3 ms·
> Male violence happens probably partially because of testosterone. But cultural factors is significant too. Nobody questions your masculinity after such horrid
by throwaway999888 11y ago
> Male violence happens probably partially because of testosterone. But cultural factors is significant too. Nobody questions your masculinity after such horrid act, probably out of respect to the victims. It seems somehow disgraceful to be killed by a boy.
They don't question your masculinity because it's not applicable. They say that you are evil instead, because it's bad thing to do. Questioning your masculinity happens if you do something effeminate, and gunning down people is not that.
I guess what you're trying to say is that killing people should be considered emasculating. I think it's more damning to be called an evil scum-bag than to be called a "faggot", though.
Masculinity[1] has both positive and negative traits associated with it. We aren't taught to be masculine even in destructive ways. That's also why we don't emasculate people who are masculine in destructive ways -- because it's still masculine, but not in a commendable way. You see the difference? "Masculinity" does not mean, and is not taught to be, synonymous with "good". At least not these days.
Our concepts of what is good and bad, commendable and terrible, is not one-dimensional and solely attributed to things like gender conformance. Calling someone through-and-through evil and despicable is more isolating and condemning than calling them a pansy. You won't appreciably reduce mass shootings by verbally stripping mass murderers of their manhood, rather than just calling them evil. Sorry.
[1] In the sense of traits and actions which are associated more with men.
- vlehto 11y agoKilling unarmed people with a firearm should be emasculating. Just like in western flicks. If you have accepted for some reason that you are evil scumbag, then that's it. Now you choose whether you are man scumbag or boy scumbag. School shooters are usually already somewhat isolated and they usually end up dead. They don't care getting isolated. They seem to care about posthumous fame. I don't mind if masculine is not good. What I'm trying to say is that seemingly only surefire way to get the status of a man is violence. Inventing some other certain and positive way to get the status of a man would be great. But in the meantime it would seem like a good idea to make the "madman" status less certain. >You won't appreciably reduce mass shootings by verbally stripping mass murderers of their manhood, rather than just calling them evil. Sorry. You can't back that claim in any way. Sorry.
- newman111 11y agoKilling unarmed people is orthogonal to masculinity. In general, I think more sympathy with these mass murderers, from those not directly affected, would be a better idea than labeling them as "evil". While I would not make the same decisions, it's important to realize that the refusal to understand a person's POV contributes towards isolation. That's an important component we don't recognize.
- tomp 11y ago> Killing unarmed people with a firearm should be emasculating I'm sure that a lot of soldiers and drone operators feel more masculine after the kill.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago>Calling someone through-and-through evil and despicable is more isolating and condemning than calling them a pansy. Actually, I think it's worth testing. People have worked in deeply irrational, amoral ways before, you know.