babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » school shootings and masculinity

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: school shootings and masculinity
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 22 September 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In light of the Dawson College shootings, I've been thinking : why are most school shooters white males ? The gender part of it is obvious to me- the construction of masculinity :the fact that for men to be physically violent in expression their discontent or agression has been normalized; women are taught to express it in others ways.
What I can't figure out is why its only white men ? What is so different between white male masculinity and non-white masculinity ?

From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 22 September 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The violence of men of other ethnicites (read: cultures) manifests itself in different domains. Troubled african american boys in the united states, and I use the united states for statistical purposes as they have a larger sample size, probably don't manage to stay in school as long as Klebold and Harris did for example. Also, role models are different, as you say, most homicidal maniacs have been white. In the case of Klebold and Harris, they struck at the power which they perceived as oppressing in their social system (the high school). For a disconnected black or latino youth their world might not be the high school but rather the gang.

That being said, why are you calling your thread title "School Shootings and Masculinity," when your thread's opening content is in fact about "School Shootings and race"? Your thread title is misleading, as is the fact it's in the feminism forum.

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 22 September 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gamil Gharbi, the shooter in the Ecole Polytechnic tragedy, was the son of an Algerian Woman hater. Doesn't quite fit the white sterotype.
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 22 September 2006 07:43 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Was there more than one tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique? I always thought the gunman there was Marc Lepine....
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 07:55 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
he had changed his name. i've known white algerians.
the original culture may not matter if a boy is raised as a middle class north american male. i think that it may have more to do with conditioning and mental illness at that point.

are white males more prone to developing mental illness? if their brain chemistry is more sensitive to pollutants, perhaps that is part of the problem. there seem to be many more male children with other brain chemistry issues[learning problems, autism, etc] does anyone know?


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 22 September 2006 07:58 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apples- feminism deals with gender together with race, sexuality, etc. So I do think this is relevant.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 22 September 2006 08:14 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
morningstar wrote:

quote:
are white males more prone to developing mental illness? if their brain chemistry is more sensitive to pollutants, perhaps that is part of the problem. there seem to be many more male children with other brain chemistry issues[learning problems, autism, etc] does anyone know?

Sounds like the logic of the idiot genius theory applied to other genius. No idea really, I should be getting access to riversfull of data within a couple weeks though!

Pride for Red Dolores wrote:

quote:
Apples- feminism deals with gender together with race, sexuality, etc. So I do think this is relevant.

You're right. I still think body and soul or youth issues or anti-racism might have been better choices.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 22 September 2006 08:51 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The majority of serial killers are male because males have testosterone.

The majority of serial killers in North America are white because the majority of people in North America are white.

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 22 September 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gamil Gharbi, the shooter in the Ecole Polytechnic tragedy, was the son of an Algerian Woman hater. Doesn't quite fit the white sterotype. -Howard R. Hamilton

Well, one could argue that he did renounce his origin and embraced the white world .. with whatever comes with it. To himself and to all, he was Marc Lépine.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 23 September 2006 11:36 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
west coast, I totally disagree with what you said. I think your logic is faulty- if the reason most serial killers are male is that men have testoterone, then how come not all men are derial killers ? Frankly that's rather sexist, its like stereotypes surrounding women and their hormones. Men are taught overtly and covertly from birth by society and their parrents that it's okay for them to be physical (IN NUMEROUS WAYS i MIGHT ADD) but that its not okay for women to be physical.

As for the race thing that doesn't work either. All racial groups have people that behave violently to the point of murderously. There aren't only white people in jail. In fact and disgustingly enough, there's an overrepresentaion of non-white peole in jail- blacks and aboriginals anyone ( this is a fact, it's not my intention to be racist).


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 23 September 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, the question is an excellent one, but there are a few important things to sort out. First of all, obviously neither Kimveer Gill nor Marc Lepine were white. Jeffrey Weise, who killed 9 people and himself in Minnesota in 2005, was Ojibwa. All others I can recall were white, but they, thankfully, remain few enough that these three (plus, arguably, Valeri Fabrikant, was a Russian immigrant, and not, practically, "white" as such,) remain statistically significant to challenge the "most school shooters are white" claim. They are, however, every one of them male.

That said, this evidence does not discredit the hypothesis that white masculinity is responsible for this event. The white male hero, as dominantly represented in the media, in sports, in film and elsewhere, is hyper-masculine, aggressive, take-what-he-wants character. Think Army Generals, action film stars, star quarterback and so on. Masculinity, then, as represented in culture, is a predominanty white (and heterosexual) masculinity. This contention is further supported by the fact that while not all of the shooters are white, their shootings always take place in suburbs whose vast majority of ethnic makeup is white.

And clearly, this image is unattainable even if you are white, let alone if you are a member of a visible minority. These shootings represent the only way marginalized, culturally emasculated young men can approach this illogical white masculinity. Indeed, it is in fact natural that a good many of these shooters are not white, (and in fact, those that are not white are always minorities who have lived in North American culture for at least two generations--further aligning themselves with white, male Western values they can never achieve by virtue of their alien heritage) because they suffer a specific and visual barrier to what society demands of them as males: Be in control, be popular, and be white.

I've always found it interesting that these shooters repeatedly blame "the jocks" for the ills they suffered. I find that "the jock" is a residual archetype that no longer exists--if it ever did. Is the captain of the football team popular in high school today? I would venture that he isn't. The popular kids are never the most athletic, or the ones that conform to the "jock" stereotype (school jacket, dating the cheerleader, etc.) and yet they are still called "jocks". I would argue that when such shooters blame their crimes on "the jocks," they are in fact blaming them on the unrealistic representation of "the jock" that does not (and really never did) exist.

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 23 September 2006 01:37 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
obviously neither Kimveer Gill nor Marc Lepine were white.

That's not obvious to me, as to Kimveer Gill. The Indo-European-speaking people who migrated into northwest India around 1700 BCE were white, and their Brahim descendents are very fair-skinned too. And so are lots of Sikhs. Did he look white? Does anyone know?

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 23 September 2006 02:00 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone who has seen a picture of Kimveer knows he was not white.

Marc Lepine, was of Algerian descent and would probably classify as a white ethnic, but this does not make him white in the culturally significant term. Obviously, as many in this thread have pointed out, he had already experienced what amounts to non-white marginalization. Race, as a social construct, doesn't start or stop with skin colour.

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 23 September 2006 03:10 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Globe and Mail defends piece on Dawson Shootings

quote:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Quebec Premier Jean Charest are rebuking a Globe and Mail writer who wrote a recent article that suggested Quebec's francophone culture may have contributed to the Dawson College shootings.

-snip-

Wong wrote that a possible explanation could be found in the fact that Gill, like gunman Marc Lépine, who killed 14 women at l'École Polytechnique in 1989, were people of foreign background, not "pure laine" Quebecers, and their anti-social behaviour stemmed from their disaffection with Quebec society and its reluctance to welcome outsiders.

"What many outsiders don't realize is how alienating the decades-long linguistic struggle has been in the once-cosmopolitan city," Wong wrote in the two-page feature.

In a letter to the Globe and Mail published Thursday, Harper acknowledged that while Wong has a right to her point of view, her argument is "patently absurd and without foundation," and shows prejudice in blaming a whole society for the actions of one individual.


[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 23 September 2006 03:36 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
okay, so maybe my thought about them being all white is moot. I do agree however that whiteness is an idea rather than a reality in some ways. Both gender and race are frquently enforced using violence- i.e. homophobic accusations or/and ideas about the men of another non-white culture that justified colonialism.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 23 September 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's nothing sexist about saying that hormones affect behavior...

In fact, saying that hormones don't affect behavior is sexist. Such an unscientific belief implies that either males or females are somehow more able or less able to withstand the behavioral pressures of different hormonal balances, which really doesn't make any sense. If hormones didn't affect behavior, how would you explain the behavioral ramifications of puberty, or hormone replacement therapy, or menopause? Do men with testosterone defficiency who go on testosterone replacement therapy suddenly gain ambition, drive and aggression overnight simply because of socialization? Of course not.

Catchfire, jocks still exist. I don't know where you came up with the idea that physical prowess is no longer a social asset in high schools. I just got out of there a few years ago and it definitely still was as it was in the memories of whomever I have discussed it with.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 24 September 2006 06:20 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Howard R. Hamilton:
Gamil Gharbi, the shooter in the Ecole Polytechnic tragedy, was the son of an Algerian Woman hater.

That would be the "Algerian woman hater" who abandoned his family when Marc/Gamil was THREE YEARS OLD, and never had any contact with them again.

The Ecole Polytechnic tragedy had nothing to do with Islam or "Islamism". Neither does it justify suspicion of all Muslims NOR THE IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN WARS.

Why does the bullshit "Lapine was a Muslim" reference keep being brought back?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 24 September 2006 07:12 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
500_Apples, I did not say that physical prowess did not contribute to popularity. I said that "jocks" in the traditional sense no longer exist in high school. In my high school, in my partner's high school and the schools of most of the people I know, the most popular weren't the high school football captain, but the richer, more affluent white kids--some of whom might have played basketball, but they certainly weren't "jocks." I've heard people continue to refer to these popular kids as "jocks" even after they have left high school, which is absurd. I'm willing to concede this as anecdotal evidence. It's obviously more of a personal observation than clinical fact. I just think its indicative of the fact that marginalized teenagers don't hate individuals, exactly, but unattainable abstract images that are imposed them to live up to--ie, the "jock" stereotype of a popular, aggressive, physically potent male who gets whatever girl he wants. Not even the jocks can live up to this image.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 24 September 2006 07:27 AM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why does the bullshit "Lapine was a Muslim" reference keep being brought back?

If he didn't feel alienated from pure laine culture, why would he adopt a pure laine name?

From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 24 September 2006 07:33 AM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ken, all the references that I could find show that Liess Gharbi was with the family much longer than that. Here are a couple: one
and two

From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 24 September 2006 07:40 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well catchfire, your experiences are remarkably different from those of everyone I know. And no it isn't always the football captain. It could also be the point guard for the basketball team. In general, the children of more affluent kids will on average also be taller and have been trained in more sports. They also in general also get more of the girls they want, as you say. There's nothing "abstract" about it, the social hierachy and game-playing is quite real to most people who go to high schools these days.

My theory on it has always been that the high school social jockeying emerges from more fundamental human nature instincts, and that that's why it's so dirty. Outside of high school the calming effects of society push back primordial savagery and mediate it with parts of the social contract.

Ken Burch wrote:

quote:
That would be the "Algerian woman hater" who abandoned his family when Marc/Gamil was THREE YEARS OLD, and never had any contact with them again.

The Ecole Polytechnic tragedy had nothing to do with Islam or "Islamism". Neither does it justify suspicion of all Muslims NOR THE IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN WARS.

Why does the bullshit "Lapine was a Muslim" reference keep being brought back?


Because a lot of people, when they approach an issue, are specifically interested in the root causes of that issue, rather than milking it for whatever political philosophy shows up on the surface. Because that's how it was, his abusive childhood and social isolation led to some misogyny, it could have just as easily led to any other form of hatred.

And how dare you imply that an abusive childhood doesn't affect a person's psychology if the source of abuse leaves abruptly at age three?


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 24 September 2006 07:48 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sineed, pure laine connotes a racism specific and unique to Quebec, when in fact, there is no evidence that the kind of ethnic marginalization expressed in Marc Lépine's case is any different from the kind that exists elsewhere in North America. I'm not sure why you keep trying to bring up Jan Wong's unsubstantiated and privately motivated accusation against Montreal culture, which is not precisely in discussion here, but her irresponsible opinion (which, incidentally, did not appear in the editorial pages, and The Globe & Mail admits that was a mistake,) is not the same as recognizing ethnic alienation from the predominant and universal North American representation of white, heterosexual masculinity. Calling these shootings an effect of the expressly Qubecois concept pure laine is discriminatory, and dangerously ignores the institutional racism that exists everywhere else in North America.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 24 September 2006 08:08 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quebec is mostly cutoff from most of the english language cultural and intellectual debate taking place in north america, though many of the same ideas have taken form but recalibrated to Quebec culture. For example pure laineism is very similar to waspish privelege in the rest of north america, in fact it is rather analogous. The fact is if you're in Quebec and you're not white or not pure laine you will have to deal with these issues. I've had job positions where people just called me "The Arab." A question I hear all the time is "What's your nationality?" I used to think it was fun, now I just say I was born in Canada, as I clued in. Of course, I'm not implying these problems are in any way unique to Quebec. I just disagree with the anti-wong commentary that Quebec is in fact immune from the racism that exists everywhere else in north america.

The globe and mail admitted it was a mistake because they worried controversy could affect sales figures. Let us not pretend they obviously honestly disagree with the ideas. Personally, I agree it's a problem but don't agree that it's the main cause of these shootings.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 24 September 2006 08:14 AM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think Quebec is any more racist than the rest of the country. However, maybe it's possible that there is a unique racial situation in Montreal, given that you've got the ongoing tensions between the French and the English added to the multicultural mix. Immigrants to Montreal must learn two new languages (assuming they don't already speak French or English) in order to navigate between the two dominant cultures, but still remain outside both of them.

Jan Wong's article may have been ineptly-written, but I'm not sure if those of us who enjoy white privilege, French and English alike, should reject so quickly the observations of an allophone.

I know that the Globe has issued a retraction, but personally I don't like to agree so quickly with Stephen Harper.


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 September 2006 12:11 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've spent the better part of my professional life trying to figure out why we resist the term male violence. Using it is not the same as saying that men are inherently aggressive – although, come to think of it, the world wouldn't end and we actually might get somewhere if we considered that. No, usually we talk about how the system promotes masculine aggression and the way society is profoundly gendered. Still, the resistance is huge.

And as awesome as it is that services exist to help female survivors of violence to get on with their lives, we're way behind when it comes to tracking young boys who are in trouble, developing some meaningful data and helping them to break the cycle.

It's called male violence. Name it. Use the term. That's the beginning of change.
Susan G. Cole



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 September 2006 05:19 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll go with "violence", without blaming one sex for it.

No doubt, males commit most violence. That doesn't justify creating a term which defines female violence out of existence.

I think "male violence" is a kind of name-calling.
Like "female submissiveness" it tends toward suggesting an intrinsic relationship between the gender and the behaviour.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 24 September 2006 06:25 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]And how dare you imply that an abusive childhood doesn't affect a person's psychology if the source of abuse leaves abruptly at age three?[QUOTE].

I implied no such thing 500 Apples, and you know it. My wife was a victim of child abuse and I would never minimize the effects of such abuse on anyone. Please retract that statement.

What I objected to and continue to object to about raising the matter of Lapine's Algerian father is the implication that the fact that his father was an Algerian Muslim somehow meant that ISLAM was to blame for Lapine's crimes.

For the last time, let me make this clear, THIS IS OLYMPIC-CLASS BULLSHIT!

Lapine's father wasn't an abusive misogynist BECAUSE he was Algerian. Lapine's father was an abusive misogynist BECAUSE HE WAS AN ABUSIVE MISOGYNIST. There is no reason to assume the man would have been any less abusive had he been an evangelical Christian or had he been a member of any other faith or of no faith at all. The issue is misogyny, not religion or culture of origin.

Lapine's Algerian heritage is completely irrelevant to his crimes, and it's time everyone admitted it. From what I can see, the only reasons the Algerian aspect of Lapine has ever been raised were to tie Lapine in with the whole "War on Terror", and to distract attention from the fact that Lapine announced, as he was killing, that he wanted to kill women. Lapine made no exception for Muslim women, nor did he make a particular demand to kill, say, Christian or Jewish women.

Lapine just said he wanted to kill the women.

All the women.

Without regard to race, creed or anything other than gender.

It's time the anti-Islamic lies about the Lapine murders were laid to rest.

Islam and Algeria are NOT to blame.

Can everybody just accept that already?

Sorry for getting a bit off-thread here, but this is a slur that needs to be confronted everytime it's brought up.

[ 24 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 24 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 24 September 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure this argument has already been brought up here, so I won't litter the boards with it, but as for your request, this is what you specifically wrote:

quote:
That would be the "Algerian woman hater" who abandoned his family when Marc/Gamil was THREE YEARS OLD, and never had any contact with them again.

I'll give you a chance. When you capitalized the words "three years old," what else could you possibly have meant?


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 24 September 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I meant(and if I was incorrect as to the dates, I stand corrected)was that the killings didn't occur because of the fact that his father, who, as I understood it had left the family at an early age, was Algerian.

What I have been fighting against in all of this is the fixation on Lapine's Algerian heritage, as if the fact of his father being Algerian was the deciding factor in Lapine's decision to go to that school and kill those women.

What matters is that Lapine's father was an abusive bastard who taught him to hate women. His father's Algerian nationality had nothing to do with this. Islam had nothing to do with this.

Very few Islamic men commit violence against women, certainly no more than do men of any other culture or religion, and those who do so do not do so because of some religious cultural influence that provokes violence against women that would not otherwise occur.

I was NOT, repeat NOT, minimizing the fact that Lapine was a victim of abuse. That he was abused by his father is important. That his father was Algerian and a Muslim is irrelevant.

Btw, I checked one of the links that discussed how long Lapine's father remained with the family.

To me, it apprears that the person who wrote the essay in that link was dredging up the Algerian aspect of the story in order to get payback on the fact that the Lapine killings helped bring about the passage of the Canadian gun registry.

There was no reason for the registry to be brought into the discussion as far as I could see and it was unseemly that the post was expressing a "sour grapes" attitude towards the fact that anti-gun groups in Canada had used the Lapine killings to further their agenda, as if this was somehow inherently illegitimate.

Have I clarified myself suffeciently for you, Ye of Little Faith but Many Apples?

[ 24 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 September 2006 09:43 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
Jan Wong's article may have been ineptly-written, but I'm not sure if those of us who enjoy white privilege, French and English alike, should reject so quickly the observations of an allophone.

I find your heavy-handed defence of Jan Wong's sick rant to be be incomprehensible. Your latest post is just plain offensive. Do you have a clue what you are saying? Do you know that there are non-white Anglophones (not "English"), non-white Francophones (not "French"), white Allophones (Allophone refers to language, not skin colour)? And do you also know that Québécois(es) these days are far less interested in dividing themselves up along these lines than you seem to be?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 24 September 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's have a look at Jan Wong's whole section on this:
quote:
This week, Montrealers were asking: Why us? Youths elsewhere in Canada are addicted to violent video games. Youths elsewhere in Canada live in soul-less suburbs. Youths elsewhere are alienated and into Goth culture. Yet while there have been similar high-school tragedies, all three rampages at Canadian postsecondary institutions occurred here, not in Toronto, or Vancouver or Halifax or Calgary.

“A lot of people are saying: Why does this always happen in Quebec?” says Jay Bryan, a business columnist for the Montreal Gazette, the city's only English-language daily. “Three doesn't mean anything. But three out of three in Quebec means something.”

What many outsiders don't realize is how alienating the decades-long linguistic struggle has been in the once-cosmopolitan city. It hasn't just taken a toll on long-time anglophones, it's affected immigrants, too. To be sure, the shootings in all three cases were carried out by mentally disturbed individuals. But what is also true is that in all three cases, the perpetrator was not pure laine, the argot for a “pure” francophone. Elsewhere, to talk of racial “purity” is repugnant. Not in Quebec.

In 1989, Marc Lepine shot and killed 14 women and wounded 13 others at the University of Montreal's École Polytechnique. He was a francophone, but in the eyes of pure laine Quebeckers, he was not one of them, and would never be. He was only half French-Canadian. He was also half Algerian, a Muslim, and his name was Gamil Gharbi. Seven years earlier, after the Canadian Armed Forces rejected his application under that name, he legally changed his name to Marc Lepine.

Valery Fabrikant, an engineering professor, was an immigrant from Russia. In 1992, he shot four colleagues and wounded one other at Concordia University's faculty of engineering after learning he would not be granted tenure.

This week's killer, Kimveer Gill, was, like Marc Lepine, Canadian-born and 25. On his blog, he described himself as of “Indian” origin. (In their press conference, however, the police repeatedly referred to Mr. Gill as of “Canadian” origin.)

It isn't known when Mr. Gill's family arrived in Canada. But he attended English elementary and high schools in Montreal. That means he wasn't a first-generation Canadian. Under the restrictions of Bill 101, the province's infamous language law, that means at least one of his parents must have been educated in English elementary or high schools in Canada.To be sure, Mr. Lepine hated women, Mr. Fabrikant hated his engineering colleagues and Mr. Gill hated everyone. But all of them had been marginalized, in a society that valued pure laine.

Mr. Gill, by all accounts a loner, was a high-school dropout who lived in his parent's basement in suburban Laval. He was 6 foot 1 with light skin, dark hair shaved at the sides and a penchant for all-black outfits. He had no job, but he owned a car, and he bought three expensive guns, including the Beretta, which retails for about $800 (U.S.).



So she starts with " 'A lot of people are saying: Why does this always happen in Quebec?' says Jay Bryan, a business columnist for the Montreal Gazette." Is this an isolated question? Are others asking this?

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 25 September 2006 07:19 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It certainly is a fair question (though not as fair, as say, why does this always happen in North America, Dunblane, Germany and Beslan notwithstanding,) for an editorialist. It is not really fair for someone obstensibly reporting on a story, and it is certainly not fair to venture an answer to such a difficult and complex question while fuelled by personal vendettas in a national newspaper without offering a shred of evidence to support your dangerous claim. Especially since a fourth school shooting that always gets left off this list, was committed by Quebec born Denis Letis. And let's be clear about this: Wong didn't "ask the difficult questions," she answered it. Difficult Question: "Why does this happen in Quebec?" Stupid Answer: "Bill 101."
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 29 September 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
for anyone squeamish about the blunt and accurate term 'male violence', take a good hard look at all of human history---male violence has always been a massive human problem.

take a look at every country on earth right now---male violence is still a huge human problem.

to attempt to co-opt women into the issue
to attempt to deflect attention away from the big problem by suggesting that female violence is a serious global problem, is disingenuous at best and cowardly deceit at its worst.

for those who refuse to get their heads around testosterone as being one of the most significant contributors of male aggression ---perhaps a good long stint training horses, breeding cattle, raising goats, geese, chickens, dogs and pigs will show you clearly what you really don't want to see. i've done all of these things-no one that i know who has done any of them would disagree that the males are much more aggressive and violent, virtually from the day that they are born.

there has been so much research done on the effects of testosterone on humans that it shouldn't take any of you more than a few minutes to get the message.

as women get more desperate to be 'winners',
as they get more concious of being left out of all of societies power structures unless they are willing to 'play the game', perhaps female violence will become more of an issue for mankind.

i believe that one way to put the eternal problem of male violence among humans to rest at long last, is by changing the structures of our societies.

woman must be free to function fully as women in family and woman friendly institutions that give them half of all decision making power within their societies.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 29 September 2006 08:54 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I say "right on !" to the last part of your post morningstar.
However, I do have a problem with the idea that behaviour is controlled by hormones. Apply that idea to to women. Think of all the behaviours that are associated with women's horomones, all the stereotypes. And of course these stereotypes are oppressive- they are part of what keep women as the 2nd sex, tell them what they can be and how they should be. If this applies to women, then how can the same logic not apply to men ?

From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 30 September 2006 06:04 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to also take exception to the statement that men commit crimes because of their hormones, or because they have testosterone. That kind of thinking stems from an ignorance of what testosterone is, and what it does in the body. By this line of logic one could make the statement that all violent female criminals produce too much testosterone in their bodies. And don't forget, women produce it as well as men. the opinion that testosterone is to blame for what makes men violent assholes, and estrogen is to praise for what makes women docile, intelligent creatures is erroneous and stems from a misunderstanding of the role of hormones.

That said, it is a legitimate question to ask why it seems that the majority of shooters are male. Although I do not think that the violent expression of anger has been normalized, but rather is the norm, primally speaking. I think that the violent expression of anger is healthy if done properly. I think that what is not healthy, and what I would suspect is the underlying cause of these kinds of symptoms (shooting rampages) is the inability to express their anger properly, whether it be through physical, or emotional means. And that, in my humble opinion is a societal cause, and can only be a societal cure.

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Calamus ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 30 September 2006 08:58 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Calamus:
I have to also take exception to the statement that men commit crimes because of their hormones, or because they have testosterone. That kind of thinking stems from an ignorance of what testosterone is, and what it does in the body. By this line of logic one could make the statement that all violent female criminals produce too much testosterone in their bodies. And don't forget, women produce it as well as men. the opinion that testosterone is to blame for what makes men violent assholes, and estrogen is to praise for what makes women docile, intelligent creatures is erroneous and stems from a misunderstanding of the role of hormones.

That said, it is a legitimate question to ask why it seems that the majority of shooters are male. Although I do not think that the violent expression of anger has been normalized, but rather is the norm, primally speaking. I think that the violent expression of anger is healthy if done properly. I think that what is not healthy, and what I would suspect is the underlying cause of these kinds of symptoms (shooting rampages) is the inability to express their anger properly, whether it be through physical, or emotional means. And that, in my humble opinion is a societal cause, and can only be a societal cure.

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Calamus ]


Why did the men in the Ecole Polytechnique meekly allow M. Lepine to slaughter the women and why did the women meekly allow themselves to be slaughtered?

Is testosterone or adrenalin not also a component of self preservation?

If male violence is spurred on by testosterone,did none of the men have any?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 30 September 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Calamus : if something has been normalized, that means it is the norm(al).

quote:
Why did the men in the Ecole Polytechnique meekly allow M. Lepine to slaughter the women and why did the women meekly allow themselves to be slaughtered?....If male violence is spurred on by testosterone,did none of the men have any?

Jester, I find this comment absurd and insensitive to the deaths of the murdered women from the Polytechnique massacre. How where the women supposed to resist him- they where unarmed students in engineering, not potential soldiers or cops. So to say they meekly submitted to being murdered is just terrible. If you where a student and a man walked in with a gun to your school, what would you do- pull out your math book and hit him with it ? Anything appart from running and hiding would be pure madness unless one is armed. Hormones on the part of the victim has nothing to do with anything- they are there, didn't anticipate this and have no control over their attackers. Pardon me, but you seem to be politely asking whether the men there "had any" so to speak.

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 30 September 2006 10:50 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:

Why did the men in the Ecole Polytechnique meekly allow M. Lepine to slaughter the women and why did the women meekly allow themselves to be slaughtered?


I couldn't possibly have that answer. Perhaps it had to do with fear, or their fight or flight response telling them to flight. Which is governed by hormones other than testosterone by the way. Adrenaline, and cortisol and countless other stress hormones namely. All of which are secreted by the Adrenal, and Thyroid glands, whereas testosterone is produced in the testes, or ovaries with only minimal amounts being secreted by the adrenal cortex. Not to mention, hormonal and chemical reasons aside, societal programming to reinforce the flight response as opposed to the fight response. Of course I'm just guessing.

quote:
Is testosterone or adrenalin not also a component of self preservation?

Testosterone? No, not directly. Adrenaline? How I just mentioned above. But adrenaline is not a male hormone, and associating testosterone as the main hormonal indicator of self preservation is erroneous miserpresentation of the role of testosterone in the body. By that logic women would have a weaker sense of self preservation than men, considering free testosterone is anywhere between 15-20 times less at any given time between females and males. Besides, there are numerous other hormones that are not androgenic, or steroidal that have an indication on self preservation. And again, you cannot count out societal programming.

quote:
If male violence is spurred on by testosterone,did none of the men have any?

See above.

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Calamus ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 30 September 2006 10:52 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
Calamus : if something has been normalized, that means it is the norm(al).

I apologize. I took your comment to mean that this behavior is a recent norm, as opposed to a historical norm.

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Calamus ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 01 October 2006 08:46 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
surely no one would ever be so simplistic in their thinking as to assume that testosterone is the only cause of male violence.
it clearly predisposes males to violence but certainly doesn't condemn them to it.

misogynist religion has created the conditions for male violence for thousands of years.

women have always facilitated male violence.

the agressive language of sports, marketing, politics and corporatespeak give it daily legitimacy.

male violence is so imbedded in all of human society and in our history that it must surely be a heavy emotional burden for men. modern men have had some very terrible modeling from their forefathers.

all of these things would contribute to the problem.
add an anger management issue or just plain old chemical imbalance in the brain and we should be able to understand how inevitable acts like the ones in montreal were.

we are all culpable for the causes of male violence and i think that we know how to change these old patterns, we just don't seem to want to change them enough.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 October 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:

misogynist religion has created the conditions for male violence for thousands of years.

women have always facilitated male violence.


Facilitated? Don't you mean actively condoned, supported and often participated in male violence.

"Male" violence? There is nothing particularly "male" about violence.

Nor is religion the root of all of evil.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 01 October 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
Calamus : if something has been normalized, that means it is the norm(al).

Jester, I find this comment absurd and insensitive to the deaths of the murdered women from the Polytechnique massacre. How where the women supposed to resist him- they where unarmed students in engineering, not potential soldiers or cops. So to say they meekly submitted to being murdered is just terrible. If you where a student and a man walked in with a gun to your school, what would you do- pull out your math book and hit him with it ? Anything appart from running and hiding would be pure madness unless one is armed. Hormones on the part of the victim has nothing to do with anything- they are there, didn't anticipate this and have no control over their attackers. Pardon me, but you seem to be politely asking whether the men there "had any" so to speak.

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


Absurd hmmm? You got the pure madness right though.With respect,its a question I've wanted to ask and until now have not found the right venue.

I was thinking more along the lines of anecdotal evidence of extra-normal strength exhibited by women when their children are in need of rescue,the extra-ordinary courage exhibited by rescuers in animal attacks or the willingness to dive into dangerous waters in mostly futile rescue attempts.All without regard to personal safety when the rescuers are not in danger themselves.

I'm thinking specifically of the school principal just murdered in the US.It was reported that he was shot 3 times while charging the killer.It was also reported that he was a much beloved teacher who loved his students and his job.it appears that he loved his students more than he loved life.

If those involved with Lepine had thrown their math books at Lepine and rushed him,men and women,how different the outcome may have been.

I'm not casting aspersions at the men involved,they were most likely following the conditioning of the day - appeasing the hostage-taker and letting the authorities negotiate a solution.In the light of hindsight,how can unarmed hostages better protect themselves from madmen?

[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: jester ]


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 01 October 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Testosterone? No, not directly. Adrenaline? How I just mentioned above. But adrenaline is not a male hormone, and associating testosterone as the main hormonal indicator of self preservation is erroneous miserpresentation of the role of testosterone in the body. By that logic women would have a weaker sense of self preservation than men, considering free testosterone is anywhere between 15-20 times less at any given time between females and males. Besides, there are numerous other hormones that are not androgenic, or steroidal that have an indication on self preservation. And again, you cannot count out societal programming.

I think women have greater sense of self-preservation than men.

Is it correct to say that heightened testosterone levels is likely to increase agressiveness and lessen a male's sense of self-preservation ?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 01 October 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How good it must feel to be able to judge so confidently the weak-willed, "conditioned" cowards at École Polytechnique. I'm sure appeasing Marc Lépine was the first thing on their minds.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 01 October 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
How good it must feel to be able to judge so confidently the weak-willed, "conditioned" cowards at École Polytechnique. I'm sure appeasing Marc Lépine was the first thing on their minds.

Sarcasm aside,there is nothing about this tragedy that makes me feel good.

I am assuming that the prevailing wisdom of the day was to follow orders in the hope that the hostage-taker wanted only to draw attention to his political manifesto and could be mollified with media exposure etc.

Given the numerous incidents of school hostage takings with lethal intent,what do you suggest as the final defense? Meekly allowing one's self and others to be killed or fighting back?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 01 October 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
it (Testosterone) clearly predisposes males to violence but certainly doesn't condemn them to it.[

Please explain to me how it is clear that testosterone predisposes males to violence.

quote:
add an anger management issue or just plain old chemical imbalance in the brain and we should be able to understand how inevitable acts like the ones in montreal were.

we are all culpable for the causes of male violence and i think that we know how to change these old patterns, we just don't seem to want to change them enough.


I agree with everything you just said, but it is important to understand a "chemical imbalance" and some suspected root causes that are being discovered. I don't want to derail the thread, so instead of starting an issue about it i will simply say, do some research on suspected nutritional, and environmental conditions and their effect on biochemical metabolism. You'll likely find that our lifestyles can be blamed for these "chemical imbalances" just the same as our lifestyles can be blamed for emotional problems stemmed from social programming.

[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: Calamus ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 01 October 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:

I was thinking more along the lines of anecdotal evidence of extra-normal strength exhibited by women when their children are in need of rescue,the extra-ordinary courage exhibited by rescuers in animal attacks or the willingness to dive into dangerous waters in mostly futile rescue attempts.All without regard to personal safety when the rescuers are not in danger themselves.[qb]


I like where you're going with this, and it is a subject that I have a lot of interest in, so I'll address it for you. Anyone not interested in this, please move along, cause I might bore you.

First the decision of whether to duck and cover, or charge an assailant is governend, chemically speaking, by what is commonly called the Fight or Flight response. Now whether you choose to fight or flight is dependant on so many factors that I won't go into them, but social understanding being a major one.

What enables people to exhibit "super strength" is nothing at all. We all have those abilities within us. You, right now, likely have the ability to roll your pickup over on it's roof. What stops you from being able to do it is what are called muscle spindles. There are receptors in your muscle tissue that are designed for no other purpose than to measure the stress on your musclular tissues. If they sense that stress is reaching a limit that will either tear tissues, or break bone then the spindles actually inhibit the chemical reaction that flexes your muscle. This means when you are doing an arm curl for example you are actually using less than half of the available muscle fibers in your biceps. It's why we do multiple sets when working out, so when one group of fibers is exhausted, we use different fibers.

Now the cool part. When you are in a high stress situation (IE: experiencing fight or flight) we secrete tremendous amounts of adrenaline and other stress hormones like norepinephrine. Adrenaline specifically inhibits the action of muscle spindles, effectively limiting their ability to override the limiting of muscle contractions. This means that if a stress response is high enough you can concievably use every muscle fiber in a muscle group at once without limitation. This will concievably give even a 110lb woman the strength to roll over that truck. Of course she will have torn every muscle in her body and possibly broken a few bones under the stress, but we never hear about that part, do we. Fanstastic machine the human body.

quote:
[qb]I'm thinking specifically of the school principal just murdered in the US.It was reported that he was shot 3 times while charging the killer.It was also reported that he was a much beloved teacher who loved his students and his job.it appears that he loved his students more than he loved life.

Many hormones secreted in the stress response also inhibit pain receptors.

quote:
I'm not casting aspersions at the men involved,they were most likely following the conditioning of the day - appeasing the hostage-taker and letting the authorities negotiate a solution.In the light of hindsight,how can unarmed hostages better protect themselves from madmen?


I apologize. I'll get back on topic. I do not believe that the decision to appease Lepine was chemical at all. I believe that it was a social decision based on an instinctual response. Biochemisty is not to blame, society is. I do agree with you however that the majority of these kinds of acts would be prevented, including much of 911, if we decided to fight more often instead of flight. Unfortunately I do not have the answer for society, only for myself.

quote:
Originally posted by Jester:
I think women have greater sense of self-preservation than men.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Although I believe that history would disagree with you, I personally do not give men or women the edge on self preservation.

quote:
[qb]Is it correct to say that heightened testosterone levels is likely to increase agressiveness and lessen a male's sense of self-preservation ?

I could agree that increased testosterone could increase agression, but only if other hormones like serotonin, and dopamine are supressed, which in a healthy body they are not. See biochemical hormones only play a role in behavior. There are, as of yet, scientifically unexplained factors that we commonly call things like free will, and choice, and my favorite: Human Nature that play a large role as well. Science is still learning about different hormones and their roles in things like that. Although some things can be explained, and some scientists will tell you that we have figured it out, the truth is we know very little still. We are simply making a lot of assumptions based on what we do know.

I do think that you bring up an interesting question when you assume that increased agression and self preservation are diametrically opposite. I'm afraid I don't have that answer.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 01 October 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Excellent response,thank you.

Your repy gives rise to another question,if I may impose.

Is it probable that the psychological factors which create a monster such as Lepine are triggered into action by a decline in seratonin and/or dopamine levels due to a bout of depression perhaps?

In concert with a high testosterone level,could a dramatic decrease in seratonin instigate the sequence of events leading to the fulfilment of violent ambitions that were previously not actionable?

To me,threat assessment is ongoing and as natural as breathing.Self preservation demands instantaneous reaction to a threat.The flight or fight decision must be made based on an accurate assessment of the threat,not an instictive capitulation to it.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 01 October 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:

Is it probable that the psychological factors which create a monster such as Lepine are triggered into action by a decline in seratonin and/or dopamine levels due to a bout of depression perhaps?

This does go a bit out of my scope of knowledge, but from what I know, yes. Interestingly enough a recent study has given credibility to the theory that many devout religious folk have chronically low dopamine levels. They theory is that they reach out to a fantastical faith in order to sustain a reason for their existance. That theory also presents the arguement that if one does not, or cannot reach out to a source for their existance then they are prone to irrational, amoral, or sometimes even psychotic acts (the last being what I would tend to categorize Gil's acts as).

This theory is given credibility by the overwhelming amount of death row inmates who convert to one form of religion or another before their sentence (death) is carried out.

Now the question becomes, who's responsibility is it to foster that persons reaching for a positive reason for existance? His parents? They failed. Societies? We have/did/are failing. Pharmaceutical companies? They have no right to be involved period, and in my opinion fail more often than not. It's a really tough question to answer.

quote:
In concert with a high testosterone level,could a dramatic decrease in seratonin instigate the sequence of events leading to the fulfilment of violent ambitions that were previously not actionable?

Again, this is a bit outside of my scope of knowledge. But I could see it as concievable. I would tend to believe that there would be other factors other than strictly hormonal that would play a role though. As I have alluded to a bit in my posts, I do not believe that we are the sum of our chemical parts. there are perfectly adjusted people with chronically low seratonin levels. I used to be engaged to one when I was younger. We simply do not understand (IMO) the other aspects of humanity enough to properly grasp the relationship between bio-chemistry and non scientific factors of human behavior. Some would call it the spiritual aspect, others just call it free will, or what have you.

also, chemically speaking testosterone does not regulate agression. That belief has been spread by misrepresentation of the association between how males are percieved as agressive and the fact that testosterone is the hormone that largely identifies males sexually. See, the problem that I have with science is that scientists like to make a lot of assumptions from partial facts. Then when they explain those partial facts they try and simplify them so that the average person can understand what they're saying. What ends up happening is the understanding of the actual facts get lost, and the misinformation becomes "common knowledge" through no fault of the general public.

Testosterone is the hormone that regulates muscle density, bone density, sexual organ maturation, and other "male identified" characteristics. There are those out there (me being one) who subscribe to the theory that male agression is controlled by other factors like evolutionary instinct, and primal circumstances.

Nature tends to pick the simplest answer and run with it when it comes right down to it. Can't get the food off the tree? You end up with a giraffe. Predators eating all your kin? Herbivores have eyes on the sides of their heads to see behind them easier. As primates it was only logical that the larger, stronger, and more physically imposing lead the family. Therefore the role of the male evolved into the protector, the hunter, the fighter. All three of these characteristics involve agression. In my humble opinion where we went wrong was understanding that role. We think that the role of protector, hunter, and fighter means you have to be John Wayne. At this point I believe our problem is no longer hormonal, but societal.

quote:
To me,threat assessment is ongoing and as natural as breathing.

I would agree. Unfortunately not everyone does.

quote:
Self preservation demands instantaneous reaction to a threat.The flight or fight decision must be made based on an accurate assessment of the threat,not an instictive capitulation to it.

When we analyze objectively it would seem that way. But we have to remember that fight or flight is not a decision. It is a response. Both biochemical, and instinctual. Have you seen someone get startled by what they think is a rat and they have run screaming halfway across the block before they stop to actually realize that it's just a tuft of dog hair? The chemical and instinctual response is much quicker than rational thought. Plus, some of the hormones we secrete, including norepinephrine, during the stress response actually inhibit higher brain function, and stimulate "reptile" brain function, or instinctual function.

This is where i get back to my belief that we are not just the sum of our biochemical parts. You can be trained to overcome the basic instinctual, and chemical urges that you feel during these responses. Police, SWAT, and Military as an example are trained to identify the target flying out of the smokey door at them before shooting, because it may be a civilian, or even a teammate. My belief is that our society reinforces the flight response.

I do agree with you. In a perfect world we would all be trained enough to recognize our instinctual responses and be more in command of our hormonal/instinctual/primal urges. This would alleviate both our "victim" responses, and the causes of those responses in the first place. But in this perfect world I'm a billionaire too.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 01 October 2006 03:19 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Is it probable that the psychological factors which create a monster such as Lepine

I can't answer your full question, as it's out of my scope, but I will say this: Lepine was not a monster. It's unhelpful to continue to refer to him and others who kill, abuse, rape and torture women as "monsters".

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 01 October 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:

I can't answer your full question, as it's out of my scope, but I will say this: Lepine was not a monster. It's unhelpful to continue to refer to him and others who kill, abuse, rape and torture women as "monsters".


It is easier for us to identify with and categorize this type of behavior if we associate it with a horrible, abberant creature... monster.

I understand what you're saying though.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 01 October 2006 03:32 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
cueball
---study the histories of both christianity and islam---horribly violent and perfect examples of historical male violence in the extreme.
these are misogynist, exclusionary, violent religions who use an ancient war god as their object of worship. how much worse can it get?

even now we are watching a dreadful bunch of old men modeling divisiveness, the old 'mine is bigger than yours' game and laying the groundwork, with unerring stupidity, for more of the inevitable violence.

their ridiculous trumped up 'spirituality' could well be the end of mankind.

their religions are surely the root cause of much of the male violence historically and now.

oh, and please don't try to imply that woman are now or ever were even remotely as violent as men are and have been throughout human history. female violence isn't an issue---it's the men.

woman have feared male violence, we have participated in religions that have promoted injustice and violence, we have been passive and accepting of male violence as an inevitable part of the human condition and raised little warriors when we should have understood our roles better.

as badly as the human male has behaved, he had lots of support from women in those behaviors.

so now we have to call a halt to the madness and the root causes of all the killing--religion is right at the top, as far as i'm concerned, mostly by giving men a false sense of entitlement and encouraging a misbegotten feeling of being 'right'

[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: morningstar ]


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 01 October 2006 03:42 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I really don't intend to dominate this thread. I'm just kind of an opinionated jackass sometimes and I like to discuss and argue.

Morninstar: Men were beating eachother over the head with weapons and fists long before god came into the picture. Long before any god came into the picture. Also, don't forget both Islam and Christianity are relatively young religions.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 01 October 2006 04:31 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i agree calamus, but the legacy of christianity and islam are what the world needs to tackle now.

even the war on the earth right now is based on modern religions' disconnect from the natural world and mankinds place in it--instead they promote man as having dominion over the earth.

another kind of violence that may not have originated with them but has surely been carried to the extreme by their teachings.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 01 October 2006 05:41 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're right. I can agree with that statement. I was involved in a discussion today where someone was making a statement similar to yours, but they were trying to vilify these two religions specifically, and had no knowledge of any history predating the birth of christ, and only believed history previous to 1AD as 'fiction' and 'myth'. I suppose I projected that in what I read from your first post, which is obviously not what you intended.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 October 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
cueball
---study the histories of both christianity and islam---horribly violent and perfect examples of historical male violence in the extreme.
these are misogynist, exclusionary, violent religions who use an ancient war god as their object of worship. how much worse can it get?

Gee, maybe when I get some time I'll bone up on Christianity and Islam, and history in general, it is my weak spot I know.

Seriously. The problem I have with the way you are analysing this history is that it takes for granted that the propoganda that the various churches put out in regard to their various theological disputes is actually what is at issue.

In my view, for example, the Reformation had little or nothing to do with Luthers proclomation, as romantic as that story is, except that it provided an opportunity to express the political dynamics of the era, so that the emerging states in Germany and the north could find a litrugical basis for seperating church and state functions from the HRE.

It doesn't take a whole lot of research to see that Henry VIII dissafection from the church had little to do with any heartfelt beliefs that he had and everything to do with political opportunism, and his personal aims.

You are taking the propoganda at face value.

In truth (at least as I see it) Christianity or Islam are not the cause of mysogyny but the mode of exprseeion of existant biases against women. Socio-biologists such as Lionel Tiger are every bit as sexist as the Pope, if not more so.

Religion usually acts as a means of sanctifying, and authorizing, existant cultural norms. One only has to look at the Taliban's interpretation of Islam as Pashtunwhalli, to see that it has little to do with what is in thq Qu'ran, and everything to do with cultural norms being expressed in a religious "authorizing" context.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 01 October 2006 07:08 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
cueball; the proof is in the pudding
regardless of whatever highminded little gems that any of the major religions may lay claim to, their actions, dogma and history belie their claims.

they even attack their own when some try to live the highest of ideals---look at the history of the cathars--shameful.
religion, of all human activity, has an ethical obligation to commit to peace, gender equality, and true social justice---but they're all too busy trying to force their ways upon an increasingly sceptical world.
and you can't understad how these religions are fundamentally misogynist and violent?
examine the language
the roles of women--- how women are villainized or tokenized
most importantly the disturbing lack of connectedness to the mother earth
and look at who has always run these religions, it's very telling.

religion has happily allowed itself to be used as a political tool to gain power.
look at bush, the pope and the ayatolas[sp?] religious leaders who model male aggression, anger and violence and cloak it in honour, righteousness and loyalty.
it's really no wonder that some unstable young men crack up and kill. the fraudulent moral compasses of the world are sending mixed messages and violence is woven into all of them.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 01 October 2006 08:51 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, morning star, Mother Theressa was villanized, as is the Virgin Mary.... The misogyny you aspire to expose is very real and is the product of patriarchal societies around the world, but not the product of all religions, at least not Christianity. You blame the idea for the actions of those who manipulate it. Communism did not have to find the expression Stalin chose to give it.
Not to mention that with the exception of Lepine, the school shootings in recent years may have been carried out by males but they did not necessarily discriminate between the sexes of their victims. Besides, can you point to an historical example of a matriarchal society where there was an absence of violence?
Perhaps we should be looking at the relatively sudden and rapid changes in the way we conceptualize our society, its structue and its ethics in the last thirty years or so for answers to the growing issues of alienation in our children and the violence they increasingly have to live with, fear, and experience in a time of their lives when they should feel sheltered instead.
I accept the idea that misogyny is an element in the day to day violence in homes across the world, and that religion has been used as a tool to further this misogyny but I don't think that it is the answer to this particular issue, nor does it explain the culture of fear and violence that is becoming so dominant in North America.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 02 October 2006 04:06 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cueball this is beautiful:
quote:
Religion usually acts as a means of sanctifying, and authorizing, existant cultural norms.

I personally would take out the "usually" but I see you're trying to be moderate here.

head, your post is so funny! Har dee har! I love how you left out "...and tokenized" from morningstar's post about women. MT and the VM fall into that category.

As for male violence against women, if you choose not to see how institutionalized it has become in religion, the media and elsewhere; that a story of "mundane" male violence against his female partner doesn't rate the front page unless it's out of the ordinary (like mass shootings, P. Bernardo, etc) then that's your choice. Keep yourself in the sand then.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 October 2006 06:26 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is this premise that religions are somehow separate and apart from the civilizations that give rise to them. They are not. Religion is an institutional tool of civilizations and civilizations work to control and exploit people for the benefit of social elites. So, for example, religion tells us to accept our suffering in this life, and do not aspire for better, but to wait and accept our reward, for quiety suffering, in the next, undefined, world. While religions aim their message at the poor, and tell the poor they are blessed by virtue of being poor, they seldom demand the political and social elites become equally blessed and, in fact, the religious elite can usually be found in the lap of luxury along with the political and social elites.

The fact of the matter is that civilization is terribly violent and breeds violence. Religion is an integral part of civilization and so it should be no surprise that violence is often rationalized and justified by the religious proponents of "peace".

[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 02 October 2006 09:21 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:

I can't answer your full question, as it's out of my scope, but I will say this: Lepine was not a monster. It's unhelpful to continue to refer to him and others who kill, abuse, rape and torture women as "monsters".

How so? Lepine may have been victimised himself but to me,his claim to humanity ceased,not when he contemplated his horrendous deed but at the point when he put it into action.

Perhaps monster is the wrong terminology Would you use a different term or is the labeling itself the issue?

It is not just the act itself,it is the nature of the act.As PRD has pointed out,there is no ability to defend against Lepine's violence by unprepared students or faculty.

It is also improbable to plan a defense or train defenders against such acts in the populace.

The reason they are monsters IMO,is that they choose such a venue to commit their acts.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 02 October 2006 09:39 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
jester, what ML did was abhorrent and horrible. However, acts as horrible and acts more horrible take place on a daily basis and are not called monstrous by most people. Acts that people cannot defend themselves against (like a bomb dropping on someone's house, school, hospital) aren't called monstrous, nor are the people who perpetuate the acts (soldiers, governement, President Shrub).

ML was an individual. Wars are groups of people. So are police who don't believe or defend an abused woman who asks for help before the next attack on her by her partner. Violence is violence. If I started calling everything and everyone monstrous who was associated with perpetuating violence I wouldn't be able to talk about anything else. And I would have to include myself, as the clothes I wear and the land where I live are products of ongoing violence and bloodshed and monstrous acts.

jester, do you know about the December 6th Fund? Dec 6th fund website here. A few years after Dec 6, 1989, a group of Toronto feminists founded this organization to help abused women and their children flee violence in their homes. If you don't understand the connection between ML's violence, starting an organization based on the violence that ML did, and helping abused women start a new life, please pop onto their site and check it out.

[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 02 October 2006 09:43 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
jester, it is unhelpful to label Lépine and other shooters as "monsters" because it lets society off the hook. If, as the Toronto Star would lead us to believe, Kimveer Gill simply "hated people," it permits society to ignore the social ills and institutionalized bias in which we are all complicit and protect ourselves with the thought that school shooters are simply abnormal freaks, rather than natural products of our society.

Cueball is quite correct that the genesis (ha!) of religion was more an expression of pre-existing social expectations than a tool wrought to assert power. Of course, once a religion (or any other tool of power brokerage, say capitalism, patriarchy, etc.) get its cogs moving, it reinforces its own dominance, and seeks to maintain its control. As such, it does appear (and in many cases is actively used) as a tool.

As for the discussion of chemicals, I am much more inclined (and as a student of cultural theory, naturally predisposed and possibly biased) to think of masculinity as a social construct. That is, testosterone, seratonins, etc. are all the body's natural expression of how "masculinity" is bred into civilization as a social concept. "Testosterone" doesn't make men killers, late-capitalist society and its image of masculinity (dominating, sexually predatory, successful) does.

Freud points out that there is no particular reason why men control society, it just so happens that they always have, and probably always will. Not a comforting thought. But then again, psychoanalysis is kind of like God. It's only true if you believe in it.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 October 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Freud points out that there is no particular reason why men control society

I disagree (with the observation not the citation). Might makes right and it always has. When Israel bombs Lebanon it is an expression of might. When the US invades Iraq, it is an expression of might. You may argue that doesn't make it right, but no US politician nor general is in danger of facing war crimes as is no Israeli officer of politician. The might of these nations places them above the law.

When it comes to violence closer to home, many people forget that until very recently, it was expected men would beat their wives. "One of these days, Alice. One of these days ..." The comedy of the that particular Honeymooners joke wasn't the threat. but that the bumbling bus driver was too "pussy whipped" to actually do what most men would do a la Ricky Ricardo and Lucy.

It was the women's movement of the 60s and 70s that finally brought attention to spousal assault as being unacceptable. Any women who experienced spousal assault will tell you even until very recently it was difficult to get police and courts to take it seriously.

The role of women, in our civization, has been until this century, one of chattel -- basic property and women have fought a long, uphill battle to get where they are now which is still not quite equal, but at least persons with the legal rights that designation entails.

[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 02 October 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it should be school shootings and guns.
Men shouldnt be allowed to have a gun to bring to school. And i dont see a problem with limiting hunters to shotguns. A shotgun might inflict an awful wound but it takes longer to load and point than a handgun.
I would much rather hear about an axe murderer and a couple of limbs missing every few years than a shooting where there are numerous fatalitys and lots of copycats.
Lets go back to savagery.
Guns and shootings are too clinical and too efficient.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 02 October 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am unmcomfortable with both "monster" and "male violence."

Saying that violent people are monsters of course does not allow for any critical analysis of who they are and what led them to this place of violence in their lives. I find that a dangerous sweeping under the rug of the real issues.

Male violence I dislike for almost an opposite reason. It implies that males are inhererently violent and that it is a normal part of their maleness. It irks me the way the saying "boys will be boys" does. It gives implicit support for the idea that men can't really help themselvesa and I think at some point allows misogynist individuals to see themselves as the norm. For a variety of very complex reasons males are more violent in our society than females but the violence is violence it does not have a gender and is not caused by gender. It is the implication of causation that makes me reject the label male violence. It allows for the devil made me do it view of the world. I could accept the term patriarchal violence because that would encompass both violent males and those females who are also misogynist and supporters of the status quo.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 02 October 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pride for Red Dolores
quote:
However, I do have a problem with the idea that behaviour is controlled by hormones. Apply that idea to to women. Think of all the behaviours that are associated with women's horomones, all the stereotypes. And of course these stereotypes are oppressive- they are part of what keep women as the 2nd sex, tell them what they can be and how they should be. If this applies to women, then how can the same logic not apply to men ?

This is from a purely biological standpoint... Testostrone is the major player with males, and not just humans. It instills the 2 major qualities of males, simply put Kill it or have sex with it. As our minds have evolved to become more, this hormone doesn't take control how it used to. The unfortunate side is males when they have no other choice (I should rephraise that to 'Think they have no other choice'), the kill it side comes out. Our patriarchal society puts huge stress on these 2 attributes sadly.

Oxytocin (or variations of) is the major female hormone that works in the basic 'hunter gatherer' sense... It's what instills the motherly (relationship, caring, nuturing...) feelings towards their children. Sadly, our society puts little value to these traits.

We were once completely animals, and we still have the lingering effects as such... There is very much of us that is dictated by hormones whether we like it or not (I noticed religion came up, the idea that God created us vs nature/evolution tends to seperate us from our roots). Afterall, any feeling that you feel is simply a chemical reaction happening in your brain.

I don't like the stereotypes added to these hormones as do you, but I think in dealing with these issues we can't deny it because we don't like it.

[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 October 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We were once completely animals

We aren't anymore? When was the last time a whale went on rampage and opened fire in a pod?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 02 October 2006 12:55 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We aren't anymore? When was the last time a whale went on rampage and opened fire in a pod?

Exactly ^^ Intentional suicide (such as the Amish school tragedy) is a trait beyond 'complete animals'. (included intentional for them lemmings ^^)


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 02 October 2006 03:03 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i agree, of course, that male violence, and the misogyny that is so often associated with male violence, did not originate with modern religion.

but right now the violence perpetuated directly and indirectly by religions is what the global community must bring to an end.

noise said it well 'we can't deny it just because we don't like it.

'human violence' is absolutely inaccurate.

it's male violence that is the problem all around the globe, and yes, women always have been and still are the usual victims of male violence.

kropotkin--i'm glad that you are uncomfortable with male violence--we all are. we should be-- maybe if we're uncomfortable enough, we'll eliminate it. but not if we don't have the guts to name it.

i'm just listening to yet another story about a man gunning down girls---little girls this time.

i really can hardly bear hearing this---again and again and again. it just keeps on.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 October 2006 06:40 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, but, males are human. They are products of a civilization that glorifies and honours violence and teaches day in and day out that violence is the quickest and most efficient recourse in problem solving.

As cueball pointed out in another thread for which he was chastised, if this fellow wore a uniform and walked into an Iraqi school and did the exact same thing, he would be doing his job and his actions would be normal.

Civilizations want men to be capable of extreme violence against women and children. The crime is not what he did but the context in which he did it.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 02 October 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:

As for the discussion of chemicals, I am much more inclined (and as a student of cultural theory, naturally predisposed and possibly biased) to think of masculinity as a social construct. That is, testosterone, seratonins, etc. are all the body's natural expression of how "masculinity" is bred into civilization as a social concept. "Testosterone" doesn't make men killers, late-capitalist society and its image of masculinity (dominating, sexually predatory, successful) does.

I would tend to believe the same.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 02 October 2006 07:27 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
I think it should be school shootings and guns.
Men shouldnt be allowed to have a gun to bring to school.

I don't understand this statement. It is already illegal for a student to transport a firearm to school. And what, women should be able to? why the specific reference to men here?

quote:
And i dont see a problem with limiting hunters to shotguns. A shotgun might inflict an awful wound but it takes longer to load and point than a handgun.

Hunters do not hunt with handguns in Canada. In Canada it is illegal to hunt with a restricted weapon. And I don't think you would like the taste of a deer steak if that deer has been shot with a shotgun. In addition, good luck shooting a deer at even 100 yards with a shotgun, even with a full choke. 100 yards is not that far a shot for a rifle. I do not want to be rude here, but you should do more research on the mechanics of firearms. Also, I can reload my Beretta 310 12g. shotgun faster than I can load my Smith&Wesson M29 .44 Revolver (a handgun).

quote:
I would much rather hear about an axe murderer and a couple of limbs missing every few years than a shooting where there are numerous fatalitys and lots of copycats.
Lets go back to savagery.
Guns and shootings are too clinical and too efficient.

Oh boy do I ever disagree with that. Have you ever personally seen a wound from a blade vs. a wound from a firearm? I have seen both, and I tell you if I had the choice of being killed by axe, or shotgun I would choose shotgun any day of the week. Dismemberment is not as "pretty" as you seem to think it is.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 02 October 2006 07:44 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:

This is from a purely biological standpoint... Testostrone is the major player with males, and not just humans. It instills the 2 major qualities of males, simply put Kill it or have sex with it. As our minds have evolved to become more, this hormone doesn't take control how it used to. The unfortunate side is males when they have no other choice (I should rephraise that to 'Think they have no other choice'), the kill it side comes out. Our patriarchal society puts huge stress on these 2 attributes sadly.

Woah woah woah! Hold the phone just a minute! I take huge exception to your description of testosterone, and especially to the statement that I have bold faced. If you would like to know what testosterone actually does in the body, then please read my earlier statements in this thread. LOL! I don't mean to be rude, but your understanding of hormones, as you have described them here are so off they're actually making me chuckle. I'm sorry. I shouldn't be so judgemental. Please, just read my earlier posts on testosterone.

quote:
Oxytocin (or variations of) is the major female hormone that works in the basic 'hunter gatherer' sense... It's what instills the motherly (relationship, caring, nuturing...) feelings towards their children. Sadly, our society puts little value to these traits.

Friend... No. Oxytocin is not a gender specific hormone. Both men and women secrete it. It's roles in either sex are different, but the hormone itself is not only androgynous, but it performs many of the same functions in boths sexes. Including your description of what you call: "motherly (relationship, caring, nuturing...) feelings". Society excludes men from these characteristics, not oxytocin. If it were strictly up to Oxytocin then both men and women would exhibit these characteristics. But I do strongly agree with your feelings on societies value of these traits.

quote:
Afterall, any feeling that you feel is simply a chemical reaction happening in your brain.

I respect your opinion on this matter. My opinion is that we are not the sum of our chemical parts. Because science cannot understand something does not make it imaginary or exclusionary.

quote:
I don't like the stereotypes added to these hormones as do you,

Oh, neither do I. Neither do i.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 02 October 2006 07:48 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Civilizations want men to be capable of extreme violence against women and children. The crime is not what he did but the context in which he did it.


That is a very interesting viewpoint. One that I had never considered quite that way before.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 03 October 2006 07:32 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
but your understanding of hormones, as you have described them here are so off they're actually making me chuckle.

Let me source myself... This view was taken from 2 major authors, Ken Wilbur being my most recent read (I did notice a couple sweeping generalizations by Ken including a 'Feminists will tell you' statement that I want to verify by asking real feminists if thats indeed what they'll tell you. Gotta love males telling you what feminists will tell you ^^... Perhaps I should question his generalization further before perpetuating it. You point is taken). So it's over generalizing yes, and there are many more players than simply testosterone of course... However from a 'survival of species' standpoint, the generalizations are semi-fitting. There is a stage along our evolutionary path prior to the conciousness acheived today that this would have been required simply for our ancestors to have survived. I also feel its something we will evolve away from (and are in the process of)... However the next evolution is not one of chemistry, it's the overthrowing of our patriarchal society and the confines it has caused (If you're a male reading this thread... Consider learning to embrace your own qualities that society has taught you to surpress as 'weak'.).


Wiki on oxytocin:

quote:

Maternal behavior. Sheep and rat females given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior. By contrast, virgin sheep females show maternal behavior towards foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise.

(lil disclaimer... Each person is as unique as the next, however this trend is for the general population).

I'll admit my statements were over generalizing as I tried to keep them to short one liners instead of going in depth, but once again these are traits that would have been a nessacary part of us at one point in time along our devlopement. Though it's something to consider...

quote:
Society excludes men from these characteristics, not oxytocin.

A body will be conditioned to it's environment... If a males environement (read as society) excludes or surpresses a trait, will the body adapt to put less stress on that particular hormones production?

quote:
My opinion is that we are not the sum of our chemical parts.

We are more than the sum of the chemical parts, however this 'more' is not exclusionary in that it still includes each of those chemical parts. 'The Quantum Mind' (lemme find the author on that) was an interesting read on that topic.

It's interesting that we have a similar conclusion but a much different way of reaching that it seems. The big question is what steps can we take to reject and overthrow this patriarchal society? Perhaps thats a thread of its own.

Added:

quote:
The crime is not what he did but the context in which he did it.

Well put... Though it should be a crime regardless of context.

(eddited note... I did add a few things while I editted/changed my grammar/wording )

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 03 October 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[QB]
Let me source myself... This view was taken from 2 major authors, Ken Wilbur being my most recent read (I did notice a couple sweeping generalizations by Ken including a 'Feminists will tell you' statement that I want to verify by asking real feminists if thats indeed what they'll tell you. Gotta love males telling you what feminists will tell you ^^... Perhaps I should question his generalization further before perpetuating it. You point is taken). So it's over generalizing yes, and there are many more players than simply testosterone of course... However from a 'survival of species' standpoint, the generalizations are semi-fitting.

I must admit that I am not intimately familiar with Wilbur, although I am familiar enough with him to know his biggest critiques. His apparant lack of understanding of scientific facts for someone who has a university education in chemistry and biology is a big complaint of many who read his works. As well, his style of writing has been called over-simplifying, and generalizing to the point of misinforming. Now I admit that I am presenting these critiques second hand as I am myself only generally familiar with his works, but what I do know of him, I would tend to agree. If all of his works are the same as I have had experience with, then I too would have to agree that his interpretations of science are presented in such a simplified manner as to be misinforming, as the descriptions that i took exception to before are so seseme street that they are in fact, wrong.

quote:
There is a stage along our evolutionary path prior to the conciousness acheived today that this would have been required simply for our ancestors to have survived. I also feel its something we will evolve away from (and are in the process of)...

I disagree that we wil evolve away from this, and I for one hope that we never will. When we "evolve" away from knowing and desiring to defend ourselves then we will in effect be cattle at the mercy of mother nature, who make no mistake, will never evolve from the harsh mistress that she is. A byproduct, unfortunate or not, of the desire and ability to defend yourself is the ability to experience agression. I do not believe that agression is the problem in our society. The inability to deal with that agression is the true problem as I see it.

quote:
However the next evolution is not one of chemistry, it's the overthrowing of our patriarchal society and the confines it has caused (If you're a male reading this thread... Consider learning to embrace your own qualities that society has taught you to surpress as 'weak'.).

Here I agree with you. For the record I am a man, but having a feminist wife I am exposed to the plight of the average female in our society. (she doesn't like when I call her my wife. Sorry Kali ). My wife will probably be the first to say that I do not embrace typical north American views on sexuality, or violence. However, I have been a kickboxer since I was 12, I hunt when I can, and I target shoot with handgun recreationally. Even surrounded with all of this "violence" I am a understanding, adjusted, non-patriarchic, North American male who is in no danger of ending up in the newspaper as a shooter at a school, or the street, or anywhere else for that matter. I believe in a balance in life, and just as today there is no balance between violence and peace, I also do not believe in shifting that balance too far the other direction. emotional Homeostasis is my ultimate goal for myself, and I would love to see it as a goal for more people in the world.

quote:
Maternal behavior. Sheep and rat females given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior. By contrast, virgin sheep females show maternal behavior towards foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise.

This is a study and has to be looked at within it's context. The only rational conclusion to be drawn from this example is that Oxytocin elicits a nurturing response in rats. First it is important to understand that studies in rats cannot draw conclusions that the same will be true in humans. for an example of what I mean, read the book or see the movie "Lorenzo's Oil". Secondly, I have never denied that Oxytocin is a director of these feelings, only that it is not a gender specific hormone. Because it performs these functions in women does not exclude if from these functions in men as well, as both sexes secrete this hormone. Also Oxytocin is not a gender opposite hormone to testosterone, as was indicated in your original post.

quote:
I'll admit my statements were over generalizing as I tried to keep them to short one liners instead of going in depth, but once again these are traits that would have been a nessacary part of us at one point in time along our devlopement. Though it's something to consider...

I still believe these traits to be important in todays society. They just have to be understood better, and acted upon differently.

quote:
We are more than the sum of the chemical parts, however this 'more' is not exclusionary in that it still includes each of those chemical parts. 'The Quantum Mind' (lemme find the author on that) was an interesting read on that topic.

Oh I very much agree. I only spoke out in defense because it seemed that hormones were being blamed, and incorrectly blamed, and incorrectly described in function, as sole culprits for certain behaviors.

quote:
It's interesting that we have a similar conclusion but a much different way of reaching that it seems. The big question is what steps can we take to reject and overthrow this patriarchal society? Perhaps thats a thread of its own.

LOL! I'm finding the same. It's odd that I often come to this conclusion. I guess it begs the question what is more important, the ends or the means? I personally beleive that neither is more important, and sometimes a proper end can be unjustly reached depending on the means. About the patriarchy. I agree that a patriarchy is an injustice to women, but I believe that a matriarchy, as some women desire, is just as unjust as our current patriarchy. I'm going to hazard a suggestion based on what I think is a made up word: Androgygarchy.

quote:
Well put... Though it should be a crime regardless of context.

One more question: Realistically speaking instead of idealistically speaking, do you believe that this is an achievable goal?

[/QUOTE]

edit: I was reading over my post, and I don't know why I did this, but pretend that whenever I spelled aggression I used two g's.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Calamus ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 05 October 2006 09:03 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
complete gender balance in global human society is necessary and i believe that humanity is finally in a position to begin implementing this.

i think that male traits that are problematic for humanity now are really just male assets that are lacking the balance of strong female energy.
aggression, laser focus on single issues, male energetic physicality,ambition, etc. are all extremely good traits if they are balanced by their 'female' opposites.
it doesn't really matter who is enacting the 'male' trait or 'female' trait[both sexes can behave in male and female ways although in general women tend to be more 'female' in their behaviors and men more 'male']

humanity has operated by viewing life through a predominately 'male' lens for so long now, that it will take a concious , concerted effort to give the feminine lens equal weight.

all of humanity's spiritual, social, business and political structures and behaviors are on a cant right now and threatening collapse if balance isn't established.

women must take their rightful place of equal power in society, we need restructured social institutions within which women are free and empowered to be very female. these institutions must fully honour female energy and make it easy for women to balance family, community and power.

once men have learned to view their world from a gender balanced lens, they too will be freed to behave in less extreme ways and honour their own feminine. this is truly the best way to reconstruct a humane and balanced world that can finally end all of the killing.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276

posted 14 October 2006 10:21 AM      Profile for Calamus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
complete gender balance in global human society is necessary and i believe that humanity is finally in a position to begin implementing this.

i think that male traits that are problematic for humanity now are really just male assets that are lacking the balance of strong female energy.
aggression, laser focus on single issues, male energetic physicality,ambition, etc. are all extremely good traits if they are balanced by their 'female' opposites.
it doesn't really matter who is enacting the 'male' trait or 'female' trait[both sexes can behave in male and female ways although in general women tend to be more 'female' in their behaviors and men more 'male']

humanity has operated by viewing life through a predominately 'male' lens for so long now, that it will take a concious , concerted effort to give the feminine lens equal weight.

all of humanity's spiritual, social, business and political structures and behaviors are on a cant right now and threatening collapse if balance isn't established.

women must take their rightful place of equal power in society, we need restructured social institutions within which women are free and empowered to be very female. these institutions must fully honour female energy and make it easy for women to balance family, community and power.

once men have learned to view their world from a gender balanced lens, they too will be freed to behave in less extreme ways and honour their own feminine. this is truly the best way to reconstruct a humane and balanced world that can finally end all of the killing.


I don't really understand how you can argue for gender equality when you pigeonhole certain traits as either male or female. I am a male, through and through. I have no 'female' traits, yet I exhibit many of the traits that you have labelled as female. I do not consider that gender equal.

We both want the same thing, I guess I just take exception to your assumption that some of my qualities are somehow not inherent to me becuase I am a man.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 October 2006 10:24 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I'll go with "violence", without blaming one sex for it.

No doubt, males commit most violence. That doesn't justify creating a term which defines female violence out of existence.

I think "male violence" is a kind of name-calling.
Like "female submissiveness" it tends toward suggesting an intrinsic relationship between the gender and the behaviour.


Pathetic!
quote:
...as a society we seem constitutionally unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge a simple but disturbing fact: these shootings are an extreme manifestation of one of contemporary American society's biggest problems - the ongoing crisis of men's violence against women.
....

Incredibly, few if any prominent voices in the broadcast or print media have called the incidents what they are: hate crimes perpetrated by angry white men against defenseless young girls, who - whatever the twisted motives of the shooters - were targeted for sexual assault and murder precisely because they are girls.

What is it going to take for our society to deal honestly with the extent and depth of this problem? How many more young girls have to die before decision-makers in media and other influential institutions stop averting their eyes from the lethal mix of deep misogyny and violent masculinity at work here? In response to the recent spate of shootings, the White House announced plans to bring together experts in education and law enforcement. The goal was to discuss "the nature of the problem" and federal action that can assist communities with violence prevention. This approach is misdirected. Instead of convening a group of experts on "school safety," the president should catalyze a long-overdue national conversation about sexism, masculinity, and men's violence against women.
Source



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca