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.

It's not a 'man thing'

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France pseudonym for Jacques Anatole Thibault (1844-1924)
Which is why Feminism is the political movement for the liberation of women and not an "equality movement".
Equity rather than equality is one of the many goals of Feminism.

Nearly every mass killer is a man. Why aren’t we talking about that?

thebewilderness

I'm glad we agree on something.

Great quote. I also like 'if fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing'

I'm glad we agree on something.

I reject your forced teaming.
You have derailed this thread in your usual way, and made it all about you, as everyone can clearly see.

Come on, you're better than this.

You, on the other hand, are clearly not.

Maybe ask why you’re perturbed by women on here not agreeing with you, arguing etc? Do you expect to be right? Because a lot of men do. Do you expect your opinion to be deferred to? Again, a lot of men do. I see a lot of men come into these boards and the threads end up being derailed to avoid hurting their feelings - again women are socialised to be nice, to not ruffle feathers.

Male violence needs to be named. It’s no good saying NAMALT because as has been pointed out before almost NO women are like that. And a sufficiently large number of men ARE like that to make it an issue. Male violence is an issue.

Women are being killed because they are women This is a very important point. Look at ciudad Juarez, look at the disappearance of native First Nations women in Canada - these are crimes against women

So we name the problem as a first step. Then what? Here I think legislation does have a vital role. The law sets the expectation and society follows. I would like to see discussion of having misogyny being a hate crime definition for example.

Male violence needs to be named. It’s no good saying NAMALT because as has been pointed out before almost NO women are like that. And a sufficiently large number of men ARE like that to make it an issue. Male violence is an issue.

NAMALT is implicit in the research drive to discover what make some men violent and others not.

A thread about male violence derailed to discuss what's wrong with feminism.

You couldn't make it up.

I just read Reni Eddo-Lodge on why she no longer talks to white people about race. It's brilliant stuff. And it explains perfectly the reasons I no longer talk to men about feminism.
But I do usually engage long enough to say, "Buy a fucking book."

NAMALT is implicit in the research drive to discover what make some men violent and others not.

🤦🏻‍♀️ Is it implicit in the drive to discover why almost no women are violent too?

Men, as a class, are responsible for 98% of violent crime. Why?

Babel

Maybe ask why you are perturbed by women on here not agreeing with you

Eh? I'm not and never have been.

the testicles of objectivity seem to be swinging in unison on this thread.

Cards: But I do usually engage long enough to say, "Buy a fucking book."

LOL, perfect!

As this is a thread about male violence, found two links today on my facebook feed that may be of interest.

This first one, a men-for-men site:
xyonline.net/content/mass-shooters-and-mens-will-change

The second, more focused on one of the common themes emerging ("incels"):
www.facebook.com/joyofresistance/photos/a.1988123431428508.1073741828.1935960663311452/2105242509716599/

There is also another theme which is gaining more notice (will need to find a link or two), but of the common thread that many of these mass killers have a history of DV against the women in their lives.

Hating women, beating women. Smells a lot like male entitlement.

But on a lighter note, this:

outabouter.com/2018/04/28/involuntarily-underpaid-women-mark-6000-years-of-not-resorting-to-violence/

That’s brilliant LaSqrrl!

Violence should always be condemned.

However, condemning the fact that men are more violent than women is a little bit like condemning competitive sport because it can lead to injury, misuse of illegal drugs and, in many cases, abusive interactions between trainers and athletes.

Well, yes, all the above are true, but competitive sport also has huge benefits and the above problems are limited and not normal.

With male violence, I would posit that the testosterone which leads to aggression and competitiveness can be channelled both positively and negatively. The vast majority of men are brought up and educated not to be violent. Focusing on the few who are (especially the tiny minority of mass murderers) without acknowledging there is anything good at all about male competitiveness is a very one sided way of looking at things.

However, condemning the fact that men are more violent than women is a little bit like condemning competitive sport because it can lead to injury, misuse of illegal drugs and, in many cases, abusive interactions between trainers and athletes.

I’m a bit at this analogy. It’s somewhat apologist don’t you think?

There is no ‘but’ or ‘however’ with the condemnation of Male violence. Male violence is A Very Bad Thing indeed. It doesn’t have any redeeming points. It doesn’t have any benefits for women.

You’re basically saying that well, men are just more competitive/aggressive and that’s a good thing and that some of them (and it’s not a tiny minority who are violent for gods sake) and that violence is just an unfortunate side effect

I absolutely despair. Women on this thread are saying this again and again and again - male violence is a fucking massive issue and not a single bloke is saying ‘yeah it is.’

It’d be like me saying that well I don’t see much racism because I’m white, and I’m not racist, so it’s probably all a bit overblown... 🤦🏻‍♀️

Bowl,

As I have repeatedly said, male violence is a pathology, not the norm. I condemn it unequivocally. Violent men should go to jail for a long time.

However, the overwhelming assumption on here is that the greater prevalence of violence in men than women is somehow caused by socialisation and the 'patriarchy'. And that if men somehow 'tackled' male violence, it would all go away and everyone would live happily ever after.

I don't buy this (and find it somewhat misandrist, to be honest). Male violence has to be seen in the context of men having much more testosterone than women. This has pluses and minuses (IMO). If you entirely neglect this context, of course, 'men' are 'prone to violence' and all need condemning. You would need to neglect biology and the effect of anabolic steroids on aggression, however, to do this.

I don't think you will find anyone on here who think INCEL are anything but violent loonies. Or anyone who agrees that any man has a right to be violent.

That, however, is different, to saying that, if we are sexually dimorphic species, and males need more testosterone, then it is a part of the human condition that some males will always be poorly socialised and their aggression misdirected.

However, condemning the fact that men are more violent than women is a little bit like condemning competitive sport because it can lead to injury, misuse of illegal drugs and, in many cases, abusive interactions between trainers and athletes.

It is absolutely not comparable.

That, however, is different, to saying that, if we are sexually dimorphic species, and males need more testosterone, then it is a part of the human condition that some males will always be poorly socialised and their aggression misdirected

I'm struggling to follow what you are saying here. Even if we take as a given that men produce more testosterone than women and testosterone can make some men violent it still comes back to what other distinguishing feature is there between men who are not violent and men who are?

And what is the distinguishing feature between women who are not violent and those who are? For both the answer must be socialisation with a dash of education.

I agree that "it's the patriarchy innit" is too simplistic (particularly as one occasionally sees excuses made for the small number of viiolent women that they are victims of the patriarchy)


Lass,

I am agreeing with you, I think. Am I really expressing myself so badly?!

I think both men and women have the ability to be violent. I think testosterone lowers the bar for men. In a sense, men require greater socialisation to overcome their innate tendency for violence (which I believe that we all, as animals, have to a greater or lesser extent).

Is this trade off of testosterone versus a greater prediliction to violence worth it? I believe that it is on a species level. This does not excuse those that are violent in any way, however.

Most well brought up, well educated men are non violent. You said upthread that you did not know of any violent men. I am in the same position (at least as far as I know). Why some men, despite awful upbringings, remain unviolent and a few men, even from great backgrounds, are still violent, is a mystery to me.

There are clearly many interlinking factors at play here.

Testosterone does not systemic subjugation of women make. It's the rationalisation of male violence into "he just snapped"

It's derailing again

Woman,

No, it is addressing the thread precisely, just with a different opinion to yours.

How can addressing the cause of male violence be derailing on a thread about male violence?