• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are there so few female mass murderers?

Why are there so few female mass murderers?


  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
I guess you didn't read the well researched study I referenced.

It's not the information you cite, the information is informative and interesting to read.
It's that you're completely incapable of applying the information within the correct context and you use it, most inappropriately.
 
I will suggest that they are simply clever enough to talk a man into doing the deed for them, thus they remain "innocent". You can be a mass murderer serially rather than go all out in a single event.

I've heard people say before that women are the "fairer" more "gentle" sex.
That's utter bull****.

Women are just as mean and insensitive as men, they just go about it in different ways.
 
What? Are you defending the "hegemonic masculinity" theory as less simplistic? My point is that no single factor motivates all (or even most) of these mass shootings. Many have little in common beyond what defines them as mass shootings - a high victim count and guns used during the crime.

my argument was something else.

in many cases, acts of violence are informed by a sense of powerlessness, combined with a value system informed by a culture of honour.

this doesn't mean everyone who subscribes to a culture of honour and experiences a sense of powerlessness will become a killer. a number of other factors will also influence the actions of the individual
 
Is it because males do not handle social rejection as well as females?

Are males just more violent than females?

Or other, an please explain;

Thanks!
I suspect that there are more female mass ("serial" would be a better term) than we realize, though I also suspect the number would still be fewer than men.

Females tend to be more subtle. Women are prone to do such things as poison food, and have longer periods between murders, which is much harder to detect as a pattern and as a method. Back in the day it wasn't uncommon for people to simply get sick from bad food and die, so poison wouldn't necessarily look out of the ordinary. Back then, autopsies were very rare, and even when done there wasn't the scientific process to find poisons and such that we have today.

They also tend to fly under the radar, in part because historically many male investigators didn't think women were capable of doing such things, so the women were never even looked at as suspects.
 
I guess you didn't read the well researched study I referenced.

Correlation is not causation. All dead frogs on the road were frogs attempting to cross the road, yet not all frogs that cross the road are dead. Naturally you will find more social/economic losers among those becoming criminals, yet far from the majority of social/ecomomic losers are criminals. It may be one contributing factor, yet clearly not "the root cause" since mass murder is very, very rare yet socially/economically unsuccessful males abound.
 
Your list has 14 shootings in the last decade

and includes the attack on Rep. Giffords, a political assassination attempt. Let it be so. Let's also not try and dig for "lower profile" cases in Finland and Norway. We still get 0.04 mass shooting per million in US vs 0.4 in Finland. Are Finns ten times as murderous as Americans? Ridiculous.

Also, look at the map, above the list: if we want to compare apples to apples, Finland is probably comparable not with America as a whole - demographically, economically and socially - but rather with states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota...which did not have any mass shootings - not a single one in three decades. What does THAT tell you? Eh, approximately nothing.


It appears I was mistaken above. The listing I provided above was just the mass murders committed with high capacity magazines.

"For much of the 20th century there were, on average, a handful of mass killings per decade. But that number spiked in 1980, and kept rising thereafter. In the United States, there have now been at least 62 mass shootings in the past three decades, with 24 in the last seven years alone."
Are Mass Shootings Becoming More Common in the United States? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Now, let's see your documentation that shows either Norway or Finland had more that 24 mass shootings in the last 7 years?
 
women cope better with change/transitions etc. we have to. psychologically we could nt cope with pregnancy and lactation if we didn't.

women's bodies, and our lives have more often been subject to others.

american society emphasizes the individual (not the collective) which also places more importance on the individual male achieving success in a society where "anyone can become president" of course, its a lie. social mobility is less in the US than in many other places.

for vulnerable men who may also be experiencing marginalization or other forms of bullying, this combines with a culture of masculine honour, easy access to weapons and the kind of overt hostility to alternative ideologies so frequently seen in forums such as this.

all this contributes to an environment which feeds, and even allows justification of dangerous levels of resentment

You know, that hormone that causes many guys to act macho, and is the common source of an inflated ego? A high level of testosterone can cause a person to cross the line and kill someone, as it is much easier to go into a fit of rage the higher this hormone.

Naturally, girls have less testosterone, and are more likely to vent anger in a far less violent way then a guy would.

Women tend to develop empathy better then men, and are on a higher emotional level ...

Because of this, many women end up connecting to the victim, and their conscience gets the better of them.

This is one of the reasons women are more likely to kill themselves than someone else.

Women are more likely to use verbal abuse whereas a guy is more likely to use physical abuse. ...
 
Correlation is not causation. All dead frogs on the road were frogs attempting to cross the road, yet not all frogs that cross the road are dead. Naturally you will find more social/economic losers among those becoming criminals, yet far from the majority of social/ecomomic losers are criminals. It may be one contributing factor, yet clearly not "the root cause" since mass murder is very, very rare yet socially/economically unsuccessful males abound.

You can be satisfied with a frog analogy if you wish. I will go with the published academic study.
 
Absolutely. :roll:
Just as "your thing" is leaving people to be defenseless from murderers.


Funny, before you said easy access to guns was one of the reasons we have so many mass murders.




That's what you say when you have no other retort.
It's lame, try defeating my argument with logic or evidence.

No that's what I say when you provide unsubstantiated opinion.


That doesn't mean that it's a learned behavior.

Right, more of a US culture thing.
 
Funny, before you said easy access to guns was one of the reasons we have so many mass murders.

Yes, but your intent to restrict access can cause people to have less choice for defense.
Just as you have extrapolated from my position, I'm doing to yours.

Seems all you're here to do is preach your ideology.
There are other places for that.

No that's what I say when you provide unsubstantiated opinion.

No you've yet to provide a counter argument.
It's a lousy defensive reflex you've created for yourself.

Can't debate something, then mock it.
If it's sooooo unsubstantiated, then you should have no trouble defeating it.
Give it a go, instead of hiding behind lousy defense tactics.

Right, more of a US culture thing.

Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion!
 
You can be satisfied with a frog analogy if you wish. I will go with the published academic study.

Confirmation bias is so easily swallowed. So gun control is out of the equation, since only a total "feminization" of society will reduce mass murder. One would think that would have been achieved by more out of wedlock childbirth and more female headed households (now called modern "families"), yet that did not seem to reduce crime/violence in any way, in fact, crime statistics indicate the exact opposite actually occurs. Hmm...
 
You know, that hormone that causes many guys to act macho, and is the common source of an inflated ego? A high level of testosterone can cause a person to cross the line and kill someone, as it is much easier to go into a fit of rage the higher this hormone.

Naturally, girls have less testosterone, and are more likely to vent anger in a far less violent way then a guy would.

Women tend to develop empathy better then men, and are on a higher emotional level ...

Because of this, many women end up connecting to the victim, and their conscience gets the better of them.

This is one of the reasons women are more likely to kill themselves than someone else.

Women are more likely to use verbal abuse whereas a guy is more likely to use physical abuse. ...

I used to run therapy groups for men who had anger management issues. when they learnt to deal with their emotions they stopped blaming their lack of self control on testosterone
 
You can be satisfied with a frog analogy if you wish. I will go with the published academic study.

Don't avoid the last paragraph from your study.

There are some limitations of the present study. The
sample of mass murderers that we used in our exploratory
study is very small and as such is not a representative sample
of the mass murderers in the United States. Therefore, our
findings should not be generalised to mass murderers in the
United States.
In addition, when concomitant stressors were
present it was impossible to say what the primary motivator
was or how the stressors may have configured, to trigger the
behavior of the mass murderers. In dealing with conflicting
information from media accounts about a case, we chose the
information with the greater triangulation. However, future
research may reveal that the information we rejected because it
had less triangulation is correct.
 
Confirmation bias is so easily swallowed. So gun control is out of the equation, since only a total "feminization" of society will reduce mass murder. One would think that would have been achieved by more out of wedlock childbirth and more female headed households (now called modern "families"), yet that did not seem to reduce crime/violence in any way, in fact, crime statistics indicate the exact opposite actually occurs. Hmm...

in humans, and in some other species, including, believe it or not, elephants, the lack of adult male role models can lead to an increase in anti social behavior among young males
 
I used to run therapy groups for men who had anger management issues. when they learnt to deal with their emotions they stopped blaming their lack of self control on testosterone

So you don't believe that testosterone plays a part?

Take steroids for instance..an artificial testosterone..and can cause hyper-aggressive behaviour...
 
Yes, but your intent to restrict access can cause people to have less choice for defense.
Just as you have extrapolated from my position, I'm doing to yours.

My intent is understand the causes for mass murder in order to reduce them. That is why I started this thread.


Seems all you're here to do is preach your ideology.
There are other places for that.

Took you longer than usual this time for the insults to start! :cool:
 
Now, let's see your documentation that shows either Norway or Finland had more that 24 mass shootings in the last 7 years?

You are not listening. Let's say it was 24. Oh, what the hell, let's "round it up" to 100! There, we had (or could have, who knows) 100 mass shootings in the last seven years! A whopping 0.32 per million of population. But those vicious Finns - they had 0.4 per million! (Two shootings).
Conclusion: Finland is 125% as violent as we are. Nonsense, right?

Statistics regarding rare events is basically useless. We cannot claim that "American society has more mass shootings than any other".
 
My intent is understand the causes for mass murder in order to reduce them. That is why I started this thread.

I don't believe you.
In most threads you participate in, you come to a conclusion and try to beat everyone over the head with it.

Took you longer than usual this time for the insults to start! :cool:

Highlight the insult.
 
Do female Chimpanzees commit mass murder like male Chimps do?
Which species displays the most violent tendencies toward its own kind? - Curiosity
Out of all the mammals on Earth, only chimpanzees and humans tend to enact lethal violence upon members of their own species. Other mammals may display aggression or violence in order to compete for food, territory or mates, but rarely act so violently as to kill their competitors.

Scientists have observed chimpanzees forming raiding parties that attack stragglers from neighboring groups of chimps. These attacks are vicious, with several chimps from the raiding party attacking a single victim. Renowned primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall witnessed a battle for territory among chimps that lasted four years. In the end, one group of chimps killed every chimp in the opposing group. Male chimps have also been known to commit infanticide, though its not definitively clear why the infant chimps are killed

Not to take this thread off into the "chimps and humans are cousins" direction, but...seems like the most logical place to look when trying to understand human behavior.
 
Confirmation bias is so easily swallowed. So gun control is out of the equation, since only a total "feminization" of society will reduce mass murder. One would think that would have been achieved by more out of wedlock childbirth and more female headed households (now called modern "families"), yet that did not seem to reduce crime/violence in any way, in fact, crime statistics indicate the exact opposite actually occurs. Hmm...

So all the other rich countries with less mass murders you consider to be feminized, rather then just not as hyper-militarized as the US?
 
Still beats your unsubstantiated opinion.

Really, you used the study to support your opinion that the U.S. is/has more mass murder.
Then the study says it shouldn't be used as such.

It doesn't validate your opinion at all.
Hilarious that you hang on to such opinions, even when your own information disputes it.
 
So all the other rich countries with less mass murders you consider to be feminized, rather then just not as hyper-militarized as the US?

Funny, yet I saw neither the terms "hyper-militarized" nor "rich countries" used in your source theory discussion. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom