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.

So true Bowl. Do you remember years ago there was a case where a man shot a policeman dead because his ex girlfriend had lied that her new boyfriend was a policeman.

There were internet comments that she was to blame for the policeman’s death and should be ashamed about lying. I was stunned by the woman-blaming. She was obviously just trying to protect herself from a violent ex, but no people always find ways to blame the woman.

The passive way the media covers violence is notable. I read something along the lines of “car ploughs into crowd, killing ten” as if the car drove itself.

It would be an interesting school excercise wouldn't it? Rewrite these headlines in a more honest and literal way.

Man drives car into crowd, killing ten.

There was also the one recently where the husband killed his wife after she challenged him over the amount of debt they were in and he’d got another loan, fraudulently, in her name.

The entire tone of the piece was that she was to blame for loving the high life. Not her martial arts trained husband, who strangled her with his bare hands after she found out he had committed fraud in her name. Even saw one comment saying she deserved it for ‘nagging’

Man kills wife with bare hands after committing extensive fraud.

Man kills wife after she raises objection to his crime.

Er, because you can’t go round forcibly medicalising people!

It's interesting to me that the idea of forcibly medicating people seems outrageous, while the status quo (men routinely assaulting and killing women) doesn't seem outrageous enough to require an urgent solution.

But perhaps the idea of introducing a curfew for all men, along with forced hormone treatment, is a realistic and rational response to men's hysterical insistence that male violence is perpetrated by individuals acting alone, as if there were no systems or structures that facilitated this violence.

She doesnt confirm it at all!!

It doesn't matter if she's a transwoman or a woman. The statistics would still show that the overwhelming number of perpetrators of mass violence are men. That video does not show what you think it does, imo.

'The only thing you can do is mitigate the socialising factors that make it worse.'

That's what feminists and others have been trying to do for a long time, but it constantly meets both subtle and fierce resistance from men (and not just violent men). Not only do men not want to name male violence they also don't want any measures to be taken to tackle male violence that may inconvenience them in the smallest way. Meanwhile many men feel it is perfectly acceptable to expect women not to wear certain clothes, not to go to certain places, not to travel alone, not to drink alcohol etc because apparently inconveniencing and restricting women is just fine.

As an example of the above, until 1991 it was legal for a man to rape a woman as long as that woman was his wife. Now, if men gave any sort of a shit about protecting women from violence, that loophole wouldn't have existed in the first place, I mean, it should never be acceptable to rape a woman, no matter what your relationship to her, right? But no, men decided that ok, we'll have to seem civilised and say you can't just forcibly stick your penis into any woman out there (but of course when it comes down to it, if you do do that, the justice system will take every effort to blame her for it) but of course if a woman signs a marriage cert she has effectively signed away all rights to her body and her husband can just use that lump of meat as and when he sees fit - it's not like she's a human at that point who should have a say, right? A man has taken her as his possession and it's up to him what he does with his possession.

Individual men may be violent but the system supports and condones them, perhaps not quite so explicitly any more but enough that millions of men get away with destroying women's lives every year.

From Larry:
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.

I am sure many wives of 'respectable men' (solicitors, judges, professors etc) would beg to differ of your learned opinion there Larry. Just google 'domestic violence in upscale marriages' and you will see a number of books, both UK and US mainly, on the subject. That you personally don't see it, or don't know about the extent of the problem among these men, counts for exactly zero.

Also in my research into DV, these 'nice well educated men' or 'respectable men' are the ones more likely to be Family Annihilators.

Well said, Spaghetti. Well said.

I should add that the law on rape in marriage was only changed after a lot of argument and campaigning - men actively resisted changing it - while they weren't stupid enough to say they were ok with men raping their wives, there was a general sentiment that actually in marriage women do owe men sex, and the fact that a man could be charged with raping his wife put in jeopardy a man's right to bully his wife into letting him use her as a wank sock. Poor old men eh?

To add some even more horrible detail, the actual legal stance on the whole thing was that once women signed the marriage register, they had consented to sex and they couldn't retract that consent. So the marriage certificate was effectively a document saying the woman no longer had any say over what happened to her body, that the man could decide to use it as he pleased and the law condoned that fully.

I'd be interested to know Larry's response to the fact that it was his 'educated and professional' men who enshrined a man's right to rape in law and proceeded to argue in many many many court cases that a man had every right to force his penis inside a woman as she had at a previous time said 'I do' - apparently negating her personhood and making her into a sex toy.

Men actively resist anything and everything that inconveniences them in the slightest - god yes. I’ve said on the trans threads before that the ManFriday campaign is genius because it inconveniences men (not hurts them, it’s very politely done, it’s just a spot of inconvenience.) and I’ve also said that if you want real bowls of outrage they need to go for the big men only areas - the masons and the ‘gentlemens Clubs’ because that’s where the power lies.

But anyway, yes men DO resist anything that’s inconvenient. And they turn a blind eye to anything that actively, badly harms women.

You see it on every thread about FGM - there’s always a bloke or ten bringing up circumcision. On feminism threads there’s always NAMALT. It’s inertia and derailing and a sign that men don’t even want to acknowledge it exists.

Again I’d encourage you all to go back and read those facilitated men threads. I’ll try and find a link because they had so many examples of this.

Here: I’m on these under my previous name. Honestly some of the best threads I’ve seen on here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3082251-Men-whose-lives-are-facilitated-by-women-how-did-this-happen

I think there ended up being at least one more.

It’s example after example of how men either do t see the problem, or see it and don’t give enough of a fuck to change it in any way because it’s not in their interest.

And whatcthe men on this thread fail to appreciate is that this is just a microcosm - this is applicable to so many areas of life. It’s set up to benefit men and they ain’t moving over. And if we ask them to move over, they get very very nasty.

WRT marital rape, there were men arguing against closing the loophole, powerful men, I might add, such as members of the house of Lords, on the basis that it might lead to more false rape claims. Men genuinely argued that they didn't want married women to be protected from rape because it might cause problems for men and they genuinely expected that argument to be met with sympathy on the basis that men's lives are essentially more important than women's - if women are raped who cares? All that we should care about is that a man might be falsely accused.

That is the world we live in.

All that we should care about is that a man might be falsely accused.

Every time there is a case where a man is acquitted, the backlash against the complainant is immense. The comments are generally that ‘something must be done about these women’ ignoring the fact that there already are consequences for wasting police time, lying in court etc.
The DM rabidly followed two false accusation cases recently with a fervour I don’t think I’ve seen for any other crime. All crimes have a false accusation rate. The rate for rape is tiny. The air time given to it is huge.
The proportion of rape accusations that are false is minute. As is the conviction rate for rape. That recent case in Ulster made my blood boil. Victim left bleeding and crying, was dragged through court, her reputation trashed, the very clothes she was wearing out into court as evidence of her being up for it.

Can you imagine if men were inconvenienced like this? Oh you were out drinking sir? With a group? Well you should know not to do that. In that shirt? Well it shows a lot of arm... it’s not wonder you were raped. Man can just blithely go out for a pint or ten and expect nothing more than a hangover the next day.

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.

Our culture glorifies and rewards violence. Look at our cultural heroes. Luke Skywalker. Indiana Jones. Arnie in Terminator 2. Jon Snow. Samuel L Jackson in most of his films. Look at any set of iconic images from film and TV, and look at how many of them are of people wielding a weapon. It's not really surprising that so many men struggle to understand the difference between good violence that makes you a hero, and bad violence that makes you a villain- because it's a pretty thin line and it's quite often in the eye of the beholder.

It's not really surprising that so many men struggle to understand the difference between good violence that makes you a hero, and bad violence that makes you a villain

Totally. the problem is that "heroes" often need "baddies" to contrast themselves against.

Doobigetta

Women watch those movies as well. The majority of women find masculine stereotypes of men attractive. Firemen/soldiers etc.

Muscly, strong men are by far the most attractive images to the majority of women. The advertising industry knows this, or it wouldn't make any money.

Masculinity and male stereotypes are a human issue, not just a male one.

As a person with a Criminology and Forensic Science degree, you will find very few female serial killers comparatively.

Beverley Allitt is one that stands out to me.

Muscly, strong men are by far the most attractive images to the majority of women. The advertising industry knows this, or it wouldn't make any money.

Is that true? I mean it's a bit like saying that wearing make up is innate to women and the advertising industry knows this or it wouldn't make any money.

I'm sure there's a lot more variety in what women want than just muscles.

Those are the ones that appeal to men. That is why they use them. That is why they use all manner of camera angles and ramps to make men look bigger than they are.
To appeal to men.

Then, of course, men project their preferences on to women. It is amazing the way they have gotten away with this con game for hundreds of years.

Muscly, strong men are by far the most attractive images to the majority of women. The advertising industry knows this, or it wouldn't make any money

Is that true? I mean it's a bit like saying that wearing make up is innate to women and the advertising industry knows this or it wouldn't make any money

I don't think that is true at all. You only have to look at all the "indy boy" type models. All those whippet thin boys with floppy hair who look as if a puff of wind would blow them over.

Our culture glorifies and rewards violence. Look at our cultural heroes. Luke Skywalker. Indiana Jones. Arnie in Terminator 2. Jon Snow. Samuel L Jackson in most of his films. Look at any set of iconic images from film and TV, and look at how many of them are of people wielding a weapon. It's not really surprising that so many men struggle to understand the difference between good violence that makes you a hero, and bad violence that makes you a villain

I don't buy that for one minute. Firstly because people can actually tell the difference between fantasy and real life and secondly we are not talking about men who want to be heroes.

We are talking about cowards and bullies; men whose moral compass is wildly adrift; men who do not accept the ethical or legal rules that hitting people is bad.