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.

socialisation plays a part here. You say men feel disgusted at their feelings. But rather than turning that disgust inwards, as women tend to do, they turn it outwards and try to destroy others. Why is that? Why do women feel shame and men feel rage?

I think it is all about the relationship between cultural misogyny and male dominance. The script is for males to always be in control of themselves, of others and of women in particular, and for females to always relinquish control to others and to men in particular. Part of relinquishing control for women is our culturally mandated and obedient self-disgust, shame and beauty practices, that shrink us and disguise us, etc. Part of assuming control for men is to deny any feelings of being out of control, to posture, and make an impact on his surroundings, including engaging in street harassment.

In other words, the reason women feel shame and men feel rage, is because that is critical to maintaining a Patriarchal status quo.

It's worth remembering too that women feel intense attraction to men. But at no point are men ever blamed for tempting women, or made to feel ashamed for being attractive.

But the fact that women are more selective sexually than men is the big bugbear for sexist men. In an ideal patriarchal world, females can be graded like cattle, divvied up and handed out as prizes for men according to who men decide between themselves are worthy of the best prize... But then there is that pesky thing of women's own free-thinking and personal preferences.... Women have that annoying habit of fancying men that other men can't see the attraction in, which undermines the neat male sense of hierarchy, in their 'just' patriarchal order. If these men were to think too long about this, the secure sense of patriarchy, upon which their own sense of self-worth and social status depends, would all fall apart like a house of cards.. Noooooooooooooooooo! Can't let that happen.....

I agree. And I think that the fundamental thing that underlies all of this, and which isn't going to change any time soon, is physical strength. IMO being the stronger and taller group has meant that men can control through physical intimidation. However, that fact is obscured - the story is that men are better leaders blah blah blah, which is clearly bollocks.

Agreed, and another thing that isn't going to change is the fact that women are rape-able, get pregnant and breastfeed - all things makes utilising the greater height and strength of males to intimidate and oppress female almost effortless.

Cheery stuff eh?

I know. But that's why we need to fiercely protect all of our collectively won feminist gains and be very alert to anyone advocating Sharia Law, the 'necessity' of prostitution/porn, or gender, etc for social stability.. - often advocated in the name of 'tolerance', diversity and inclusion.

Interesting thread.
The recent terror attacks have been so upsetting, and, rightly or wrongly, I've cancelled a trip to London with my children due to fear.
But I can't help thinking about the numbers of (usually) women killed by abusive partners (usually men) and the fact that the public and govt don't really seem to give a shit about that, never mind the non-fatal harm caused to so many women and children.
And road deaths, so many people killed by aggressive or thoughtless driving, yet not seen as a National concern. I've not seen any MPs making statements about addressing the need to show zero tolerance to violent men.
Not expressing myself very well. But it seems to me that it's popular to appear to fight terrorism from religious extremeism )personally I think it's likely we've been doing the opposite) but not male violence when it's part of our accepted patriarchal way of life.

oh, and interestingly (nauseatingly) the "anti-Islamic" images I've seen on faebook have all been expressions of feeling rage at the sight of women wearing the burkha, which seemed a bit unfair.
I mean, I'm no fan of women being required to cover their faces in this way, but it seemed so misdirected, no women have been named as being directly involved in these atrocities.

Yes, cantthink. I'm sure I've read that Muslim women are more likely to be targeted in hate crimes than Muslim men offline too.

Resurrecting this thread because, guess what, the white guy who drove a van into a crowd of worshippers near the Finsbury park mosque also turns out to have had a history of harrassing his ex:

"A complicated picture emerged of his personal life, with neighbours describing him as a "family man" who was heard singing in his kitchen with his children on Sunday afternoon, just hours before he is alleged to have driven to London.

"However, others said they believed he and his partner had separated in recent months and that he was often seen shouting at her in the street.

"Pharmacist Rebecca Carpenter, 26, said: "He's quite a shouty person, always shouting at his wife and kids."

Telegraph article

I like the quote from one of the neighbours that says something along the lines of he has always been a cunt but this is still a shock - so much more refreshing than the usual "kept himself to himself, always seemed so happy" platitudes that so many times just can't be accurate

Sorry, link to the neighbour quote I mentioned just then here

One of the more recent American shooting incidentsI know they pass by so quickly, but the one involving the members of Congress attacked while practicing baseballwas committed by a man who had a "volatile home life". In fact this article says "16 percent of the attackers had previously been charged with domestic violence". I assume 16% is a lot higher than in a random group of males.

www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/us/virginia-shooting-james-hodgkinson-illinois.html

It is a step in the right direction, olenna. The headline reads "father of four", so establishing him as a "family man", ie a good guy. Then the article with a neighbour saying "he was always a cunt". It's an improvement on "he always seemed nice", but why not lead with him being a cunt? When that's clearly what he is. But I suppose "Known cunt in act of spectacular cuntiness" wouldn't quite work on the front of a paper.

One woman who worked in a pub he frequented is also saying that he grabbed her by the throat and pinned her to the wall, and that he would get into fights. Nice bloke then...

Yes, I've been utterly unsurprised by what's coming out about the Finsbury Park attacker.

There was a heart-rending interview last week with the sons of a husband who murdered his wife and daughter, when the sons had just helped their mother leave their father. He shot them in a car park in Spalding.

The sons are articulate and scathing about the portrayal of their father by some media: "They couldn’t have known our history, but it was weird: in the absence of information, they chose the side of a terrorist who committed murder."

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/17/we-didnt-recognise-that-he-was-dangerous-our-father-killed-our-mother-and-sister

I wonder, Peking how much of the motivation to look for the good in a situation like the Spalding shooting comes from a deeply ingrained custom not to speak ill of the dead, and how much comes from deeply ingrained misogyny

"deeply ingrained custom not to speak ill of the dead"

Not a custom the papers seem very hampered by when it suits them. So I'm going for deeply ingrained misogyny.

From that article:

"One family friend asked if Claire had been having an affair that might have “triggered” the attack, a theme that echoed some media reports. Others asked if it was because of money, because Lance resented his children, or why Claire had stayed for so long".

Disgusting. Some people just look at one man's horrific violence and think that the victims must have been to blame somehow.

And why did she stay so long? Maybe because she feared that he would kill her daughter if she left. Which he actually did. So not an irrational fear at all.

If your motivation was really that you didn't want to speak ill of the dead, then you wouldn't be asking her sons if Claire had had an affair, would you?

In not wanting to speak ill of the dead perpetrator, some people have absolutely no compunction about speaking ill of the dead victims. Hypocrites.

Can I just say that, among the many excellent and thought-provoking posts on this thread, GuardianLions' posts at Wed 31-May-17 09:03:15 and Wed 31-May-17 09:49:30 stand out for me.

They articulate perfectly ideas which have been inchoately floating around in my head for a long time. Thank you for expressing these so clearly and succinctly.

You really don't think so?
We give our sons toy guns and army men as soon as they leave the womb and then we teach them to abhor all things associated with girls.
Every theme of nearly any movie and many boy targeted video games, is hero boy faces giant catastrophy, battles epic foe in violent fight, overcomes obstacle to save the world and wins the trophy girl of his dreams.

And then there's mainstream music with misogynistic lyrics objectifying and belittling women.
Then worst of all is easily accessible internet porn, which is ever increasing violence against women, in almost all its categories and the films therein.
Add all of that together and you have a culture that teaches boys to have disdain for girls, until they hit puberty where this disdain turns into aggressive and predatory sexual desire on top of their learned contempt.
And there you have the origins of male violence in the making.
How this escapes people is beyond me.

Women engage in terrorism, too.

Then worst of all is easily accessible internet porn, which is ever increasing violence against women, in almost all its categories and the films therein.

But the only study to my knowledge which investigated the users of violent porn (PornHub user survey of millions of users) found that women were overwhelmingly the primary consumers of violent and sadomasochistic porn. This is an interesting and surprising fact.

Going back to the original point, the large majority of animals use violence as a means of establishing hierarchy and most often it is the males that are most aggressive. I think it's very possible that violence is hardwired into the male sex, especially with the proven links between testosterone and violence - e.g. higher levels increasing 'threat response' and violent criminals exhibiting increased test levels.

And before somebody mentions 'Testosterone Rex', there are many other studies which have contested the author's conclusion. In fact, I believe she has received quite a bit of criticism for being selective in prioritising the data which supported her hypothesis - confirmation bias if you will.