A Feminist Analysis of Mass Shootings

[G4b3n]

While most of this work is originally mine, the idea for the thesis is something I picked up from a respected sociologist at my university. I am not quite sure if there are similar explanations out there (there probably are), but I thought people might find this interesting considering it has never been mentioned by any bourgeois media.

The issue is not gun control. If you think it is gun control, then you are literally immune to logic and simply choose to see the failure of prohibition every time it is implemented (although the misogynist and racist nature of gun culture could tie into the larger issue being addressed).

The issue is not mental health, study after study shows that the mentally ill are more likely to be victimized than become aggressors. So much so, that many police departments have mandatory training on how to deal with the mentally ill so they don't brutalize them like has historically been an issue. Mass shooters are almost always found to be sane at the time of the murders and that is not a coincidence. Scapegoating the mentally ill is not only incorrect but offensive and disrespectful.


The real issue in short: Patriarchy is harming our young men/society at large and is destructive to the male identity. These are the extreme cases.

Ever notice how 100% of mass shooters since Columbine are male? Literally all of them, I dare you to find a lone female and I will correct my statement. Now first off, DO NOT misconstrue my words and think that I am saying that all males are murders, that is stupid, I am a male and I am not a mass shooter and I don't plan to be.

So, going off of this reality, I think there are two issues at play here (1) deformed constructions of what it means to be masculine and (2) influence of extremist (racialist/sexist) ideologies. The first issue morphs into the second making them almost one in the same at times.

School shooters since Columbine (the first incident to really spark the trend so to speak) have had a few things in common. (1) They are male. (2) They are social outcasts and have little friends. (3) They have difficulty speaking to women and often leave rants about how they cannot get a girlfriend or sex partner. (4) In almost every case they prescribe to some radical hateful ideology such as Neo-Nazism, white supremacy, or just rabid hatred of women. Examples: Eric Harris/Oklahoma City bombing for Neo-Nazism, the Carolina church shooter for WS, and Elliot Rodgers for hatred of women. The list of examples is almost endless so just ask if you want more.

Our culture of patriarchy has failed men. It has bitterly failed them and is harming them tremendously. Our patriarchal culture says that man is both dominant and desirable, it is not written out de jure, but the social pressures are realities all the same. If a man cannot "get" a women, because of the cultural pressures being pushed upon him, he rationalizes this as he must be a failure, a failure at "being a man". According to psychologists, some men internalize this causing self harm, and others are sent into homicidal rage like Elliot Rodgers. Others who externalize it, like Eric Harris, find other groups of people to blame for their oppression such as blacks, and publish hateful manifestos of white supremacy which in actuality had nothing to do with why their lives were miserable.

Now: Imagine for one second. If there was an issue affecting society very greatly, people were dying because of it. And the perpetrators were 100% women. Do you think it would be addressed as a gendered issue? Food for thought.

[RedWorker]

Gun control is a factor, mental health is a factor, and gender is a factor.

You really must step outside of your black-and-white thinking pattern, which looks like it relies on fallacies. "Gun control hasn't stopped gun crime, therefore it isn't a factor", "they're more likely to become victims instead, therefore the relationship of mental health to this issue is irrelevant", "it is mostly done by men therefore..."

The point is, yes, mostly men do it. That's because gender roles promote men doing this and dis-promote women doing it.

But this is just an extension of gender roles, and the gender attitude towards violence in general.

In the same way, men are more likely to get involved in some movement, to have strong convictions, to engage in violence, etc. This is just an extension of all of that.

It does not mean that this is an issue that comes down to your simplified thinking that "patriarchy promotes a murderous male identity".

The fact that "[finding] a lone female" would, according to you, result in your thinking framework being invalidated in some way should tell you something.

In the same way, men articulate their sexual attitude by desiring others, while women articulate their sexual attitude by being desired. This is a result of sexist society, but you can't take simplified conclusions here like you do above. Of course, there's outliers here, just in the same way that there would be outliers if there were more mass shootings. But the sample size is too small.

My greater point: if you took away the gender issue, then there'd possibly be less murder, but male and female murderers would be divided equally.


(2) They are social outcasts and have little friends.Most of them have average or near average social interaction, nothing extraordinary. They could easily increase their amounts of it if they wanted to.


(3) They have difficulty speaking to women and often leave rants about how they cannot get a girlfriend or sex partner.The problem isn't so much "difficulty speaking to women" (which is an effect rather than cause) but seeing them as sex objects and trying to start a relationship with them this way.

[G4b3n]

Gun control is a factor, mental health is a factor, and gender is a factor.

You really must step outside of your black-and-white thinking pattern, which looks like it relies on fallacies. "Gun control hasn't stopped gun crime, therefore it isn't a factor", "they're more likely to become victims instead, therefore the relationship of mental health to this issue is irrelevant", "it is mostly done by men therefore..."

This analysis is not black and white by any means. I am simply identifying the root cause and I do not denounce the reality that other factors might be at play, but in this analysis they stem from that root cause. I simply rule two of them out as being systematically contributive, remember this is a systemic analysis if you didn't gather that already. And if you want to attack the root of my argument then fine, but you have to do that.

Would you like to defend the argument that prohibition works? Because a few weeks ago, innocent students died on a college campus in Oregon and the shooter was not legally eligible to purchase his weapons, which is a common pattern.

You know what isn't a common pattern though, and contributes to rationalization of white supremacy? The fact that the bourgeois media consistently scapegoats the mentally ill when racialized or gender motivated murder takes places. That young man in SC who shot up that church, he wasn't suffering from any mental illness. White supremacy isn't a mental illness like the media likes to portray, it is an ideology with serious roots that is interconnected with patriarchy (but I guess I am too black and white to see that *sigh*).




The point is, yes, mostly men do it. That's because gender roles promote men doing this and dis-promote women doing it.

But this is just an extension of gender roles, and the gender attitude towards violence in general.

In the same way, men are more likely to get involved in some movement, to have strong convictions, to engage in violence, etc. This is just an extension of all of that.


Pretty much a rebaked and simplified version of my analysis.



It does not mean that this is an issue that comes down to your simplified thinking that "patriarchy promotes a murderous male identity".

The fact that "[finding] a lone female" would, according to you, result in your thinking framework being invalidated in some way should tell you something.

In the same way, men articulate their sexual attitude by desiring others, while women articulate their sexual attitude by being desired. This is a result of sexist society, but you can't take simplified conclusions here like you do above. Of course, there's outliers here, just in the same way that there would be outliers if there were more mass shootings. But the sample size is too small.

My greater point: if you took away the gender issue, then there'd possibly be less murder, but male and female murderers would be divided equally.

Most of them have average or near average social interaction, nothing extraordinary. They could easily increase their amounts of it if they wanted to.

The problem isn't so much "difficulty speaking to women" (which is an effect rather than cause) but seeing them as sex objects and trying to start a relationship with them this way.

A "lone female" would not invalidate my thinking in the least. It would simply change the quantitative listing of 100% that I gave. That is it. Nothing to do with invalidation if you stop and think for two seconds about what constitutes quantitative analysis. So for you to think this assertion of invalidation indicative of my argument then you are operating from a false premise here to begin with.

You claim that if gender issues were abolished then there would simply be an equal number of M and F mass murders (possibly less total), but you give no reasoning for this at all. What societal forces would compel one to do such thing in the same manner that it is accruing now, i.e., routinely.

If patriarchy was abolished, I am not claiming that a mass shooting would never ever happen again. I am claiming that it is the true root of the issue in contemporary society while you speculate idealist nonsense. But thanks for the contribution, or lack thereof.

[BIXX]

Ever notice how 100% of mass shooters since Columbine are male?

http://www.vice.com/read/the-sparse-history-of-female-rampage-killers

Forgive the terrible source but this isn't true. Haven't read your whole post so I may agree with your overall point I'd just be careful with shit like this.

[RedWorker]

Mass shootings don't occur because of sexism. Rather, the fact that most of the murderers are men is related to gender roles.


Would you like to defend the argument that prohibition works? Because a few weeks ago, innocent students died on a college campus in Oregon and the shooter was not legally eligible to purchase his weapons, which is a common pattern.Again your fallacious stuff. Pointless to argue with this. Nobody claimed that "gun control means no murder will ever happen again".


The fact that the bourgeois media consistently scapegoats the mentally ill when racialized or gender motivated murder takes places. And your nonsense about "omg, the mentally ill can't do harm" is just another side of the coin, the other side is "mentally ill people are evil!". I happen to be outside the coin. It doesn't take a genius to see that there are some correlations between poor mental health and abusive actions, though not every person with poor mental health is abusive. That doesn't mean they're evil or should be discriminated or anything like that.


You claim that if gender issues were abolished then there would simply be an equal number of M and F mass murders (possibly less total), but you give no reasoning for this at all. What societal forces would compel one to do such thing in the same manner that it is accruing now, i.e., routinely.Quite simple, murder doesn't simply go down to "I'm a man".

Either you're arguing that men and women are really different to a great extent in regards to violence innately, i.e. not in a way answerable to society/environment, or you're arguing that all murder goes down to "I'm a man and I have a weapon". Now, do you really think that murder goes down to this?


I am claiming that it is the true root of the issue in contemporary society while you speculate idealist nonsense. But thanks for the contribution, or lack thereof.You are so cute. Where is the idealism in my post?

[BIXX]

So I think this analysis doesn't go deep enough, but it touches on things that most people don't when they talk about mass shootings, like the disfigurement of human existence leading to shootings. I think you'd do well to read the theory of bloom

[FinnMcCool]

'The issue is not gun control. If you think it is gun control, then you are literally immune to logic and simply choose to see the failure of prohibition every time it is implemented'

If you don't mind my asking, if the issue is not gun control, then why are there not mass shootings on a regular basis in England, France or Germany?