Author
|
Topic: school shootings and masculinity
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 22 September 2006 06:16 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 22 September 2006 08:14 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 23 September 2006 12:38 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260
|
posted 23 September 2006 03:10 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 24 September 2006 06:20 AM
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
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
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 24 September 2006 07:40 AM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 24 September 2006 06:25 PM
[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
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 24 September 2006 08:10 PM
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
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 24 September 2006 10:51 PM
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
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 29 September 2006 07:11 PM
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
|
|
|
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276
|
posted 30 September 2006 06:04 PM
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 01 October 2006 08:46 AM
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 01 October 2006 11:18 AM
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
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 01 October 2006 03:32 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 01 October 2006 06:16 PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 02 October 2006 12:34 PM
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
|
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 02 October 2006 03:03 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Calamus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13276
|
posted 02 October 2006 07:27 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 03 October 2006 07:32 AM
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
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
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
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
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
|
|
|