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.

Assassinated,

That is not what I meant about being a Luddite. A lot of the msecure potentially violent men can gather together on social media and give each other courage. I am talking about properly controlling social media.

Ban violent porn altogether (which would be very hard to do but may be possible).

No free passes for cultural reasons. Violence is violence whoever you are. So much rap should be banned.

You do need, however, to protect genuine free speech, however unpalatable.

Promotion of positive male role models including actively encouraging male primary school teachers.

Those are just a few things that I think are worth a try.

s 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

Dont diss the rules...just don't

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

It’s a bit Kevin the teenager isn't it? ‘I can’t say annnnything’

Perhaps what could be fruitful is a look at how societies across the world differ in rates of violence and violence against women and how that compares to societal characteristics? The nordics / scandiwegia tend to score well in equality and from my experience (Brit living in Sweden) things like gender equality are more of a focus here. Iceland is particulyequal and safe for women.
There isn’t the rigid stereotyping of little girls and boys at nursery for example. Because the weather is utterly shit 9 months a year you send your kids to school in practical outdoor gear, and it’s expensive so parents buy stuff in bright primary colours rather than pinks vs blue. I’ve never seen a girl dressed in froth at nursery - it’s all stuff you can climb in.
Sounds trivial but small things like that repeated across multiple areas seems to lead to a society where there is markedly less machismo than the UK and USA. I’ve never been catcalled or groped here and I do see a marked difference in how the sexes treat each other.
I’d be interested to see an analysis of how this translates to adult crime (not sure how you’d quantify it though - Sweden records rape as individual incidents for example of its abuse over years, which is not what other countries do.)

But yes, perhaps looking at societies that have higher and lower rates and seeing what we can learn from each is a good starter?

'It’s a bit Kevin the teenager isn't it? ‘I can’t say annnnything’

Yes, it's along the same lines as men saying they now can't possibly ever flirt with a woman because of the danger of being accused of assault - the whole 'you've complained about a legitimate problem but because I'd rather not be bothered about that problem I'm now going to make it seem like you're whining about nothing and use the whole thing to my advantage to make me seem like a victim.'

It's pathetic.

The horror of the rules in polite company is that they name the behavior right out in front of everyone. The delight of the rules is there is one that covers that response.

Absolutely

Im totally copacetic as long as no-one disses the rules

I quite understand when men are upset by the realization that what they thought were important debating points are recognized by women as expressions of their misogyny. I think it is one of the unwritten rules that women are not to point that out. We aren't supposed to write down and share the rules either.

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?

13 pages on and I haven't seen an answer to this.

I think the answer is - they don't want, or feel a need to be violent. They control themselves.

The fact that many men don't want to control themselves is at the heart of the issue.

[Many] men are very emotional, and [many] of them let their emotions run away with them.

Much, much, much more than women (the supposed emotional ones) do.

I find it so odd that people really expect an ‘answer’ as to why some men are violent.

It is clearly an interaction between genetics, hormones and environment. What are people after? There has been much research into violent crime, all of it googlable. The results have really not amounted to men making a conscious decision to be violent (please point me to some research if I am wrong).

Why do some dogs bite and some don’t?

There seems to be a reductionist idea that our society could be cured of its ills if ‘men’ somehow changed their ‘attitude’. This is ‘evidenced’ by comparing us with societies like Sweden. There are so many confounding factors here (population density and cultural diversity being 2 of them) that it is absolutely meaningless.

There are some things that could be done (I posted some ideas upthread which were ignored). However we will never change the fact that we are animals, some of us not very nice.

What most men consider violence is incongruent with what women consider violent and harmful. Instead of deferring to our experience, being the ones who are most victimised by male offenders, which would be the healthy response, they prefer to talk over and mansplain where and why we are wrong.

Mansplain bingo!

If you want reasons why MEN are violent, perhaps better to defer to their lived experience.

Instead of deferring to our experience, being the ones who are most victimised by male offenders, which would be the healthy response,

Men are by far the biggest victims of violent crime. A healthy response would be to look at why some people are violent and not just to look at their sex.

I think it is fine to look at both to be honest. Men are more violent and it is right to explore the reasons.

It would be wrong for me to try to explain to a woman how they were affected by male violence. Equally, however, when exploring why men do X or Y, men’s experience should take primacy.

Accused of mansplaining after all that fuss they made about not answering, you can't make this stuff up

It's a pointless thread anyway the answer they want is that men are violent 100% because they want to.

It is clearly an interaction between genetics, hormones and environment

This removes all responsibility for the violence from the man doing it though. That’s my issue. My XH had a crap family, a crap upbringing and a crap start in life. However he managed not to beat, slap, spit on, piss on and rape anyone else but me.

So I’m sorry, but the “genetics, hormones and environment” argument without considering that it’s an active choice some men make is horseshit.

I do think that attitudes towards women aren’t helpful, and that a man predisposed to commit violence against women would use that as an excuse. It’s not a reason though, it’s part of it, but not the sole reason.

Smeddum,

Do you really believe that most violent men consciously consider whether to be violent or not and elect the former?!

If so, why? What is this idea based on?

Rationalising behaviour does not excuse it. This is a common trope on this board. You can explain why a killer killers but that does not mean he should not get a life sentence. Criminology is not a science of excuses.

What most men consider violence is incongruent with what women consider violent and harmful. Instead of deferring to our experience, being the ones who are most victimised by male offenders, which would be the healthy response, they prefer to talk over and mansplain where and why we are wrong

The thread was about mass killers being almost always male not male violence against women. By your "lived experience " reckoning I should not be posting on it either.

Do you really believe that most violent men consciously consider whether to be violent or not and elect the former?!

In cases of DV yes, I absolutely believe that. Unless they lose it and attack other people who don’t do as they say. A boss, a friend, a family member. If it’s limited to within their own home, it’s absolutely a choice.

Do you really believe that most violent men consciously consider whether to be violent or not and elect the former?!

Yes of course! Agree totally with smeddum - they aren’t hitting their boss. Or the bank manager, or their six foot six Colleague are they? They only do it when they know they can, when they know the power differential is in their favour.

Of course they can control it.

Do mass killers go up unarmed against the Tongan rugby front row? No, because they’d get pasted. They use weapons like vans and drive into unarmed crowds. Or they bomb parks full of families in Pakistan. Or they use sniper rifles from high elevation hotels. All designed to put the power differential in their favour.

Do blokes up for a fight on a Saturday night go for the six foot six man built like a brick shithouse? No they don’t. They go for men like my friend who is a slightly built five foot five chap who told a guy to stop hitting his girlfriend (and got a fractured skull for his trouble.)

The subset of men who cannot control violent impulses in ANY situation is small. Those men would arguably be suffering From diminished capacity.

The vast majority of Male violence is calculated so they don’t pick on someone bigger than them. I’m stunned you dont see this.

Do you really believe that most violent men consciously consider whether to be violent or not and elect the former?!

Are you ... seriously suggesting men are unable to control themselves....?

You're suggesting women have evolved to the extent that they can control their anger and emotions ... but men cannot...?

All designed to put the power differential in their favour

This line jumped off the page at me. It’s power, all of it.

Most mass killers, like terrorists, have a history of violence against women - terrorists are terrorists irrespective of setting - it's a shame that's so hard to understand for some

Most mass killers, like terrorists, have a history of violence against women - terrorists are terrorists irrespective of setting - it's a shame that's so hard to understand for some

Worth repeating/highlighting. Absolutely.