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.

Are women as likely as men to be terrorists?

Are women as likely as men to be terrorists?

I just googled this, out of curiosity.

It appears that women are more likely to be suicide bombers than general murderers. if the stats at the beginning of this thread are correct, women make up a tiny percentage of murderers, but a whopping 15% of suicide bombers (from my very short amount of googling).

So, in other words, no, women are not as likely as men to be terrorists. Why do you think that is?

I think it's a really interesting topic. Before we found out who was behind the attack in Manchester, I knew that the perpetrator would be male. We all did, didn't we?

And it was an attack very likely to disproportionately kill women and girls, given where it was done.

I think it's highly likely that there is a gendered strand to be pulled at in understanding all this. Why don't women (generally) become suicide bombers? (yes, it happens, but it's very unusual).

I've read some stuff on the inextricable links between patriarchy and male violence- think it was Lierre Keith, I'll have to dig it out. Patriarchy is enforced by male violence or the threat of male violence, and terrorism is no exception. It'd be weird if it was.

Is there any link between this sort of terrorism and the "family anihilation" mind set?

I wonder if those stats on female suicide bombers include within Israel & Palestine? From my recollection, it's not so uncommon there for women. But if we're talking about terrorism in Western countries, thinking back over the last few years, I can't think of any female suicide bombers at all (though to be honest, I try not to read much about any suicide bombers, and let their names fall out of my head as soon as possible. It's all they deserve).

Men kill women and children all the time. In February/March of this year alone, a man killed his wife, a man killed his sister and mother and a man killed and attempted to kill his toddlers with a hammer. Those victims are no different to the Manchester victims except that that killer used different means.

Everyone is just ignoring the fact that men are dangerous and nothing much is done about it. The man who kills you could be a family member, or someone on the street or a 'terrorist' with a bomb.

Where was the villification for Alan Hawe, who butchered his family in Cavan? That killing was described as 'tragic' and the papers were full of details of how he was a great teacher and well respected. He is a terrorist as much as any other man who kills - except he reserved his terror for people who adored him and depended on him - his own wife and sons. In the papers, his wife was barely mentioned - it's as if she hardly existed.

Incidents like the Manchester bombing are horrific but the response to them makes me sick. It's clear that people like having a 'baddie' to pin the world's ills on and they revel in the drama and tragedy of it all.

People need to take their heads out of their arses and see that these incidents aren't special cases, they're just a logical extension of how the world views and treats men and women.

I thought about Alan Hawe at the time of the Westminster attack. How he was buried with his wife and children, and the church collection was for a charity that deals with people who are suicidal.

My thinking is very confused about it all-but there must be something we can learn, surely?

He's since been exhumed Bert. I think the family were rushed since funerals and burials happen quickly in Ireland and perhaps pressured a little by the priest. If they'd had longer they may not have.

I don't know though, generally they seem to leave their wives and families to face the media afterwards...

There's nothing much to learn except that we live in a patriarchy and men are happy to group 'other' people together - women, people of other colours/religions etc - and judge and control them but if there's any whiff of Real People - ie the dominant men - being judged/controlled in any way they won't have it for a second. In the west, white men are individuals who have Reasons and Justifications for their actions. So a white man who butchers his family must be a tragic sufferer of mental illness, whereas a brown muslim man must be a terrorist. If at any point you try to highlight their common trait - ie that they are men - immediately you get the hurt feelings and the NAMALT. Because they'd much rather protect their own hurty feelz than do one fucking thing about the millions of women and children needlessly slaughtered.

The bottom line is that the spunktrumpets who carry out this sort of violence are all the same - they are thwarted in some way and see violence as a way of asserting power and control.

So, in other words, no, women are not as likely as men to be terrorists. Why do you think that is?

It's clear that given a violent crime, it's far more likely that a man was a perpetrator. I don't think anyone is disputing that, and I am happy to chalk that up to "maleness".

What I dispute is that maleness is a good explanation for terrorism, or at least suicide bombing. If you believe the stat that I posted (you should be skeptical as I found that very quickly. That really was a quick google by me), then the fact that female participation is higher in suicide bombing than in general violence seems to suggest that male pattern violence is a bad explanation.

There's nothing much to learn except that we live in a patriarchy and men are happy to group 'other' people together - women, people of other colours/religions etc

sorry, but I can't help but point out the irony in that statement.

Violence as a way of asserting power and control - to be fair, it has proved a very successful method in the past.

I can see why you think it's ironic chilli. In some ways it makes sense to group people together when they share a common trait, but men like to see individual women/muslims as indicators of how the whole group are - eg one shit female leader=all women are shit at leadership. Woman gets attacked = all women must watch their behaviour, be careful, stay at home. Whereas they resist all attempts for men to be grouped together in any way, even with statistics such as those relating to the sex of homicide perpetrators. If we ever suggested that men kill so men should stay at home and be careful, can you imagine the outrage??

In some countries women are forcibly used as walking bombs by men, and are in no way volunteers. So that figure of 15% female "suicide" bombers may be distorted, depending on where the data is from.

(Of course the figure of 15% may also be spot on. Would need to know more about the data.)

You also get this truly bizarre situation where women are warned to be careful but no one will actually state out loud what the danger is. So you'll have long threads on MN, for example, saying that young girls mustn't wear 'provocative' clothing but when you try to dig into why, no one will actually say 'because men will use it as an excuse to rape them.'
It is truly fucking weird that in a situation where one group wears clothes and another group sexually assaults, the group that is always told to change its behaviour is the group that wears clothes, as if wearing clothes is somehow dangerous or criminal. No one seems to want to tell men, the people actually committing the crimes, to change their behaviour.

What I dispute is that maleness is a good explanation for terrorism, or at least suicide bombing.

I'd never claim that being male is the only thing that causes terrorism, or indeed any violence. Obviously that's not the case or there would be no women murderers/bombers at all. But I do think it's a factor and one that is conveniently being ignored because many men, who generally control the dialogue, would rather focus on Islamic fundamentalism.

men like to see individual women/muslims as indicators of how the whole group are - eg one shit female leader=all women are shit at leadership. Woman gets attacked = all women must watch their behaviour, be careful, stay at home

Yes, Chilli, it is very ironic.

In some ways it makes sense to group people together when they share a common trait, but men like to see individual women/muslims as indicators of how the whole group are

I am not sure why you think that's a male trait. Everyone does that. Seeking patterns is one way we try to explain the world to ourselves.

The trouble in these conversations is that people aren't making a distinction between happen stance membership in a group (most terrorists also have dark hair. Should we scrutinizing people with dark hair?) and membership in a group where there is some notion that the defining characteristic of the group explains a particular action (it's not an accident that members of the KKK are racists).

Normally I'd say that you're not understanding the argument cadno, but it's you, so I know that you're just being deliberately fuckwitted.

So you see the fact that practically all killers are men as being insignificant Chilli?

So you don't see that criticising men as a group for seeing women as a group is in anyway ironic