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 also troubles me greatly that the prisoners who pose the highest threat to the UK (convicted terrorists) are held in the same, high security prison

Yes, this didn't thrill me either. I can see the argument for not having proselytisers at work in the general population. But unless they are never likely to be released, at some point we'll be dealing with the consequences of them having had years together to validate one another and make detailed plans.

Apartheid era South Africa put political prisoners together and inadvertently created the University of Robben Island, as it became known.

May not be precisely analogous to UK criminal prisoners, of course. But enough to concern me.

I think the particular religion involved here is irrelevant, inasmuch as the additional incentive to the 'I want to die and I'm gonna take a whole load of others with me' line is that the addition of a religion gives you (if someone twists the religious doctrine enough) the idea that you will also get to have a quite nice time in the afterlife. Actually, the same additional push could come from the various aliens behind the sun waiting to pick me up cults. As regards attitudes towards women, us being fundamentally unclean in some way and/or not quite full adult humans is common to many religions. It's just that the combination of politics and various world events mean that Islam the one being twisted by this suicide death cult at the moment. The Jonestown massacre mass suicide & murder, that was a weird combo of Christianity and marxism.

But Jonestown was a Christian/Marxist cult centred around a charismatic leader who believed himself to be a prophet, as are most of the other weird Christian sect like the Mormons and the Moonies.

The odd thing about the Islamic fundementalists is that they don't follow that cult narrative so closely.

I wonder if it is relevant that Mohammed gathered an army of converts actually conquered territory (Mecca) by military force.
Although in Judaism/Torah there is the thing about kosher (the idea later adopted as halal by Muslims) - Jews were never trying to convert anyone- they were concerned only with their own tribe. Even Jesus, being a Jew, wasn't interested in gentiles, above us being 'dogs that at least deserve crumbs under the table'. Gentiles were not on the Christian radar before the apostle Paul had his vision of eating pork.

Christianity initially spread as a grass roots movement, not by military force, until the Roman Empire converted to it as a last-ditch attempt to avoid collapse and became the Catholic Church. And the Crusades were a much later counter-attack to reclaim back Christian territories- obviously the Crusaders were a band of merry thugs like the EDL or something and it was all hideous.

The thing about Jesus was that he was against hypocrisy, judgemental treatment, hatred, all of the stonings, etc - and the message was really about love, peace, forgiveness 'they who have not sinned may cast the first stone ' (so we think according to the stuff written after his death).

But Islam was a return to the pre-Christian judgemental and punitive Jewish/Old testament texts, but without the solidarity of being 'within' the tribe, instead going outward with a view to convert the 'unclean'.

It makes me wonder if that website Oleannas linked to has a point even if it doesn't get everything right. I've always been bothered by Islam being such a high-maintenance religion. I mean - praying five times a day is completely excessive and is much more about obedience than any spiritual benefit people could gain in my opinion.

'I want to die and I'm gonna take a whole load of others with me' line is that the addition of a religion gives you (if someone twists the religious doctrine enough) the idea that you will also get to have a quite nice time in the afterlife. Actually, the same additional push could come from the various aliens behind the sun waiting to pick me up cults.

you seem to have the idea that men, or more charitably to your views some men, are just looking for a reason to die and take as many people with them as they can, and that it is something inherent in men. And any reason will do. The trouble with that is that most men aren't like that, especially in this country, and especially with regard to willingness to die themselves. Of the small percentage of men who are violent, most of them value their own lives and aren't willing to die easily (rather darwinian, self preservation).

And the thing is the additional push simply does not come from aliens behind the sun. it just doesn't. Find me another ideology that is producing the same behaviour in the same numbers. And if it did, why wouldn't we believe that is the source of the behaviour?

what religions say and what people believe matter. It's no coincidence that of the many people who don't cut their hair, most are sikhs, and that catholics think confession is a good thing. And that muslims pray 5 times a day. Those aren't random acts. They come from belief.

the idea that men, or more charitably to your views some men, are just looking for a reason to die and take as many people with them as they can, and that it is something inherent in men

I disagree that somedyke must mean there is something inherent in men...

Perhaps there is something inherent in male socialisation that 'taking others out with you' is something that is overwhelmingly done by men, whether it is a 'suicide bomb', family annihilation, mass shooting. It doesn't mean men are inherently suicidal, just that their socialisation makes them more prone to fantasise about, then execute the 'heroic last stand' (in their own warped thinking) death, than women are.

I decided to do some digging, and it's unclear to me whether paternal or maternal filicide (killing one's own child) is more common. There are studies that suggest men are more likely, and other studies to the contrary (the patterns are certainly different, with men more likely to kill an adult child, and women more likely to kill an infant). In any case, that cheery topic seems to have no clear answer to the question of who does it more frequently.

Second, I acknowledged (twice) that given a violent act, a man is much more likely the perpetrator. I don't know what the cause of that is, but I'd be surprised if it was all nurture, but I don't know.

what i disputed is that male pattern violence is the best explanation for terrorism. I have yet to see an explanation above of why female participation in suicide bombing is higher than the level of violence from women in general. I don't see how that at all squares with the idea that terrorism is caused by men being violent assholes.

What's more, the idea that the religion or beliefs of the perpetrator involved don't matter is just madness. of course they matter.

unclear to me whether paternal or maternal filicide (killing one's own child) is more common
There is a totally different pattern. Family annihilation - ie the kind of thing where the entire family is taken out before the perpetrator takes their own life, or where the parent executes their own children then takes their own life is overwhelmingly perpetrated by males.
Mothers tend to kill their own infants or their own disabled children when when they are the primary carer - and not as an act of revenge against the dad. It is bizarre that you would try to suggest that women are as likely to commit family annihilation .

I have yet to see an explanation above of why female participation in suicide bombing is higher than the level of violence from women in general.
Have you not considered it could have something to do with the fact that a man or a group of men made the bombs, strapped them to her and told her where to detonate?

I don't see how that at all squares with the idea that terrorism is caused by men being violent

Male violence is about power, domination, control and glory. Boys are socialised to want those things, even require those things in order to consider that they can call themselves 'a man' (as opposed to a pussy, sissy, woman or just a loser). When males don't achieve the power, domination, control and glory they feel entitled, through their socialisation, to expect, many become violent and try to force others (usually women and children) to obey them through fear and intimidation. Islamic terrorism is completely in keeping with this.

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.

Very good point. A woman walking out and about alone at 1am the night after a high profile rape would never be considered "getting on with life" or told "what are the odds".

I don't think the British people in this country that rape women and abuse children give a shit about our right to drive, they hate us/ have as much contempt of us as the law makers in Saudi.

Not only that, the neo-Nazi types are totally in cahoots with the Saudis. As are some who should know better! So effing depressing..

Not read every single post but it is amazing that in the sample I have read (30-40%) there has not been a single mention of testosterone, even though it is the single most important link to aggression. When women inject themselves with anabolic steroids they become more aggressive.

Clearly we need to socialise men to be less violent (and the vast majority of men are never violent) but the idea that this is due to the 'patriarchy' rather than hormones needs a lot more evidence.

larry

Interesting perspective and I would add that testosterone feeds into patriarchy.

what i disputed is that male pattern violence is the best explanation for terrorism. I have yet to see an explanation above of why female participation in suicide bombing is higher than the level of violence from women in general.

Here you go, chilipepper.
fullfact.org/crime/bad-and-dangerous-know-do-men-commit-almost-all-crime/
In the UK, 10% of murderers are women (as opposed to the 4% statistic that applies to worldwide homicides). That's more in line with your female suicide bomber stat.
That to me demonstrates that the differences between cultures (religion being part of those) of countries certainly plays a part, and it'd be really interested to see if there are any countries where the percentage of men and women committing murder is more equal and see how they're running things.
But given there is clearly a trend of men committing the majority of the violence -no matter the religion -I still think that's the issue. From what I've seen the discrepancies between the murder rates of different countries and religions are generally just a few percent which is dwarfed by the similarities in men's violence stats.

When a man blows up men women and children in an arena we get messages of defiance and solidarity, saying 'don't be afraid, carry on,' etc.

When men rape women, we get posters telling women to change their behaviour: www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/we-asked-an-expert-what-was-wrong-with-these-anti-rape-poste?utm_term=.rcEMLo6l8#.bca90agWo

Can you imagine ever having a poster graphically showing a crying man with a caption saying how footballs should be careful because they might be blown up?? Fuck no, because men can do as they please. It's only women who must be controlled.

That should say 'football match goers'

there has not been a single mention of testosterone, even though it is the single most important link to aggression.
Although there is 'roid rage and some 'stranger rapists' are found to be into body building and steroids, which give clear evidence to support what you say, aggression doesn't always become violence. For example some men just become extremely competitive about growing prize tomatoes or something.

Clearly we need to socialise men to be less violent (and the vast majority of men are never violent) but the idea that this is due to the 'patriarchy' rather than hormones needs a lot more evidence.

How about bonobos versus chimps? Male bonobos are able to diffuse their aggression without becoming violent.

I think there would need to be some sort of study into testosterone levels and violence to see if both men and women with higher than average levels (naturally - not artificially boosted) of testosterone are more likely to perpetrate violent crimes.

And this premeditated murder thing - like family anihilation or suicide bombing requires visualisation, obsessive fantasy and planning to carry it out rather than the low impulse-control violent aggression that happens on the spur of the moment.

The male sense of entitlement to dominate others and to achieve glory is very patriarchal. And the fury of not getting their fair slice of the cake is a patriarchal disappointment.

What's more, the idea that the religion or beliefs of the perpetrator involved don't matter is just madness. of course they matter

Of course they matter.

Sparrowhawk those posters are dreadful! It is very interesting what you say:

Can you imagine ever having a poster graphically showing a crying man with a caption saying how football match goers should be careful because they might be blown up??

It really highlights how controlling and intimidating those posters for women are. Also, let's not forget that men like Ched Evans see posters like that and they will get a very different feeling from them. They might even look erotic.

Testosterone is a red herring. It's something that's used by a certain type of man to excuse their inability to control themselves.

I rest my case.

If testosterone is playing a part in creating reckless, violent, antisocial behaviour, unless we're going to chemically remedy that, it seems as though more socialization is still the key. Arguably it should be little boys who are bombarded with dolls and made to watch films where the triumph is the hero ending up in a relationship (as opposed to completing some heroic mission) if we want to encourage empathy that might counteract testosterone-fuelled aggression in the future.

I wonder why men are so keen on the testosterone argument. Firstly isn't being 'hormonal' supposed to be a female trait? But more seriously than that, if men can't be trusted to control their behaviour because hormones make them violent surely that means we should either medicate all men to control their testosterone or restrict their movements so that when they do become hormonal they can't hurt anyone?

It is funny, sparrowhawk, how PMT is joked about as the reason why no woman should be in a position of power and be in control of 'the button' and yet testosterone... that's fine.