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.

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

War seems to be the human way of dealing with that one...

So what’s the solution being proposed here?

Well that males acknowledge the violence.
That the law deals with it appropriately
That society as a whole works towards reducing it to as close to zero as we can.

That’d cover it.

Xenophile

For someone so intent on criticising other peoples academic knowledge, your english is appalling. I can't understand your last post. Mobile phones?

Nobody has said 'men can't help murdering prostitutes' because of evolution.

I've stated that point at least four times now.

Patriarchy, I'm still trying to understand this:

'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.'

How did they outsource their mate selection?

Spaghetti

To outsource in this context is to obtain something externally so you don't have to do it yourself.

Rather than use resources of their own to assess potential mates, evolution furnished them with the dominance hierarchy which provides a ready reckoner of who the healthiest, most virile males in any society are.

The statement doesn't imply they made a conscious choice to do this, it is was an evolutionary pressure.

That argument doesn’t hold.

Generally speaking all females will mate - the males are the ones competing, even in harem type environments (back to our red deer for example.)

Females have no problem getting ‘good’ stags to mate with them. One stage can mate many does. It’s the males who compete for access to females. There’s no need for females to ‘outsource’ this. The Pressure is the other way around.

Babel

Depends on the species. As I said earlier, in some species females are choosy maters, in others they aren't.

When all the men are competing, that is evolutionary pressure selecting the fittest and strongest. The males are doing the selection hard work, the females are just waiting to see who wins. That's the outsourcing of effort. Like I said, it's not a conscious decision the females have made.

Depends on the species. As I said earlier, in some species females are choosy maters, in others they aren't.

Thread about HUMAN male violence and you are blethering on about the mating habits of other species

What is the point in all this waffling on about evolution and what different species do? It's avoiding the issue.

Most men are not violent, so it is not something that is inevitable. Why can some men control violent urges or just don't have them? What makes them different to other men?

pat doesnt have any male violence arguments so he is talking about the mating habits of animals instead

'When all the men are competing, that is evolutionary pressure selecting the fittest and strongest. The males are doing the selection hard work, the females are just waiting to see who wins. That's the outsourcing of effort. Like I said, it's not a conscious decision the females have made.'

They may be waiting to see who wins, but in human history, other than in the last 50 years or so, there has never been a time recorded when women have been the ones to choose. Never. I have no idea why we would ever think that back in the times when there were fewer societal controls, in terms of laws and social morality etc, women would have had more power than they had say in 1930 - it doesn't make sense.

The idea that there was a point in time where strong fit men competed and then these powerful women chose the winner as a mate is a total fairy story and has no basis whatsoever in any sort of fact. In today's world, in a society that has at least started to see women as people and has pretty strong laws against rape, women are still raped in their millions. Rape is a weapon men have always used against women and women have always had to deal with it. At no point was there ever a situation where men respectfully sat by and waited to be chosen.

Most men are not violent, so it is not something that is inevitable. Why can some men control violent urges or just don't have them? What makes them different to other men?

Lack of self control,

To be fair humans are animals with a thin veneer of civility

Bloody hell, and I get accused of thread derailment!

I mentioned this in passing, hours ago, as a throwaway example of how hierarchies exert pressure on men to compete.

We have now drilled into this in excruciating detail for post after post after post because (I assume) Spaghetti and others think there is a chance they can somehow prove me wrong on something. If you really want to know how it works, it's easy to look up socialisation and male dominance hierarchies in nature.

Coming back to the point of the thread, as I stated earlier, there is a completely uncontroversial and easy to understand reason why men are on average more violent than women. It has been stated, on this thread, numerous times.

Right, so why do some men have such an issue with self control, and why does a loss of control lead to violence?

@PatriarchyPersonified would you mind stating the reason again?

To be fair Patriarchy, if you're going to state something with no evidence that doesn't seem in any way true, you have to expect to be questioned on it. Your assertion that there was a mythical situation in which women chose the 'winning' men is pretty barmy.

Anyway even if such a thing ever happened, it still doesn't explain why, for example, 'non-violent' men wanted to ensure that men could rape their wives with impunity? That's not direct violence but it's condoning and supporting violence.

AssassinatedBeauty

What else would a lack of self control lead to? It comes down to being able to control your temper.

Most people have a weakness, or several. Mostly towards alcohol, cigarettes and sugar.

Well, perhaps self harm rather than violence towards others. Or recklessness. Or a breakdown where you're unable to be coherent. Is it only anger that needs self control?

In this instance yes it is

Spaghetti

Seriously dude, you don't have to even read anything academic if you don't want to. There is a Wikipedia article on this. Google 'dominance hierarchy wikipedia' and you'll get there. It'll be easier than asking me the same questions all day.

Assassinated

Men have a genetic predisposition to be more confrontational and violent than women. It's hormonal.

For the fifth (or sixth) time of saying this, it's not an excuse for violent behaviour, it's a reason why men are more violent (on average).

Why are some men are more violent than others? That is a good question and comes down to lots of factors. Although the primary one is age. Male violence peaks in society between 16-27 and then gradually declines.

Men are hormonal?

So all men have hormonally driven violent urges, where women do not. Most men are able to exercise self control, but many do not. What is it that means many men can control their violent urges where others can't, other than age?