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.

Spaghetti

Such tosh

Yes, that does clear it up - thank you. Obviously, it was the first of the two statements that was unhelpful and misleading - nobody in the audience wants to hear that sort of thing - it butters no parsnips.

As to your statement - I do feel there are things I should do (though I struggle to find practical things, beyond listening), I'm so glad one of the brothers here didn't say that. I was going to mention it earlier, but I though I'd leave it initially

Spaghetti

I think you are conflating a number of issues in your previous post and strawmanning all over the place, but ok, I kind of agree that if someone's go-to response, regardless of circumstance, was to play the NAMALT/NAWPALT card then they are probably not open minded enough to be actually thinking about what is being said.

However, and it's a big however, if someone ever accused me of being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced, them my first response would be to think 'am I objectively being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced'. If the answer was yes then of course I would stop what I was doing and apologise.

But if the answer was no I'm not, then I'd tell them to go f**k themself.

How do you define 'objectively' patriarchy?

Spaghetti

In the standard way. So not swayed by personal opinion, appearing the same to everybody etc. Essentially the dictionary definition.

Right, because in my experience, in the context of sexism, 'objectively' usually means a man decides what he did wasn't sexist regardless of how women feel.

Right, because in my experience, in the context of sexism, 'objectively' usually means a man decides what he did wasn't sexist regardless of how women feel.

Again, spot on.

Why do men get to define what sexism is? Or white people to define what racism is? It's gaslighting.

I'm not aware of your personal experiences spaghetti, but that is categorically not what I have just described.

Or a man decides, for example, that 'the glass ceiling isn't ubiquitous' in spite of women's experience and huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. For example, even in teaching where women outnumber men quite significantly on the whole, the majority of leadership positions are still held by men. Same in nursing.

xenophile

Why do men get to define what sexism is, or white people what racism is

They don't.

They certainly did until recently patriarchy and many men still think they do.

They don't.

However, and it's a big however, if someone ever accused me of being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced, them my first response would be to think 'am I objectively being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced'. If the answer was yes then of course I would stop what I was doing and apologise.

Right oh.

Although maybe you're just more of an objective thinker than those over-emotional women/PoC/whatever?

Patriarchy

It might be because women are socialised to be 'nice' (apparently). If someone in a class higher up in the 'disadvantage pyramid' calls them out for being racist/homophobic/etc (but not transphobic I notice), they're apt to accept it without question.

I don't think women accept it without question, but I do think women don't pull the 'objective' bullshit because they know what it's like being on the receiving end of 'objectivity'. Once upon a time women were 'objectively' considered unsuitable for education, for example.

Xenophile

Nobody is 100% objective, all the time. But we can (and should) try to be.

Although you seem to be making an identical argument, only from the opposite end. Do you suppose that all women or people of colour are 100% objective when they pronounce someone racist/sexist, but the alleged perpetrator is always subjective when they say they aren't?

If anything, women/poc are far more likely to be being subjective, because they are emotionally affected.

Sawdust

Please don't drag this thread into some goady bullshit. It's a reasonable discussion up till now.

It's a reasonable discussion up till now.

Yeah right.

Do you think sexism appears the same to everyone patriarchy? As in, there is a standard set of criteria to judge sexism that everyone agrees on?

Spaghetti

Well yes to a degree.

Prejudicial treatment on the basis of sex. It might not always appear the same, but I suppose the test would be similar to the legal one, i.e would a 'reasonable person', in the same circumstances, view it as sexist.

hmm. Lets think about Uluru. Is it racist to take tourists up a great big rock in the middle of Australia?

Based on that description no.

But if you are aboriginal, then the answer is most certainly yes.

where I'm going with this is the people in the position of power may not know, or care about all the information.

Reluctant

But that's not racism, its insensitivity to a part of someones culture.

If I went to the tomb of Napoleon in Paris and took a shit on it, it would be deeply insensitive and offensive towards French people, but it wouldn't be racist.

And in that situation is the 'reasonable person' male or female?

I think this thread alone, and the many many many other threads in this topic and throughout the internet illustrate that the idea that there is an 'objective' measure of sexism that women and men agree on is a nonsense. In fact the lack of agreement is one of the main problems between the sexes.

would you say then that the Australian government's long years of inaction regarding aboriginal people's feelings about people climbing Uluru had no racist context whatsoever?

Testosterone is the main explanator of the prevalence of male vs female violence and not socialisation. Roid rage is real and when females take anabolic steroids they become more violent.

This has served humanity well over many many years. Since industrialisation there is much less need for brute strength. However, it still sometimes has its uses. There are also very cruel women, although clearly fewer in number.

Socialisation curbs the innate tendency and the vast majority of well educated men have zero propensity to violence. Unnecessary violence is a pathology and not the norm.

Society continues to become less violent and testosterone levels are, on average falling (for a variety of reasons). Of course the corollary is lower sperm counts and sex drive.

As a species we depend upon male sex drive and fertility (unless you really see utopia as ivf with mechanically extracted sperm). When misdirected it causes problems but societies, by creating strong laws against violence (created at least as much by men) do contain toxic masculinity.