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

I think religion plays a significant part.

As PPs have pointed out, the fact that he targeted a young female singer and her teenaged female fans seems to demonstrate something. Maybe it's religious misogyny about girls doing something as decadent as going to a concert at night, or maybe it's more in the brand of Elliot Rodger, getting revenge on girls because they never fancied him. He wasn't, after all, the most physically attractive of fellows.

If the was no religion, these men would still find an outlet for their rage and destructiveness.

I can't believe that's true, pickle, in lots of cases.
Clearly there are some non-religious motivated killings, but the suicide terrorists are definitely motivated by religion.

Isis have suggested that supporters target children, they also hate music.

The Bataclan targeted people like my son, a metal fan.
But youngest gig goers are mainly girls. My son and I were discussing this and he pointed out the obvious that younger lads don't have artists or concerts aimed at them. He was 16 when he started on gigs.

They were both attacks on places where, by their reckoning, "righteous" Muslims won't be around.

We discussed football stadia too and thought about the fact that they are heavily policed (for reasons of male violence of course.)

There are theorists who are dealing with this. Male Peer Support Theory by Dekeseready and Schwartz (spellings could be way off, I'm on my phone) looks at all of this from the perspective of domestic violence.

In the context of domestic violence, the spread of behavior is so broad the there is almost no pattern, except when considering parental behavior. Then it is the father's behavior that is most likely to create an abusive adult. All the threads on here from women in abusive situations often mention how the husband is has such a terrible mother, but it's how their partner's father behaved that should be examined. This applies even when the father is largely absent, as that absence is so often a form of control in itself.

Deydodo, of course, but I don't think religion makes killers. Cultural wars with no religious element are pretty common too. The basque separatists were not religiously motivated, for example. I think that religion is an easy identifier for someone looking for a target or a cause. Gangs have turf wars with no need for religious difference btn them. I think it's a bit like blaming race for interracial tension. Historically groups have always warred against each other. Religion is a flag some of them have pinned to their lapel to attempt to justify/excuse it.

If the was no religion, these men would still find an outlet for their rage and destructiveness.

It’s a weird one, isn’t it? I’m an atheist so I believe that every religion is as manmade as any other system of thought or way of living -capitalism, communism, patriarchy, etc.
By that logic, the angrier, more destructive parts of this religion are there because certain men wanted them there -presumably because they were angry and destructive men. But it’s also the case that like any system of thought, it moulds and shapes people.
It’s a two way thing -religion is shaped by humans, but religion can still shape humans. In the same way that patriarchy was shaped by men, but now it shapes all of us. Sadly.

We discussed football stadia too and thought about the fact that they are heavily policed (for reasons of male violence of course.)
And a stadium was targeted in Paris
I don't see how you can dismiss the religious motivation. You can say the interpretation of the religion is wrong and extreme but I don't see what what good denying the motivation exists does.

I'm really interested in the OP's comments about how Government/society tells us (non-terrorists) to react to terrorism compared to how society/judges etc tell us (women) to react to male violence/rape in general.

With terrorism, the consensus of opinion is (in my view rightly) that decent people should go about their business as usual and not allow the terrorists to win by stopping living our lives as we choose. We are not (other than in some very unusual cases) told to avoid certain places, going out at night, wearing clothing that the torrorists disapprove of etc. Meanwhile Governments gather data on individuals and groups who, even if they have not yet committed an act of terror, are exhibiting behaviours that make it seem more likely that they will go on to do so. School teachers etc are given training to spot signs of radicalisation in pupils/parents and citizens are asked to report suspicious behaviour (with reassurance that it will be taken seriously). No one ever suggests that victims were in any way to blame because they behaved in a certain way (entirely rightly). All fine by me.

Then we look at male violence against women (and particularly rape). There must be a lot of data taken from rapists etc that could be used to establish behaviours common amongst those who go on to rape. As far as I know the authorities do not keep an eye on men who exhibit these behaviours or ask people to watch for them. Victims are often not believed or seen as partly to blame. Women are told to be careful, not go out alone at night, avoid certain areas etc.

There was a letter in todays Guardian asking the Manchester Islamic terrorists violence was gendered as he must have known that most of his victims would have been female when he chose the concert as a target.
Any thoughts?

'There was a letter in todays Guardian asking the Manchester Islamic terrorists violence was gendered as he must have known that most of his victims would have been female when he chose the concert as a target.
Any thoughts?'

Of course it's gendered. The whole fucking thing is gendered. Men kill, maim, rape and injure. Women suffer. That's how it is and how it's always been.

Children, in this case it was very much a concert aimed at girls, so possibly.
In general, I can't agree with Sparrowhawk, though. This is the only attack I can think of where the victims are predominantly female.
Men kill, maim, rape and injure. Women suffer.
I think that's pretty awful thing to say when many of the victims of every other terrorist attack ever has been mixed. Did the male victims not suffer?

I think that's pretty awful thing to say when many of the victims of every other terrorist attack ever has been mixed. Did the male victims not suffer?

as far as I can tell, only one of the 9ish victims of Charlie Hebdo was a woman.

The Bataclan attack featured a death metal band. Are women more likely to be death metal fans?

The Nice attack was against random people on the street. As far as I know, there was nothing female about the chosen location of attack.

The florida night club attack was a at a gay club on "Latin night", so there was predominantly a hispanic crowd that night. I think most of the victims were men (but I don't know).

Oh yes, men kill and maim other men too of course. They kill and maim pretty indiscriminately (although there are a large proportion of violent males who reserve their violence for people who love them.) My point was, when it comes to violence the perpetrators are almost exclusively male. The involvement that women have in violence is mainly as victims and mourners of victims.

The Bataclan attack featured a death metal band. Are women more likely to be death metal fans?

Not hugely relevant but The Eagles of Death Metal is not actually a death metal band. Their audience would have been evenly mixed although I suppose the bombers might not have known that.

The Barcelona train and London Underground bombings were not targeted.

My point was, when it comes to violence the perpetrators are almost exclusively male. The involvement that women have in violence is mainly as victims and mourners of victims

Has anyone said otherwise? I'm not sure what point you are making other than terrorists are usually men. Are you saying the political and religious motivation is irrelevant?

The involvement that women have in violence is mainly as victims and mourners of victims.

Can't disagree with that.
Yes Lass, EODM aren't a death metal band. Rock/metal audiences can vary from band to band. (Death metal audiences are very male in my experience).

I know this might sound inappropriately flippant, but I have only just learned, from this thread in the last 30 seconds that it is "Death metal", not, as I have always thought, "Deaf metal"...........

Attackers who set off suicide bombs or who go into situations like Bataclan knowing that they probably won't make it out alive are certainly motivated by religion, as they believe that their reward is waiting for them in heaven

Men (in general, not just terrorist) commit violence against men as much as against women, surely? Football hooliganism, as mentioned upthread, being a prime example. Targets for bombs are primarily chosen for ease of access and impact - prior to Manchester, the only targetted bombs we have seen (I think, am ready to be corrected) have been in areas where the victims are most likely to be gay (Florida recently, Soho back in the day)

I don't think it's irrelevant Lass but I wonder why there's such focus on how killers frame their motivations for killing, as though they're somehow relevant. The bald fact is men kill and they use a large range of excuses, including religion and politics. None of those excuses are in any way valid. So it's worth looking more closely at why it is men and not women who are doing the killing and what is it about male culture/socialisation/attitudes etc that makes them so much more likely to kill.

Has anyone said otherwise? I'm not sure what point you are making other than terrorists are usually men. Are you saying the political and religious motivation is irrelevant?

I too am not sure what the point is either. I think I am one of the ones providing the most resistance to this idea, and I have already agreed that men are the main perpetrators of violence. My main point, however, is that I am unconvinced that generic male violence is the best explanation for terrorism, especially given that women's participation in, in particular, suicide bombing goes up from the rates of general violence committed by women. So from the general level of violence, women are over represented in suicide bombing.

Men as a class do not kill and do not maim but of course NAMALT.

The Soho bomber also bombed an Iceland store in Brixton and Brick Lane. I'm pretty sure the IRA were indiscriminate in their bombing and not in any way targeted at gay clubs, at least on the mainland, although I know they did target gays and lesbians in NI, as did the various Unionist groups. Suicide bombers in Israel tend to be pretty indiscriminate as well, and definitely not targeted to gay clubs. Nor are any I can think of that take place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Syria.

I thought Florida was a mass shooting, and most of those seem to be in public places like malls and cinemas or where the targets are children, such as schools. They are also mostly perpetrated by white males.

We have British people with the same mind set though. All those who say deport all the Muslims, shrug their shoulders at dead kids being washed up on beaches, ignore park bombs in Pakistan that injured 100s of people, think using drones on hospitals and schools in foreign countries is just collateral damage. These people would be the ones that ISIS would recruit if they believed in Islam instead of Christianity.

Women have these views on both sides, but on both sides are considered too weak, only good for breeding, or in UK perspective it would be to damaging for the men to fight along side of them.

We can't kids ourselves that in the West we have an enlighted view of women because we're not forced to wear certain items of clothing. We have women being beaten and killed in our own homes, women being financially abused, child abuse cover ups, rapists like Chad Evans admitting rape to police but still getting away with it because the woman had sex with someone before.

I may be free to wear what I want and go where I want in this country but you better believe if anything happens to me my choices will be picked apart by society.