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.

'Christianity was a freedom movement from the oppression of Rome,'

It may have started out that way, but Christianity has been a source of suffering for untold millions down through the centuries - mainly women.

'However, if a person is already of a certain disposition, they are more likely to go out and behave in certain ways (including violence) if they read texts that support their inner motivations than they are if they read texts that discourage them.'

So is it your view that men are more likely than women to have a 'certain disposition' that makes them more violent?

the USA supports the 'right' to bear arms, glorifies sports heros in armour like Roman Gladiators, normalises very macho behaviour and has a high murder rate to go with it.

exactly. That's the point. Why do men in the UK kill so much less than men in the US? and why do particular subgroups of men in the US kill more than other men? It's not the men factor, since they are all men. You can't explain that difference with any reference to only male culture because they are all men. There must be something else. Now your answer might be that male socialisation is different in the US than in the UK. But that wouldn't explain why women in America also kill more than women in the UK. The salient factor isn't gender. It's the broader culture.

I think we are talking past one another. Male culture, or the difference in female and male socialisation, may explain the difference in male and female violence. It doesn't at all explain why some people murder for their religion and other's don't, even if they are all men.

The trouble seems to be is that some people are asserting that some men are just looking for an excuse to kill people and then pervert something like islam and do it. By why islam? that's the question. why NOT christianity or buddhism? why any excuse at all? Some people just go into a place and start shooting?

There is no proof for that belief, but he held it strongly and it was the motivation he gave for the killing. Is there any point in discussing that motivation, or even acknowledging it? There's never a valid reason for killing someone.

but that matters, because there is a very clear path to stopping that murder (if it hasn't yet happened). That's why motivations matter. Preventing future violence.

It may have started out that way,
This is what I am talking about. How religions started, and their early texts.
but Christianity has been a source of suffering for untold millions down through the centuries
Much of this suffering has been politically motivated by power bases such as the Vatican or the British Crown, rather than being written into the texts they claim to represent.

• mainly women.

However the big influence of the Quakers (though to be fair they reject the idea that only the bible is inspired) led to the abolition of slavery, and having done that, many of the women involved looked at themselves and thought 'what about us'.. and led to the beginnings of the feminist movement....

'There is no proof for that belief, but he held it strongly and it was the motivation he gave for the killing. Is there any point in discussing that motivation, or even acknowledging it? There's never a valid reason for killing someone.

but that matters, because there is a very clear path to stopping that murder (if it hasn't yet happened). That's why motivations matter. Preventing future violence.'

I don't agree. This particular killer might believe his wife cheated, but this other killer might believe that his children aren't his and this other killer might believe that his wife shouldn't have a job. They're all different 'motivations' that all lead to the same thing - killing. What's relevant is why men believe those things and then go on to kill when women don't. What I'm getting at is the deeper motivation, beyond the excuse. What is it about men's fundamental socialisation and culture that means they feel wronged in some way and go on to kill while women don't?

I would like to suggest that strong beliefs can make people - possibly especially men - behave in an extreme way.

Many people who volunteer to don a suicide vest to kill Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot....good people who believe in a cause.

I do think some of these suicide bombers really believe they are doing the right thing.

'It may have started out that way,
This is what I am talking about. How religions started, and their early texts.
but Christianity has been a source of suffering for untold millions down through the centuries
Much of this suffering has been politically motivated by power bases such as the Vatican or the British Crown, rather than being written into the texts they claim to represent.'

I don't know enough about the Quran to say how it started. But the common theme is that whatever the text is, it is then taken by society and used as weapon, war-like beginnings or not. That's why I'm saying that blaming a religion for violence is a bit pointless - it's just the excuse for violence. If religion weren't there, there'd be another excuse (and many mass murderers do have other excuses, such as Elliot Rodger and his whole manifesto around women). Religion is a surface justification and all religions have been used as surface justifications for violence down through the years.

is it your view that men are more likely than women to have a 'certain disposition' that makes them more violent?

It is my view that cultural norms and male socialisation - eg giving boys toy swords, water pistols and other weapons to play with, and so on, instills a certain disposition in males. I think it's possible their reliance on women to bear children affects it and there may be hormonal factors - I'm undecided on that.

But I think for all the above reasons there are certain 'heroic' or 'superstud' narratives that resonate with men far more than women.

Apologies, my post makes no sense:

Many people WOULD volunteer to don a suicide vest to kill Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot....good people who believe in a cause.

"What's relevant is why men believe those things and then go on to kill when women don't. What I'm getting at is the deeper motivation, beyond the excuse. What is it about men's fundamental socialisation and culture that means they feel wronged in some way and go on to kill while women don't?"
Nail, head, BONK!.

Claiming that violence is inherent to men (testosterone or summat) isn't that useful/true, nor is claiming that Islam is 'fundamentally' violent or a religion of war etc etc.

I'm sure if the political situation changed, Christianity in the US, for example, could be used as an excuse for major acts of violence. The KKK certainly did in the past................

What I DO think we have that is quite clear is a link between men and suicide and mass murder via terrorism, or suicide and family annihilation etc. We have situations where the apparent drivers in each case (fellow muslims dying through the action or inaction of the western powers, breakdown of a relationship and parental divorce) act upon both men and women, but it is overwhelmingly only men who respond to these drivers in the suicide and murder way. That is the great big glaring neon-painted elephant in the room.

Blame Islam, blame testosterone, religion or biochemistry doesn't quite answer it for me.............

That's why I'm saying that blaming a religion for violence is a bit pointless - it's just the excuse for violence. If religion weren't there, there'd be another excuse

I am not blaming religion. To me it is relevant to understand the poor diddums Eliot Rogers mentality as much as the 'spoils of war sharing brotherhood' mentality of Islam''s promised Paradise for martyrs or the 'my own holy reproductive balls' mentality of Wako . They all give an insight into the nuances of toxic masculinity and the threat it's many guises pose.

What is it about men's fundamental socialisation and culture that means they feel wronged in some way and go on to kill while women don't?

I don't know the answer to that question, and certainly the answer is important, and I have throughout this thread said that this is a male female difference.

But what it doesn't explain is why men in some places are, in your hypothetical situation, more likely to kill their partners than other places. In some places the most likely outcome of a man finding his wife cheating on him is divorce. What explains that difference? It's not men's socialisation.

So, since I don't think my point is getting across:

1. most violence is committed by men. Agreed. What explains that difference? Clearly some difference between men and women, whether biological, social, or a combination. Agreed.

2. what explains the difference in the rate of violence between two societies? Let's just assume that both societies display the same pattern of a 95/5 split in violence perpetrated by men/women. That can't be explained by male socialisation because the rate of women's violence is also different, and the collective group of men display different patterns. clearly that difference needs to be explained by something else.

in 1) I should have said "most violence is committed by men, not women. What explains the difference?"

So, can we talk about the psychology of indoctrination now?

'What explains the difference in the rate of violence between two societies? Let's just assume that both societies display the same pattern of a 95/5 split in violence perpetrated by men/women. That can't be explained by male socialisation because the rate of women's violence is also different, and the collective group of men display different patterns. clearly that difference needs to be explained by something else.'

I understand. I agree, and I also would point out that the fact that men are more violent in some cultures rather than others indicates that the testosterone excuse is a crock of shit, unless the argument is that men have higher levels of testosterone in some cultures.

What's relevant is why men believe those things and then go on to kill when women don't.

why isn't it relevant that some men believe things and go on to kill and 98% of men don't?

Ah, no, probably not.

I'll come back later.

I understand. I agree, and I also would point out that the fact that men are more violent in some cultures rather than others indicates that the testosterone excuse is a crock of shit, unless the argument is that men have higher levels of testosterone in some cultures.

it's also not explained by male socialisation. Forget biology. male culture can't explain why women in the US kill more than women in the UK.

male culture can't explain why women in the US kill more than women in the UK

This may be wrong - but the uplift in female murderers in the US, are they almost entirely accounted for by gun crime? I.e. are the stats for female homicide as a proportion of the female population:
UK: 2% knife crime, 2% poisoning, 1% other
USA: 2% knife crime, 2% poisoning, 1% other + 10% gun crime.

If so then the uplift in murders is caused by easy access to a lethal force weapon and we could suggest that the reason UK women are less likely to murder is due to a lack of opportunity / ability rather than because of cultural differences.

I'm going to try to check the statistics.

'it's also not explained by male socialisation. Forget biology. male culture can't explain why women in the US kill more than women in the UK.'

I'm not sure what your point is here. My argument is that culture and socialisation plays a huge role in violence. In a more violent culture, there will be more violence overall, from both men and women. But even in a more violent society overall, like the US, men are still massively more violent than women. So exactly the same mechanism that makes men more violent that women is going on there, just the overall scale is different.

Maybe a look at IQ? If you are looking at male violence in general. Whilst IQ among men and women average out the same the distributions are quite different. More women cluster around the mean, whereas the are more men at either extreme. Thus explaining why you see more men in prisons as well as more men as CEOs and the top end of STEM fields.

What I'd be cautious of is lumping in gendered violence, as domestic violence doesn't correlate with IQ, class or education level.

So my theory on gun crime being the reason for higher rates of female murder does not check out at all - only 39% of female murders but they've got a rate 4 times higher on per woman.

So exactly the same mechanism that makes men more violent that women is going on there, just the overall scale is different.

that's my point. men commit a disproportionate amount of violence.

My point, and it hasn't changed, is that male pattern violence probably explains that difference (so we agree there), but it doesn't explain the difference in violence between the US and the UK or, with the original topic, why men/women do terrorism in certain communities and not in other communities.

IQ fixation is a slippery slope to eugenics. And saying the lack of women in stem areas or lack of female CEO's is something to do with women's IQs (rather than socialisation/burden of childcare/patriarchy) is pretty offensive - especially in a feminist chat room!

I take it you work in a STEM area or are a CEO dervel?

I don't get all this hand-wringing about "why are men more violent?" coupled with "the details of the beliefs of violent people are irrelevant also the historical spread of those beliefs are irrelevant too". Do you want to get to the bottom of it or not?

Surely it is worth examining the different belief systems underpinning male violence, their similarities and differences - to see if there is any pattern, any historical threads connecting them?

What else is the purpose of the thread?