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.

Equally, the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs, artistic accomplishments and socially progressive breakthroughs have been delivered by men.

Much easier to do when you're not effectively chained to the sink, barefoot and pregnant.

Indeed, TheDowagerCuntess - and even easier when you are allowed access to higher education (or indeed any education at all) and are able to stand for public office.

If you read the comments, you will understand why it’s an issue and why people don’t want to talk about it.

I was coming on to say just this having read it. I thought there would be a thread here and I thought the comments below the line were very telling. A whole lot of defensive apologists and no suggestions for improvements, NAMALTing away to themselves so nothing changes ... what a fucking surprise.

I dunno enough men manage to not be violent I don't see it as necessarily inevitable. Although if you'll notice nature itself is pretty violent and that is what we've evolved from. We probably wouldn't have risen to the top of the food chain without some capacity for violence, and without a willingness to fight tyranny we wouldn't have Liberty, so maybe civilisation itself owes an awful lot to male violence.

The thing is that violence is also a choice and the benefits that violence accrues can also be achieved in other ways. If you take an in depth view on the philosophies of Martin Luther King or Mahatma Ghandi tremendous things can be achieved without the use of violence, and indeed can sometimes overcome violence itself.

Testosterone kicks in at puberty. I really do believe the impact of how young males are socialised in the early years, the messages the receive about their sex and how they identify their own sex with what they see and hear in adult men lays down foundations for what ever the hormones do later on. Risk taking can be focussed on a personal hobby or breaking into houses. It could be in an extreme sport, dealing stocks and shares, or risking personal injury and prison through violence.

I've taught in primary schools for many years and I do see how social attitudes or backgrounds, role models etc gradually affect a child, especially boys. I've also taught children with autism for over 12 years. In children who are quite severely effected and therefore don't really absorb socialisation due to limited communication skills, there is no difference between the sexes in how they may learn to be more physically assertive due to frustrations. I do notice that the hormones, and physical size, affect each in different ways as they get older though.

Ekphrasis, sorry if I'm being a bit thick but are you saying that in children with autism both boys and girls are equally physically assertive? If so, are both sexes less or more physically assertive than children who do not have autism?

I've read the comments and survived without loss of limb - they really weren't that bad were they ? .....its all subjective I suppose.

I've read the comments and survived without loss of limb

I wasn't suggesting they were wielding machetes.

Some of them were reasonable but others were the usual. I was reading them in a tremendously bad mood though so perhaps I am being harsher than necessary.

NAMALTing away to themselves so nothing changes

seeing themselves as individuals eh ? Tsk.

seeing themselves as individuals eh ? Tsk.

Oh feck off. If you can't acknowledge male violence in men as a class then we get no further in dealing with that issue.

Just saying NAMALT and washing your hands of it is ignoring the issue. We are all individuals but we still have to consider groups/classes of people when the situation calls for it.

Also not related to the above comment but I've looked again and quite a lot of the comments have now been deleted.

sawdustformypony are you just randomly picking bits of my first post to comment on at different times - am I to look forward to your wonderful commentary all day? I have to work now so I won't be able to play I'm afraid.

I sometimes post on another website which is full of educated, middle class, older types. Someone started a thread about the Vancouver Incel attack and various men responded in a way that made it clear they didn't think it had anything to do with them and criticising the women who were talking about patriarchy and misogyny for making it seem as if all men were like that.

I asked whether they'd talked about it with the women in their lives, female colleagues and so on, and whether they'd made it clear they sympathised with women and supported them. They were outraged that they might be expected to do so: they really don't regard it as being anything to do with them. What's more, several women piped up on their side saying they didn't see why the average man should take it on himself to say anything. I pointed out that elsewhere white people were posting in support of the Windrush immigrants denied rights. So we have examples of people supporting each other even when they're not directly affected. But no.

When men do dreadful things to women, other men don't seem to feel the need to support women — because it's not men like them who murder and abuse women. And they don't think this attitude has anything to do with the fact that the violence continues.

Oh feck off. If you can't acknowledge male violence in men as a class then we get no further in dealing with that issue.

Yes that is the problem. It was said recently here, that feminists see men as a class. Trouble is that men see themselves as individuals. So your position is somewhat fucked if you think this is a staring match and you're waiting to see who blinks first, cos men are just gonna say 'meh' and turn away.

Yes that is the problem. It was said recently here, that feminists see men as a class. Trouble is that men see themselves as individuals. So your position is somewhat fucked if you think this is a staring match and you're waiting to see who blinks first, cos men are just gonna say 'meh' and turn away.

This is true but how do we reasonably discuss this problem if we don't see male violence as belonging to a class or group of people?

Also apologies for telling you to feck off, it was unnecessary.

Kitty

This is the rub. To make a comparison, some people view all Muslims as a group, while Muslims and most ordinary people view them as individuals. So when an act of Islamic terrorism takes place, some people want to blame the entire group and expect them to actively show they are against it while individual Muslims and most normal people can see clearly that the group can't be held responsible for individual actions, even if those actions are carried out supoosedly in the name of the group.

So saying that violence is an overwhelmingly male problem is true, but it's then the same leap of logic to say that all men must take responsibility for it.

I'm a man and I'm not violent. I teach my son not to be and I don't associate with people who are. Outside of those actions, why should I take responsibility for other peoples actions or share any kind of collective guilt?

Aren't you thinking as men think — but not necessarily as groups who are oppressed think? I wasn't asking men to take responsibility for it. I was asking men to speak out about it and make it clear to those around them, men and women, that they don't condone it. Silence can be read as failure to admit there's a problem or even collusion in the problem.

Silence is collusion only if you have a very authoritarian and absolutist world view.

I really need to work - so I'm sorry if I don't address anymore after this.

I'm a man and I'm not violent. I teach my son not to be and I don't associate with people who are. Outside of those actions, why should I take responsibility for other peoples actions or share any kind of collective guilt?

I don't think you need to share collective guilt for an individual mass killing or anything else an individual does.

I think we all need to look at the issue and say what can we do to address it. I am sure you bring up your son not to be violent just as I have and I am sure you are not individually responsible for incels just as I as a human am not responsible for all human behaviour.

Someone on this board recently wrote something like this (I don't have time to search) but in situations where women are put down, where a misogynistic comment is made, where a woman is being pestered by a man - do we (and men in particular) call it out do we address it or let it pass? Do acknowledge the parts of culture contribute to this (porn, casual misogyny etc.) or do we shrug it off as not our concern?

As individuals we are not responsible for individual acts of violence but we are responsible for how we individually address the problem. If the response is Not All ... anything we are being rather cavalier when evidence suggests a trend. It is almost redundant - clearly not all men are murdering people nor are all Muslims, far from it but we can address behaviour and language within our communities be it Muslim, Christian, men, women or whatever. I find the 'Not all' approach dismissive when discussing issues like this.

I'm sorry if that wasn't the most coherent or comprehensive response but I better go and be responsible.

It is generally accepted that it is everyone's responsibility to question racist behaviour when it is seen - sexist behaviour too. To not do this is regarded as colluding or accepting through silence.

But when it comes to male violence that changes - suddenly it is the responsibility of the perpetrators and none of your business.

A failure to acknowledge that male violence is a problem (by men in particular) is a huge issue. I fear it is because men understand that they have their own repressed violent tendencies. To admit it is a male problem is to admit it is their problem.

Isn't part of the problem calling it male violence? Its violence, committed by violent people. All violence should be condemned whoever does it.

I think you're right in that there has been a historic culture of acceptance of certain types of violence, however I genuinely think that culture is changing. People do call it out far more than they used to. I see these behaviours challenged a lot, even in my own (male dominated) profession.

Again posters are right that it's by no means a done deal, but this constant narrative of male collective guilt doesn't help bring the less progressive men onside either.

I'm a gradualist, not a revolutionary. Things that are important take time to change. As long as they are going in the right direction, I'm generally happy.

I'm a man and I'm not violent. I teach my son not to be and I don't associate with people who are. Outside of those actions, why should I take responsibility for other peoples actions or share any kind of collective guilt?

Guilt no. I don’t expect my husband to feel guilty over the Toronto van killings. I DO expect him to acknowledge (and he does) that Male violence is an issue. I don’t expect a grovelling apology from any religious group every time one member kills someone.
I would like acknowledgement- and self reflection. Because it’s only when that happens that you get progress.

Look at the peace process in NI - while both communities were predominantly made up of individuals who were not actually committing violence, both communities had to look at how the set up of their community fed, encouraged or simply turned a blind eye to violence. With that acknowledgment that at a group level something is happening, there is no progress.

NAMALT is a cop out.

Again posters are right that it's by no means a done deal, but this constant narrative of male collective guilt doesn't help bring the less progressive men onside either.

I dont think there needs to be collective guilt. Thing is if you’re one of the decent men, like my DH then we are preaching to the choir anyway - you’re not the problem and you’re the ones engaging, talking about it etc, so I suppose you’re seeing the anger even though that anger isn’t directed at you personally (if that makes any sense.)

I think all men need to acknowledge that Male violence is a thing. I think all men need to be aware of their behaviour, call out bad behaviour when they see it and be good role models for children. You’re doing that - we do t expect you personally to shoulder the guilt of any individual action on top of that. At the same time i think we get antsy when men deny there’s an issue (and again, you’re not doing that, this is more aimed at men generally rather than you.)

I know I was speaking to my SIL about a similar issue and she made a very generic point about Male violence. My brother got incredibly pissed off and refused to continue the conversation. That’s what makes me angry - refusing to talk about it. He was NAMALT ING away like mad and it turned the convo back to soothing his feelings rather than discussing the point at hand.

Determining what makes people violent and why men are by far and away the largest perpetrators of violence should be a top priority for all societies.

However this article is little more than virtue signalling by Gary Yonge. "Why are mass killers male" is discussed as any search would show.