The Perils of Patriarchy for Men as well as Women: Another Mass Shooting, another Reason to Begin Di

truth-out.org...

I came across this article today and found it well written and documented.

A few quotes:


From the introduction:

Between 1982 and mid-2013, there were 67 mass shootings across the United States.[1] As Mother Jones reports, mass shootings are defined as the killing of four or more people, not including the killer, in a single event. Thirty of these shootings occurred between 2006 and 2013.

and onto the point of the article:

One crucial factor associated with violence is gender, a lens that dictates “proper” characteristics, interests, and even behavioral trends. While Lapierre wishes to placate our fears (and undermine demands for stricter gun laws) with talk of "monsters," a far more significant and undeniable fact about 66 of the past 67 mass murderers is that they were men. This is a fact that often goes without notice - or at least without acknowledgement. Even Michael Moore's thoughtful post-Sandy Hook discussion of American violence[5] failed to identify the relevance of gender. Moore wrote that the slogan, "Guns don't kill people" is incomplete: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people." Given that the vast majority of our nation's violent acts, including gun violence, are perpetrated by men, a truer clarification of this saying would be: "Guns don't kill people, (far too many) American men kill people."

Some frightening statistics:

Men are responsible for the majority of violence in this nation. According to the FBI's 2010 statistics on crime, men made up 90 percent of the 11,000 murder offenders whose gender was known.[9] Men also were responsible for 77 percent of aggravated assaults, 84 percent of burglaries, 82 percent of arsons, 74 percent of offenses against the family and children, and 99 percent of rapes.[10] According to Futures without Violence, while three-quarters of those who commit family violence are men, women make up 84 percent of spousal-abuse victims and 86 percent of those abused by a romantic partner.[11] Considering that men make up just 49.2 percent of the U.S. population, these statistics should be alarming.[12] The many, many men who enact the majority of our nation's and the world's violence - are they monsters? And why are so many silent, including progressives, about the role gender socialization plays in violence?

It would be nice to have a civil conversation about this topic. Many men are aware and conversant with how patriarchy, with it's 'power over' dynamic, hurt men as well, both higher and lower status males. But, I suspect and predict that any insuing conversation will focus on posts about:

1) Women commit acts of violence as well. To which I reply in advance that no one is denying that but the acts are considerably more likely to be committed by males. And we are address the whys of the FACT that males are many times more likely to engage in violence.

2) Somehow this is the natural order or God designed order of things and there is nothing to be done about it. Well, I dispute that is the natural order of things. Granted more (to borrow Riane Eisler's term) 'Partnership Societies' did come before God was created by us (read man here) in our (read male) image and was more of a nature image, that is not proof that we have to just accept violence by men towards weaker members of society.


The violence towards women and lesser status males is growing as the economic outlook for individuals falls. It's a manifestation of fear, that males tend to act out in violence (of all sorts - not just phsyical). Women who are unable to accept and articulate their fears often act out as well, but rarely to the point of phsyical violence.

Somewhere in here, too, I think is a key as to why people tend to vote against their own best interest - but I digress.

Violence at any level does not work (long term) for anyone. It just breeds more violence and hate. We need to look at it's roots in our culture(s) and seek answers.

Happy Saturday Everyone.

reply to post by FyreByrd


I think one thing we have to consider is the 'absent father' as well as the father who was reared in a violent environment. Young males more than females join gangs in search of an identity as well as to feel they 'belong' and are accepted. This seems to be more so in black and Hispanic communities. That being said it does appear that most mass murders in the last 10 years or so are by young white males.

Two parents working to keep up with the jones and the wants of their children leaves a void in the family. No time for parenting or teaching values, community let alone school involvement.

I could go on but won't.

I personally feel it's an accumulation of the exploitation of slasher films which made their debut in the middle 70's, violence in movies, explicit violent video games and violent lyrics in music. I know a lot of people will say I'm crazy, but we are now finding out some of these mass murders have been triggered by an obsession with these types of entertainment. A majority of people can walk away not thinking twice about what they see or hear, but some people are very impressionable and mentally unstable.

If you look back to the earlier days of TV, censors wouldn't allow blood and gore, profanity and violent scenes to be broadcast. Consequences were much harsher for children in schools, with the use of corporal punishment. People were just not subject to the amount of violence they see today.

How about we bring into the conversation that in the last 5 mass shootings the shooter was on some form of anti depressant or other mind altering drug. How many past shooters were also on prescribed medications that went unnoticed? I think there are many things that contribute to the makeup of a killer not just one.

I believe it to be a mix of biology and psychology that leads to the male aggression. I read an article on male violence a while back and found it again to post here.
Interesting read
www.scientificamerican.com...

Mobil issues
Triple post

Mobil issue
Quadruple post

reply to post by FyreByrd


Patriarchy can have a bad effect on men just as it does on women, I know this from first-hand experience. What happens on the man's side of a Patriarchy is hardly ever looked at for some reason, but it can be explained rather simply.

A set of standards is applied to a population and those that do not comply are punished for it. There could be situations where someone is autistic, or not intelligent enough, or not perfect enough to meet the standards if they are raised too high.

In the United States in the past 5 years or so, the standards have started breaking into different factions, and with the misinformation in the news media on all sides, even someone who normally would be able to keep up because they make some sort of sense could end up being entirely confused.

Someone could have autism, someone could have a frontal lobe disorder, someone could be gay, there are at least a dozen reasons why a man would not be capable of meeting the standards of his Patriarchy and thus shorted on resources like food, water, shelter or whatever.

If pushed to this limit, as you can see, this is the reasoning behind the mass shootings, it's probably not good that I can reason it out like that lol, but I took a lot of psychology courses.

There is also the added condition of the S.S.R.I. medications. There is some evidence that it might not mix well with autism, for one, and I'm not saying the medicines are bad, I am saying in a lot of the mass shootings, they were discovered to have been involved.


---------

Gender issues on the other side of things - how many females are slandered like Miley Cyrus because they actually think like guys and are logical and don't fit into the female stereotype? How many girls are feeling suppressed because they have to "act" like someone they aren't every day?

Issues! Double post sorry!

I guess I'll use it to say I don't advocate violence.

Mobil issue
Going to reboot my phone, if that doesn't work I am going to try a little "male aggression" on it.

Mobil issues
Double post

reply to post by WeRpeons


Men are more violent I agree but the statistics for spousal abuse are very flawed. Most abuse against males by the opposite sex is never reported because for the most part the man will be shamed by his peers. As for you WeRpeon movies wouldn't have that much to do with it yes most of them probably did watch those movies but so did everyone else. Look through history we have always been violent just now we are not allowed to express our violent tendencies in a healthy way and the ones that cant deal with it snap and take it out on the rest of the "civilized" society.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Why are the majority of football players, hockey players, wrestlers and boxers men?
Why have men overwhelmingly always been hunter gatherers? Protectors? Warriors? Soldiers?
Answer that and you'll have what you're looking for. Men are just more visceral and prone to violence. It's in the dna.

We are also in increasingly less spiritual society, too. I believe that a dead spiritual life tends to be unhealthy and leaves to an emptiness in a lot of people that leads to nihilism and negative consequences.

To be honest i have been wondering lately what effects Caffeine has on SSRI medications and if there is some possible form of interaction there that either hasn't been fully studied or fully revealed (for obvious reasons)
I know after a few too many coffee's/sodas i can get irritable and edgy, same goes with having little to none when my system is craving it. That chemical imbalance combined with the already heavily medicated bio chemistry of these individuals could be fast-tracking them to a breaking point.

Ingesting more than 500 to 600 mg of caffeine per day is considered heavy use and may lead to physical side effects caused by both the addictive potential and stimulating effects of caffeine. Heavy use and abuse may result in restlessness, rapid heart rate, nausea, muscle tremors and insomnia. Lack of sleep from caffeine use can lead to ongoing sleep disturbances, fatigue, and a decline in physical performance and energy levels.

Read more: www.livestrong.com...

reply to post by Thorneblood


Not to mention the crap nutrition most of us have to put up with. Processed, chemical laden foods. Unless you are really well off, that's mostly what people can afford. At least here in the sticks we can offset the cost of real food by making a huge garden. City people don't really have that option, even a lot of burbs have retarded home owner associations that will not let you turn the useless grass area into a food growing area.

I know all about SSRI and SSNRI, been on a few. Never again. Getting off effexor was pretty crazy, side effects were out there. Not sure about caffiene interaction though, never thought to experiment with it any.

WeRpeons
I personally feel it's an accumulation of the exploitation of slasher films which made their debut in the middle 70's, violence in movies, explicit violent video games and violent lyrics in music.

And yet the overall rate of violence has been on a sharp decline.

I say this as no minor point. This is monumental, and completely ignored. Why does no one want to take credit for this new era of peace? Why aren't we celebrating our safer streets and new freedoms? It doesn't suit the agenda I suppose.

To give some back ground, I've been a feminist for a long time. I've attended groups and functions, assisted in running the Vagina Monologues, created and distributed feminist media and artwork ... but this has to stop somewhere. Not every issue is a feminist issue! Not everything is a cause of the patriarchy.

Are we honestly implying here that men have conspired to be killed over and over again? Conspired to find the bottom rung of the ladder? That the last four thousand years of civilization have been nothing but men swinging their penis's around their head like lassos whilst living the high life? More than likely there has been one hundred thousand hard fought years and to primitive persons it didn't make sense that God invented 50% of the human species to be less effective at fighting lions. One hundred thousand years is a long time to build a false sense of one's self. It wasn't patriarchy, it was evolution and survival.

I won't deny, I'm still a feminist but what did civilization think would happen? Men evolved to fight, its what we've been using them for in the last hundred thousand years. Now this isn't a time to talk about the silencing of women so I'm going to ask everyone in the thread to just skip it. We know that women haven't had a voice in history the way men have had and women's rights have been an issue etc etc etc ...

The actual question is, do we really expect to snap our fingers and have men universally go, 'oh wow we were being might silly weren't we! We really over shot it there with that 100, 000 years of violence!' The fact of the matter is, when a man chooses the path of violence it will be more decisive and effective and it will cause more casualties. No amount of feminist critique will ever alter this.

The one common factor amongst all these men who have snapped is a lack of value. They are the invisible men that women don't notice or perceive. They are failed university students, disgraced military men, bullied school boys ... Perhaps men changing isn't the only issue, perhaps women have to change what they perceive as the value of a man. Women set the bar for male value, and its high time we admitted that. If women around the world tomorrow decide that unemployed men wearing giant floppy pink clown shoes are hot we will be surrounded by clowns within two years.

Yet here we are. Instead of trying to understand what makes one type of man different from another, we say 'men we want you to react in a different way.' We say, 'change what is important to you.' When we have image and esteem issues we say, 'men stop looking at women this way, stop causing the eating disorders. We want you to be different from what you are.' This is honestly like telling women to lose weight more effectively to help their self esteem problems, or stating that women need to stop feeling pressured by their self esteem issues.

What we should be saying is, 'men, why do you feel this way? Why are you angry, why do you feel unvalued and unwelcome?' What I'm saying is actually really subtle in comparison the OP article, but feminism is a form of 'patriarchy' in itself when wielded by the wrong hands ...

Feminism says that patriarchy ignores gender non-conforming people for example. It disrespects gay people. It does X and Y and Z and everything else and what it needs is more feminism. Feminism has everything good and 'patriarchy' has everything bad. This is nonsense. Our society has evolved over time and it will continue to evolve. The fact that we live in a century where we can complain about men in particular as a cause of death is a massive leap forward. I can't stress this enough.

Summary:

1. We've made progress. We should acknowledge this instead of talking like the sky is falling down all the time. Perhaps we've already made the steps we need by lowering the value of violence in society.
2. Feminist critiques are not going to change men. This is how some out in front feminists have responded to male issues. This sickens me as a feminist. When men have esteem issues feminists make fun of them. We need to look at the problem as a problem and leave our theory crafting as to which gender is to blame out of it.
3. Women and men's culture do not exist independently of one another. We need to honestly ask how are men and women contributing to these issues instead of blaming it on the patriarchy and assuming men are the evil ones and women are hidden in ivory towers.
4. Poverty leads to violence. Men in poverty become violent for reasons other than being brought up in a patriarchy. There is a reason why theft, larceny and burglary are the favorite crimes in rich western nations ... poor men trying to steal to take care of their poor families. In America, theft makes up sixty percent of all crimes reported. The question here is, why aren't women becoming career criminals? The answer is women don't need to - it's far more efficient and safer to get a man to do it then afterwards we can make it part of the patriarchy instead of a real issue to sympathetically engage with and solve together as a group.

Just my thoughts.

Quadrivium
I believe it to be a mix of biology and psychology that leads to the male aggression. I read an article on male violence a while back and found it again to post here.
Interesting read
www.scientificamerican.com...

Thanks for the wonderful Scientific American Article.

As the article says is it is not in the DNA nor the Testosterone and puts us back at the old nature/nuture problem wherein the answer is both.

It's a good article and well worth the read. Thank you.

darkbake
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Patriarchy can have a bad effect on men just as it does on women, I know this from first-hand experience. What happens on the man's side of a Patriarchy is hardly ever looked at for some reason, but it can be explained rather simply.

A set of standards is applied to a population and those that do not comply are punished for it. There could be situations where someone is autistic, or not intelligent enough, or not perfect enough to meet the standards if they are raised too high.

In the United States in the past 5 years or so, the standards have started breaking into different factions, and with the misinformation in the news media on all sides, even someone who normally would be able to keep up because they make some sort of sense could end up being entirely confused.

Someone could have autism, someone could have a frontal lobe disorder, someone could be gay, there are at least a dozen reasons why a man would not be capable of meeting the standards of his Patriarchy and thus shorted on resources like food, water, shelter or whatever.

If pushed to this limit, as you can see, this is the reasoning behind the mass shootings, it's probably not good that I can reason it out like that lol, but I took a lot of psychology courses.

There is also the added condition of the S.S.R.I. medications. There is some evidence that it might not mix well with autism, for one, and I'm not saying the medicines are bad, I am saying in a lot of the mass shootings, they were discovered to have been involved.

edit on 19-10-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

---------

Gender issues on the other side of things - how many females are slandered like Miley Cyrus because they actually think like guys and are logical and don't fit into the female stereotype? How many girls are feeling suppressed because they have to "act" like someone they aren't every day?

edit on 19-10-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

You bring up an extremely important part of the whole Patriarchy - the harm done to 'lower status males', males that do not conform to the current "Boy Code". The violence foised on these men is horrendous. And it is often committed by men who will do anything to comply with the Code.

It robs our society of the unique value of each person by restricting worthly male traits to a narrow set of attributes.