Terrorism and male pattern violence

[Collidascope]

Why is it that articles and comments on social media abound about our 'Islam Problem' but it's never pointed out that it is Muslim men who do this? That linked to this is the fact that 96% of worldwide homicides are committed by men?
Surely if we're serious about wanting to stop this, looking at how we're socialising little boys needs to be one of the big factors. It just seems to be completely glossed over! Until someone with authority points this out and addresses it, the violence and killing will just go on and on, and it's horrendous to think that the horror that happened on Monday night isn't even large-scale compared to what is going on every day.
Male violence almost seems to be seen as inevitable.

And also interesting that when there's a terrorist attack, people are encouraged to carry on living as they were, to be defiant. No one is expected to curb behaviour (e.g. not go out drinking in a mini skirt anymore) and 'be responsible for not putting themselves in a dangerous situarion', because that would be letting the terrorists (rapists) win.

I'm a little hesitant about posting this as I've seen other things which have gone beyond the 'How awful, poor victims' line shot down as 'too soon' but this just seems like the big elephant in the room to me.

It is the big elephant in the room. But when you point to it you get shut down with 'NAMALT and women are violent too'

I don't think it's about how "we" are socialising boys.

It is about how a particular extremist violent group radicalises youth.

Yes, they have separate roles for men and women (men to be fighters, women to breed more fighters) but the overall issue is the radicalisation process - who is targeted, how it is done.

Supporting counter-radicalisation programmes is one way to do something about this. This may include challenging teachers who do not wish to look out for signs of radicalisation (even in the most passive ways) in schools.

Hadley Freeman wrote this Guardian piece:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/lone-attackers-domestic-violence-khalid-masood-westminster-attacks-terrorism

when seeing the first accounts the other night, I noticed that thst event that ISIL called 'shameful' had an audience that seemed to contain a large number of women and teenage girls. This does seem to indicate a different attitude towards women than after the murder of Lee Rigby.

Also this piece in the Indie:

www.independent.co.uk/voices/terrorist-attack-muslims-mentally-ill-japan-france-germany-men-its-toxic-masculinity-a7158156.html

A significant number of the men carrying out attacks have criminal records and history of domestic violence too. I wonder if something still violent which will 'redeem' them according to their twisted beliefs is more attractive to them because of that.

I can understand not focusing on men solely in airports though. It would be more likely to cause women, especially those with children to be forced to carry something through against their will than to catch more terrorists I think.

The random pat down is indeed random - according to the official who lit on my DD there's actually something which tells them to 'do this one' and it is in addition to any checks thrown up by oddities at security (ones by profiling may occur elsewhere during transit through airport).

If someone - anyone - is given a rough patdown, then that is something to make a formal complaint about. That's not policy and should not happen.

And yes, you're right about the radicalisation of the socially unsuccessful. After all, if you were targeting someone to work at the grunt level of your criminal organisation, who would you go for? The happy and well-adjusted? Or the unfulfilled and persuadable?

I saw this mentioned on a thread yesterday, and have been thinking about it since.

It seems to me that this is really the essence of the problem, rather than religion.

Yes, women can be violent too, but it's the element of fear and control, and desire to dominate and use violence for these purposes, and also just for its own sake that perhaps fit with male offenders??

Just musing.

Oh, and there's also an element of kudos for male violence, imo.

Thanks for those links, SomeDyke. Looking at the men's comments below the Independent article, it's pretty obvious why not many people do point out the man issue. Much easier to vilify a whole group that you're not part of than to accept there's an issue with your own socialization. And the people who are in a position to point it out are the ones who have benefited from male socialization. They're the ones who've bluffed and bragged and bullied their way to the top.

Across social media there are people blaming muslims for this. My liberal friends and I and others) are arguing that no, this isn't muslims doing this, just one or two radicalised ones. Not all muslims are like this, if you want.
If someone posts blaming muslims, people jump in to defend them.
I think if someone posted to say "men are doing this" liberal minded people like myself would have the same reaction.
Yes these attackers are muslim, but don't blame all muslims for the actions of a few.
Yes these attackers are men, but don't blame all men for the actions of a few.
Just musing, but I think people with a liberal mindset would have the same response.

Not all men tends to shut down discussion pretty quickly. Not just in this.
Domestic abuse? But it happens to men too
Family annihilators? Women do it too
Sexual abuse? But a woman did it this time

This is feminism chat. Loads of posters here have partners, sons, husbands we love and respect. We know it's Not All Men. It's still worth having a discussion about it male violence.

Yes, exactly, Flavia. Clearly not all men do this, but when 98% of mass murderers are men, when 98% of sex crimes are committed by mean, and when 96% of homicides are committed by men, it's unhelpful to just go, "Most men don't do that."
We can add to those stats that men are far more likely to speed while driving, are responsible for upward of 90% of deaths and serious injuries on the roads, are generally more likely to indulge in risk taking behaviour, and are by far the more likely sex to commit domestic violence.
Clearly a minority of men are taking it to extremes, but in general men are more aggressive than women, and that ought to be addressed and not just ignored because it might piss people off.

Women say male pattern violence is a problem, men get offended.

Agree about the socially unsuccessful men, jamrock. You socialise a group of people to think that they mustn't display weakness, mustn't display feminine qualities, and that they should 'man up' and 'grow a pair', then combine that with a sense of male entitlement and the belief that the world is theirs for the taking. Then watch which approach they're going to take when life isnt going quite the way they wanted it to. We saw it with this guy, with Derek Bird, with all the teenagers who go shooting up their schools in the US.

I feel absurdly relieved and grateful to see this expressed here. I've been thinking about it for a while, but more since Monday night. I think the fact that girls and young women appear to have been specifically targeted signals a new dimension to the threat.

I have been thinking about this a lot recently. There is a very unhealthy relationship between the male ego and proficiency with violence. This is fed and encouraged by the media and entertainment industry. The male heroes we are offered by TV and film are 100 times more likely to be a skilled killer than a doctor, teacher, aid worker etc. The level of violence and the motivation of the killer hero has also changed dramatically over the years. When i was young, there was nothing like the graphic gore we see nowadays and the hero killer was almost always a good guy (e.g. cop, soldier, cowboy in the white hat etc). Nowadays, the 'hero' is invariably a criminal.

I'm not sure why you think this is a feminist topic though.

I think that a certain % of radicalized men are guys who have lost there wives/kids etc in a drone strike or similar, and subsequently believe they have nothing to live for.

They may not always believe the spiels they just want to avenge their families death.

The idea that we shouldn't talk about male violence because some men may be offended is laughable. Namalt is just a way to stop the discussion before its even started. Why would anyone want to do that? We are never going to stop violence if we can't analyse it?

I'm not sure why you think this is a feminist topic though.

Really? Because I think it's hopelessly bound up in patriarchy. Because I think the reason it won't be addressed is because men get angry when anyone attempts it -see the comments below that Independent article that SomeDyke linked to.

I do agree that violence is glorified and commiting it is seen as something to be proud of in the media.

By killing other wives and kids? Thats really not backed up by interviews with radicalised men.
www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34851049/young-british-and-radicalised-why-people-want-to-join-islamic-state

Sorry that was a response to Kursks comment.

Is that really the problem with terrorism though? Is "malesness" causing this? That's certainly not what the terrorists say are motivating them.

The idea that we shouldn't talk about male violence because some men may be offended is laughable.

Offence is not a good reason not to talk about it, but that's often trotted out as a reason not to talk about the connection between islam and terrorism. Is there evidence that being a man leads you to terrorism?

DJBaggySmalls

My theory is more likely to happen in Afghan

You can analyse every example of male violence and come up with a reason for the crime. Mental health problems, loss of a job, drug addiction, the list goes on. These things happen to women too, but women are far less likely to commit a violent crime as a result.

How many times are women encouraged to act like men to succeed at work? Why is it outrageous to expect men to act like women?