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.

Patriarchy,

It is no coincidence that young men are more violent. That is when they have the most circulating testosterone. It is also to do with a not fully developed prefrontal cortex.

Surely, also, size has something to do with it. If you are going to get beaten up if you are violent, you tend not to do it. Men are, on average, larger.

Again, the above are not excuses, they are reasons, which is surely what this thread is about.

As for the 'solution', clearly good laws which are well enforced are a part of it. The other oft neglected factor is positive male role models. Sadly, primary school teachers are almost all females now (the reasons are debatable and not what this thread is about). Wealth is also clearly a factor. Rich societies tend to be less violent than poor ones; there is less reason to be violent.

We also do need to tackle the glorification of violence and misogyny in rap culture and a lot of current pornography.

However, some of the 'solutions' are not worth it. They are way too extreme and throw the baby out with the bath water. Totalitarian societies are rarely violent, the control is too extreme. However, the costs in terms of freedom are immense. And, as a society, we have decided not to go there. People should have reasonable freedoms until they commit a crime.

However, we will never eliminate violent men (or the smaller proportion of violent women) absolutely. There will always be a certain percentage of people who, through genetics, upbringing or (most likely) a combination will be unacceptably violent.

What percentage do you think we could get down to, if society tackled the things that you fee cause some men not to be able to control their natural hormone-driven violent urges?

I don't think you really understand Dominance hierarchy theory Patriarchy. Apart from anything Social Dominance theory is more applicable to humans and even that has a lot of problems. It does attempt to explain male violence but it's got nothing to do with women choosing mates.

What percentage do you think we could get down to, if society tackled the things that you fee cause some men not to be able to control their natural hormone-driven violent urges?

It’s a revolutionary question. Because if you could reduce the level down to that committed by women, you would have 96% of violent crime just disappear

Just imagine.

There will always be a certain percentage of people who, through genetics, upbringing or (most likely) a combination will be unacceptably violent.

I don’t accept that. We have control over our actions.

If women can control ourselves despite being labelled as the hysterical ones, I’m sure that men, given a few thousand years of social progress and civilisation, can do it too.

Spaghetti

Oh my god are you still on this. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this at length.

I never said it explains male violence, it was a throwaway example of one small aspect of dominance hierarchies and their effect on societies. I was explaining the link between female attraction to masculine stereotypes.

I was explaining the link between female attraction to masculine stereotypes

Which has heehaw buckshee to do with this thread, so may I suggest it is you who starts a new thread?

you would have 96% of violent crime just disappear

I don’t think that number is remotely possible. For some crimes violence is required (mugging, robbery) violence is a technique used to obtain the goods.

In these cases a man or a woman needs to be violent even if they don’t want to be otherwise the crime will fail.

This book about sociopaths by Martha Stout, entitled “The Sociopath Next Door.” helped me understand violence. I am not saying it's a male thing, but a smaller weaker human female will do less damage than the larger framed male human with a lack of any conscience.

There is a piece about it on this blog;
www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/sociopath-next-door/
"Perhaps the most difficult for the rest of us to understand is that the sociopath has absolutely no conscience. In other words, they are without any sense of morality or guilt. The cannot and do not empathize with others and how they feel. When most of us look at other people we feel a sense of commonality and shared humanity. That is why we find it difficult to believe that there is a type of person who does not share the kind of compassion and connectedness that characterizes most of humanity."

Maybe men being able to exercise self control might result in a reduction in other types of crime as well.

@Kursk but an abuser or rapist would argue that violence was “required” too. Surely? I’ve never met an abuser that didn’t think they had cause to do what they did. XH is still adamant I “drove him to it” 10 years later! (Sustained, long term physical and verbal abuse with one incident of rape)

I don’t think that number is remotely possible.

It’s based off the well documented figure that 98% of violent crime is committed by males. If you could, in theory or our ideal world reduce Male crime patterns to those of females you’d be left with both males and females committing that level equivalent to 2% each. Hence the 96% of crime disappearing figure.

And yes of course it’s a flight of fancy - a thought experiment if you will. But just imagine what would happen of overnight men’s crime pattern and rate was that of women’s.

As I said it’s a revolutionary thought.

The hierarchical structures we have always (?) lived under are propped up by sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour, Kings were in the job because they were the most murderous (dressed up as being anointed by god) and surrounded theirselves with the most murderous.

Democratising movements have attempted to neutralise this "dangerous man" at the top way of running human life but it's constantly under threat, even now, with nut jobs in charge in the USA, Korea and Russia.

We seem incapable of stopping the rise of violent sociopaths, who are frequently as Lass Wi'a delicate air said, actually inferior bullies really. They are simply without any empathy. The culture of nobility around violence supports this, watch the news, it's all there, the sheer amount of money spent on weapons is boggling.

a thought experiment if you will

Yes less crime m, fewer police, it would be like the country was in the 50’s. No need to lock your door.

That’s how I picture it.

It's a flight of fancy to expect men ever to do anything that isn't entirely in their own interests. So just as we'll never be able to get crime down to the mythical 4% we'll probably never get it very much lower than it is now because men can't be bothered to take any measures that might inconvenience them in order to protect women.

This is my last word on this one Patriarchy because it is boring now, I agree. You said:
'I never said it explains male violence, it was a throwaway example of one small aspect of dominance hierarchies and their effect on societies. I was explaining the link between female attraction to masculine stereotypes.'

I never said a word about it explaining male violence. What I said was the notion of women having a choice over mates and therefore having an influence on the value of violence to men is nonsense, given that there has never ever once ever been any time in recorded history (apart from now) when women have had one iota of control over anything - not their own vaginas, not their own children, not their own money or property or any aspect of their own lives. For women to have influenced male competition they would have had to have the freedom to choose and they have never had that. Ever. You positing some nonsense based on primates and paper wasps really annoys me because it totally whitewashes the fact that at every known point in history the main thing that men have done is restrict, trade, buy, sell, rape, maim, abuse, terrorise and kill women. This fantasy land of women choosing mates is ridiculous. And the fudgey answer about aeons of history is nonsense too - why anyone would believe that women had more control in the past is beyond me, given that in the most technologically, socially and economically advanced period of known history women are still struggling to get control over their own lives.

It feels like being 16 and having the nature/nurture argument with boys who cannot accept that it is both because they would lose their justification for perpetuating the dominance/submission paradigm.

Do men just pretend to themselves that the men in generations before them (and many men in the current generation too) treated women absolutely abhorrently? Do they play pretend to make themselves feel better?

The Bewilderness,

As opposed to being about 8 when the response to an argument was to quote a set of made up rules which clearly closed rational debate.

So, larry, what do you think is the most urgent priority to address male violence? What would be the most effective steps we could take as a society? Who should lead on this?

Assassinated,

If I knew, I would not be posting on the internet!

Also if I propose solutions I will be mansplaining etc.

Democratised media is a huge part of the problem. However, do we want to be Luddite and go backwards?

Come one that's a cop out. Mansplaining is not giving your opinion as a human being on a major issue of our society.

Why would attempting to tackle male violence be like being a Luddite and going backwards?

You don't seem to know what mansplaining means Larry. Or, I'm guessing you know exactly what it means but you're using it as a way of dodging the question while implying that it's our fault you won't answer. What a mature tactic to use in a 'rational debate.'

I'm struck by how often men use that as a tactic when it comes to actually saying anything meaningful.

If you actually engaged you might find that you actually relate to us in some way Larry, that actually this is not just a 'rational debate' but a real problem faced by real people, some of whom you actually care about.

God, too many 'actually's

Any thoughts on the glorification of sociopathy?