Nearly every mass killer is a man. Why aren’t we talking about that?

[CircleSquareCircleSquare]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/mass-killer-toronto-attack-man-men?

“After the Toronto attack, there should be a debate about toxic masculinity, and the issues of identity and rage that turn so many men towards violence”

I don’t dare to read the comments.

Then, of course, men project their preferences on to women.

Yes! And then tell us that male violence is our fault because we sexually select violent men!

And Lass is right. Teenage girls don’t go all gaga over big muscly types. It’s “floppies” like One Direction who appeal because they have that “I’m good looking but sensitive and won’t stare at your tits whilst I’m talking to you” vibe.

Stereotypical “masculinity” is toxic. Obviously not every “masculine” man is, but the concept is extremely toxic and harmful.

Lack of respect for women is a massive red flag, it is something common to all abusers/rapists/murderers.

All you have to look at is serial killers and the vast majority are said to have had a complex relationship with their mother/wife/partner. And it is used to imply she somehow made him that way.

No, he chose to be that way.

Teenage girls don’t go all gaga over big muscly types. It’s “floppies” like One Direction who appeal

That's true Rita, teenage girls don't. But I struggle to think of any grown women who have a thing for One Direction and Justin Bieber. Most women I know love the likes of Tom Hardy and Jon Snow. Stereotypical handsome, masculine men.

There is a lot of interesting psychological stuff you can read about this. A lot of it comes down to the hierarchy stuff that was being discussed earlier in the thread. Specifically male dominance hierarchies.

Men compete (from an evolutionary perspective) to be dominant, its the whole reason why testosterone and other aggression related hormone systems evolved in the first place. They do this in order to dominate other men and mate successfully. Stable male hierarchies contribute directly to the success of a group of animals in nature so its in everybodies best interests for the hierarchy to form quickly and remain relatively fixed, with any newcomers quickly learning their place in the 'pecking order'.

Women then outsourced their mate selection to the male dominance hierarchy, because it is easier and more effective. The most dominant 'alpha' male is the most likely to have the best genetics and therefore the healthiest children.

Now I'm not suggesting that any of this is a conscious decision, of course it isn't, its a genetic predispostion that has existed in humans and our ancestors for millions of years, but it explains perfectly why women are naturally attracted to stereotypical 'alpha' men. (often against their better judgement)

It also goes a long way towards explaining why men have a predisposition towards violent behaviour. However it's also a predisposition towards heroism and bravery/courage. Men automatically look up to and respect other men who have proven themselves to be 'heroes'.

Lass is correct in that violence against women/rape are not considered 'heroic' qualities. They ultimately stem from weakness. Its why the 'active male feminist turns out to be a creepy sex pest' trope is so common. These are often beta males who can't compete in the traditional hierarchy so they 'flip the board' and go the other way to get access and esteem from women.

Again none of this is an excuse for male violence, its a reason though.

Jon Snow. Stereotypical handsome, masculine men.

Mild derail:

He’s great in the role, but I’d hardly describe Kit Hartington as a big manly man. He’s actually quite short and pretty (that’s not a bad thing but it’s not my thing...) he’s more the teenybopper mode than the gruff male.

Or maybe he just looks reaaaaally wee next to Kristofer Hivju and Rory McCann. He’s actually a child in most of the books as well.

Women have never outsourced to the hierarchy. The phrase you’re looking for is ‘stuck in a harem and raped’ or ‘sequestered and married off and raped.’

Women then outsourced their mate selection to the male dominance hierarchy, because it is easier and more effective. The most dominant 'alpha' male is the most likely to have the best genetics and therefore the healthiest children.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting women chose to be forced into marriages and raped for their entire lives?

I thought it was the beta male who had the most sex and the most children. You know, the one who stuck around and was there to help out and have a laugh with. The alpha was off fighting and died early, if I remember correctly.

Spaghetti

What does this mean? Are you suggesting women chose to be forced into marriages and raped for their entire lives?

Sigh. No.

I did make it clear in my post that none of these instincts are a conscious choice.

From an evolutionary perspective, females of many sexes select the most eligible mate by choosing a male at the top of, or close to the top of the male dominance hierarchy. It saves the females considerable resources in evaluating suitable mates for themselves, as well as increasing the likelihood that their children will be strong and healthy.

But women didn't select eligible males at all, up until pretty recently, you realise that don't you? Women had very little control over any of their choices, being unable to gain an education, work or have a profession. Where did you get the idea that they were the ones in control?

SweetGrapes

It depends on species, females of some species are not choosy about partners, while others are exclusive to the 'alpha'

Now clearly this doesn't correlate exactly with the human experience. Modern humans choose partners based on a large number of factors, but it accounts for some stereotypical 'attractive' qualities in men.

The point of this isn't to show that women have to choose manly men as partners (because that isn't true), the point was to try and explain how male dominance works in a large number of different mammal species, (including us) and that things like male competitiveness, potential for violence etc do not exist in isolation, but are the result of millions of years of evolution.

Again for the avoidance of any doubt, this isn't meant to be an excuse for negative behaviours, but it is an explanation (in part) for where they come from.

PP who think we can just 'get rid' of that entire aspect of the human psyche are kidding themselves.

In many cultures to secure a woman all a man had to do was rape her - she would then be forced to marry him to mitigate the 'shame' - this is still true in many places around the world (men could also kill their sister if she had brought 'shame' by being raped). Women were also sold and exchanged. For upper class women in England it was accepted that a husband would be chosen for you, out of the (small) pool of eligible men - regardless of how buff or alpha any of them was. Women weren't hoping for the best mate, they were hoping for a man who wouldn't hit them too much or rape them too often. It never fails to surprise me how men seem to have wilfully blocked out the reality of the fact that until the 20th century women weren't adults under the law - they had the same rights as child (that is, very few) and they had literally no control over anything, not even their own bodies.

Spaghetti

I think you are being too literal.

Its a principle of evolution within a hierarchical system that is millions of years old. You are referring to the last few thousand years of civilisation. That doesn't even register as the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

Right so you have evidence that in the stone age women had full control over who they chose as a mate? That for some reason men at that time didn't use any of the coercion and violence that they use now?

Spaghetti

Right so you have evidence that in the stone age women had full control over who they chose as a mate? That for some reason men at that time didn't use any of the coercion and violence that they use now?

Eh? Please re-read my previous posts.

Dominance hierarchies have existed in nature for longer than trees have. Just think about how long that actually is.

I did make it clear in my post that none of these instincts are a conscious choice.

Sigh. It’s not an instinct. It’s either having no bloody choice at all or making the best of a situation where you’re likely to be killed otherwise.

Your interpretation is off. I’m reminded of a study a while back that concluded that women were excited by rape - the research team measured lubrication while exposing women to violent imagery. The Male researchers concluded women were excited by it. The female critic posited that it was a protective response - if you’re seeing someone get raped chances are you’re next, so librication reduces the chance of serious injury somewhat. See the absolute certainty of the first conclusion? And the shift in mindset to the second?

And which Stone Age society? There were plenty. Pre or post agricultural? Climate? Social structure? Ecological surroundings? Humans haven’t been living one single way ever. At any point in our history. Right from us emerging from a jumble of hominids in various bits of Africa. During that time we have no idea what our social structures were like. Probably varied according to local resources and pressures. Look at chimps and bonobos - both v similar, both patriarchal, but in one the incidence of violence and rape is exponentially higher.

We just don’t know what most Stone Age societies were like. We do know that patriarchal control intensified with settled agriculture.

If we're comparing humans to other animal species in order to understand "evolutionary" dynamics, then it needs to be pointed out that in most species spare males are killed. There are therefore fewer male to female animals because even the most stupid animals know that spare males around cause nothing but problems.

Babel

I don't think my interpretation is off. I'm describing evolutionary pressure.

I never mentioned the stone age, Spaghetti did. Stone Age humans are still classed as 'modern humans'. I'm talking about animal instincts that predate the development of trees and complex organisms.

Babel

What research is this that concluded women are 'excited' by rape? What university? Which department?

That sounds a bit... hmmm. The explanation for a womans physical reaction to seeing someone be raped you just outlined is bloody obvious to anyone, never mind a social scientist.

I'd seriously question your source for that info.

But where does that stop? When you ask that question you see where the motivation lies . Do we go as far back as the very first hominids? First mammals? The first fish like thing that crawled out of a pond? First multi cellular whatever it was?

Because when I’ve asked this question before the point we stop is wherever suits the agenda of the stopper.

Evolutionary psychology is dangerous stuff. If I said that we all had a deep rooted predisposition to eat insects and build burrows I’d be laughed at. But if a guys says ‘well males have always been dominant since picks point where males were probably dominant‘ then suddenly we are nodding safely and yes, it’s nature, the natural order of things, it’s how it should be.

Which I’m afraid makes me think of this

Babel

But I've never said its how it should be. I've actually said the exact opposite, several times.

This thread is presumably about why men are mass killers, which is a proxy question for why are men more violent than women?

I have suggested a pretty good explanation right from the start of this entire discussion, and funnily enough, I haven't made it up, its based on actual science and all that...

I'm not sure what some of the posters on here actually want from this thread?

It feels like no answer will be good enough until someone comes on and just says "actually, scientists have now proven that men are more violent because it turns out they are all just bastards..."

Equally, however, if you entirely discount evolutionary psychology, you are claiming that how we think and react is entirely unaffected by evolution. That would make it the only aspect of us unaffected by evolution. Why would that be the case?

I am not discounting socialisation. However, once you say that is the only thing that affects our behaviour, it leads to certain conclusions which are not necessarily true.

However, once you say that is the only thing that affects our behaviour,

I haven’t said that.

Evolutionary psychology is dangerous stuff. If I said that we all had a deep rooted predisposition to eat insects and build burrows I’d be laughed at. But if a guys says ‘well males have always been dominant since picks point where males were probably dominant‘ then suddenly we are nodding safely and yes, it’s nature, the natural order of things, it’s how it should be.

YY. PP, there have been plenty of evo psych studies which have looked to explain rape as an evolutionary adaptation. Google Thornhill and Palmer.

Most well brought up, well educated men are non violent. You said upthread that you did not know of any violent men.

I don’t know any violent men either. I wouldn’t class myself as a violent woman but I hunt, shoot and fish, by the measure of this thread that makes me violent.

DH would never be violent towards me. In fact the only time he would be violent is in defense of me/family. But I believe that is different, as that would be a situation that requires violence.

Evolutionary psychology is dangerous stuff.

Especially in the hands of people who have patently never made much of a study of it but merely use it to prove a random talking point like "oh, men can't help murdering prostituted women, because that's just how we evolved... look at " while also suggesting that humans are somehow better than because we built mobile phones. All the while forgetting that has fewer males of that species because spare males are dangerous to have around.

Maybe it's having too many spare males around that makes more males mass killers? So now what? Evolutionarily speaking?