find the study and can't remember where I read it )

"If women are less competitive and more peaceable, it stands to reason, there are fewer drivers to outdo each other with innovation/discovery etc."

It's quite typically masculine of you to opine that competition between 'lone wolf' types is more productive for a culture than cooperation between men and women teammates.

When Russia launched into space before the USA, a report was commissioned to figure out how the Russians got the edge. Turns out, shockingly that a country utilizing the skills culled from of 100% of its human resources (men and women Russian scientists) instead of just 50% (male-only USA scientists) leads to faster innovation.

This is an interesting article trying to see what the links are with the recent murders. No answers tho...

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/the-terror-just-seems-to-keep-coming-how-can-we-make-sense-of-it

Whatever inclines males to violence as an outlet starts early... certainly on an anecdotal level we have had intermittent low level issues with physical fighting within DS1's peer group since he was 4 years old(now 9 and still going on) in a way we never had with DD (in fact DD has had more fundamental fall outs within her friendship group from the same young age, but none of the girls thumped each other!) Teachers and parents within the group of boys are all very clear that it is unacceptable and discipline quite harshly as seems appropriate - none of the families have any adults role modelling violence or condoning it, why on earth does it happen (fairly regularly!).

Marking place to read this when my brain is working properly!! :)

Sillage, it may be 'quite male' of me, but I'm obviously in the wrong body if that's the case!

As a lefty, I'd love to agree with you (the Soviet Union certainly did win the space race). But, sexism was deeply ingrained throughout Soviet society, and women were nowhere near 50% of the scientists. In fact, both space programmes only succeeded because of the number of Nazi scientists they'd both exfiltrated from Germany at the end of the war.

I am absolutely boggled when I hear people say 'but women haven't produced/invented/innovated nearly as much as men.'

Firstly, women created and, for the most part, raised the 7 billion living people in the world and every single other person who ever lived.

Secondly, how in the name of fuck were women supposed to produce/invent/innovate when they were denied education, money, citizenship, status, power, autonomy, respect, property????

NASA tested 13 women on the space programme in the early 60s. One woman, Wally Funk outstripped the men on most of the measures. Neither she nor any of her cohort were sent into space. Why? Because she was a woman. No other reason. So you could say women have made less of a mark on space exploration than men, but considering the men who ran the NASA space programme wouldn't allow them to participate, what the fuck were they supposed to do??

150?

While we're on the subject of women doing nothing, imagine for a moment just how difficult it would have been to raise, say, four children in 1804. And now imagine how many women did that and succeeded such that we all exist today.

I'd like to stop for one second thanking men for starting wars and killing each other in them and perhaps thank all the women who have ensured the continued survival of the human race.

Babycham1979, I said masculine, not male.

"In fact, both space programmes only succeeded because of the number of Nazi scientists they'd both exfiltrated from Germany at the end of the war."

I am quite sure you are wrong to credit German Nazi scientists for mid-century space flights accomplished by Russia and the USA.

What do you consider the most useful invention by a man (or men) motivated mainly by competition with other men?

"I am quite sure you are wrong to credit German Nazi scientists for mid-century space flights accomplished by Russia and the USA."

Operation Paperclip
Operation Osoaviakhim

I'm not reading your lazy Wiki pages, make your case or don't make it.

Actually, don't bother, because Nazi scientists have nothing to do with your prior assertion that presumes men's ego-driven competition is a source for greater innovation benefiting humanity than human cooperation.

The entire American space rocket program, culminating in the Apollo moon landings, was lead by Werner von Braun, who was Hitler's chief rocket engineer and in charge of the V1 and V2 missile program. Given the scientific advances that space exploration has delivered, then unfortunately we have all benefitted from Nazi developed technology. World War II also lead to the development of the jet engine and radar technology, which now benefits many of us daily. Good things can come from shitty circumstances. Warfare drives technological development.

Here's another - internet technology, and therefore Mumsnet, came about as a direct result of a US Army communications project. What should we do about using technology from such dubious sources?

• spelling correction - Wernher von Braun.

I'd like to stop for one second thanking men for starting wars and killing each other in them and perhaps thank all the women who have ensured the continued survival of the human race.

That.

"The entire American space rocket program..."

And still Russia beat the USA to many space firsts.

One could rightly say that the extreme expense and efforts gone through to get former Axis scientists into Allies labs (and the public shame of getting caught) is strong proof that science advances best when nationalistic identity politics are NOT the primary consideration in mind.

"...direct result of a US Army communications project."

That makes it a TEAM effort and not the output of individual men squabbling with each other over who is the Alpha. Like I said, cooperation between people is more productive than competition between people.

You're reminding me of 1980s cold war nutters who insisted people in Russia only accomplished in sports, arts, and space because they were forced to by their government. Human beings have dominated the planet not because we have the biggest teeth or the sharpest claws but because we cooperate with each other much, much better than we don't.

Lorelei76

The Saudis have actually developed an extremely effective de-radicalisation program for Islamic Extremists, so it can be done through education, but it is not easy.

The irony of Saudi Arabia needing such a program is not lost on me.

The Saudis have actually developed an extremely effective de-radicalisation program for Islamic Extremists, so it can be done through education, but it is not easy.

Have they? Do you have any links?
I wonder why Saudi is not more actively involved in this on the world stage. Having said that there are many things I wonder about wrt Saudi…

PacificDogwod

It looks to be an imperfect system, very much tailored for Saudi society, but some of it could work over here.

Have a look at these:

www.mei.edu/content/deradicalization-programs-saudi-arabia-case-study

www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/6/28/extremism-rehab-saudi-arabias-innovative-approach-to-de-radicalisation

From what I have read (and I'm a long way from being an expert!) it seems to be as much a self-preservation tactic as anything else. The House of Saud has essentially signed a faustian pact: They rule the country, and in return for the approval (or at least ambivalence) of the clerics, they spread wahhabism and support it financially.

Of course, the irony being that Saudi Arabia is the prime exporter of Wahhabism, and the Kingdom spends millions building and supporting mosques, around the world, that preach wahhabism. They are spreading the very extremism that threatens them.