• 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 thought not.
Well stop playing coy and get to the point.




By the way, most mass murderer's in the US are from middle class backgrounds, not poor backgrounds. The profile for a mass murderer in the US is middle class, white, young, male.
Some are, some aren't. The middle class is also the most burdened social class in the US.
 
If you wish to start a thread about violence in general, please do so.

This one is about mass murders, and your personal theory doesn't explain the wide variation in intentional homicides in different countries.

If you're only wanting to leave it to homicides, I can only say that guys have a greater capacity to kill.
Because even in countries with lower homicides, the main/most likely perpetrator is male.

Anyone else having trouble reading the text on the Hedgemonic Masculinity link I posted? Is Chrome the only browser you have access to?

I can use IE, I just really don't like it.
 
Societies with our similar cultural/society standards are the most successful.
Little tribes here and there, with these odd little ways of functioning aren't sweeping the world.
In modern times, they are an anachronism.

If they're so "successful," then why are we gradually moving away from those repressing kinds of norms? If it works so great, why not keep doing it?

Hell, it didn't even last very long. Do you have any idea how short our iteration of culture really was before we started moving away from it, in the grand scheme of anthropology? It's tiny.

And by the way, those tribes have been around a lot longer than we have. I would hardly call them unsuccessful. They actually enjoy relatively long lives, a lot less work, and better social cohesion.

The only reason we moved to agriculture is because our population out-stripped the natural capacity of the land. And when we made that move, pretty much everything got worse: our lifespans were cut in half and took thousands of years to recover, we had to work twice as much, massive social inequalities erupted, violence went off the chart, etc. The only reason we kept doing it was to feed ourselves.

Part of the reason they're successful is because they keep their numbers down.

Guys have a greater capacity to kill.
It's ingrained in us, before birth.

Right, then. I notice you still haven't produced any evidence that this is a purely biological phenomenon, despite extremely variable rates across cultures.
 
Last edited:
If they're so "successful," then why are we gradually moving away from those repressing kinds of norms? If it works so great, why not keep doing it?

Hell, it didn't even last very long. Do you have any idea how short our iteration of culture really was before we started moving away from it, in the grand scheme of things? It's tiny.

And by the way, those tribes have been around a lot longer than we have. I would hardly call them unsuccessful. They actually enjoy relatively long lives, a lot less work, and better social cohesion.

The only reason we moved to agriculture is because our population out-stripped the natural capacity of the land. And when we made that move, pretty much everything got worse: our lifespans were cut in half and took thousands of years to recover, we had to work twice as much, massive social inequalities erupted, violence went off the chart, etc. The only reason we kept doing it was to feed ourselves.

Part of the reason they're successful is because they keep their numbers down.

Right, then. I notice you still haven't produced any evidence that this is a purely biological phenomenon, despite extremely variable rates across cultures.

Violence is higher in polygamous societies, actually. Turns out that young, unattached men who don't see a future for themselves are the most socially destructive element out there. This is a huge problem right now in much of Asia, which has been gender-selecting their children through abortion for the past couple of decades, and now is reaping the Bare Branches.
 
If you're only wanting to leave it to homicides, I can only say that guys have a greater capacity to kill.
Because even in countries with lower homicides, the main/most likely perpetrator is male.

Your personal theory doesn't explain why there are so many more in the US than other rich countries.


I can use IE, I just really don't like it.

That must suck for you, that you can't view much of the information out there in the world, but it does help explain your narrow views.
 
If they're so "successful," then why are we gradually moving away from those repressing kinds of norms? If it works so great, why not keep doing it?

We aren't.
Developed nations are still inherently relying on males to support females/children.
In this case though, males are getting less for their contributions.

It's an artifice that would completely dissolve if the state were to break down.

Hell, it didn't even last very long. Do you have any idea how short our iteration of culture really was before we started moving away from it, in the grand scheme of anthropology? It's tiny.

Yes, that short time was probably the absolute greatest for all humans participating ever.


And by the way, those tribes have been around a lot longer than we have. I would hardly call them unsuccessful. They actually enjoy relatively long lives, a lot less work, and better social cohesion.

I rate their success on more than one factor.
Let's just throw in childhood mortality, that would overturn a lot of their success.

The only reason we moved to agriculture is because our population out-stripped the natural capacity of the land. And when we made that move, pretty much everything got worse: our lifespans were cut in half and took thousands of years to recover, we had to work twice as much, massive social inequalities erupted, violence went off the chart, etc. The only reason we kept doing it was to feed ourselves.

No.
We turned to agriculture because it's more reliant than chasing herds of animals or hoping that next bush or tree has food on it.


Part of the reason they're successful is because they keep their numbers down.

Their numbers are kept down because their children die and often.

Right, then. I notice you still haven't produced any evidence that this is a purely biological phenomenon, despite extremely variable rates across cultures.

The endocrine system and testosterone linked to aggression is pretty darn good evidence.
 
Your personal theory doesn't explain why there are so many more in the US than other rich countries.

Because you're only focusing on one data point.
It's fallacious.


That must suck for you, that you can't view much of the information out there in the world, but it does help explain your narrow views.

No, it's just that paper.
Chrome usually works with all kinds.
 
It could just be who crazy women choose to murder compared to men. I may be wrong but it seems like women tend to murder individuals they know when they snap and men murder random folks?

no. most men also kill people they know.

the most likely victim is likely to be a wife, girlfriend or ex.

this can be proven statistically. its just that mass murders get more attention.
 
Well stop playing coy and get to the point.

I already did. I am suggesting the biggest factor that causes males to commit more mass murders is hedgemonic masculinity.




Some are, some aren't. The middle class is also the most burdened social class in the US.

Profiles mean most, not all.
 
Actually , the first American mass murderer I've heard of was called Brenda Spencer.

Nevertheless, men are statistically much more violent in general, and much more likely to "go nuts" as well. It appears that there was evolutionary pressure for the XX-chromosome bearers to be selected for stable, safety-oriented behavior, and for us XY-ers to be selected in favor of risk-taking and "thinking outside of the box". After all, we are more expendable, biologically speaking: producing sperm is ridiculously easy, comparing to bearing a mammal offspring.

It appears that in most any distribution of human traits women are bunched closer to the middle of the bell curve, while men boast long tails, on both ends. For example, meta-analysis of intelligence scores (admittedly, "soft science", take everything with a lump of salt) reveals the same average IQ for both sexes, but significantly more geniuses and idiots among men.

Sample: http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_paper...nce451-456_Brother_sister_sex_differences.pdf

That wouldn't explain why there are more mass murderers (as in the mass shooting type) in the US than anywhere else
 
I selected that men are more violent. Generally speaking I think that about sums it up. It's in our nature/genetics/evolutionary biology to be.

again - doesn't really explain it. if that were the case in every country you would see the same pattern.
 
I already did. I am suggesting the biggest factor that causes males to commit more mass murders is hedgemonic masculinity.

If that were the case, then the example of the US (which you hold up) would be a problematic data point for you.
 
Because you're only focusing on one data point.
It's fallacious.

Tell us how you account for more mass murders by males in the US than males in most rich countries?



No, it's just that paper.
Chrome usually works with all kinds.

You are in luck! I found it in a PDF for you here. It is the 6th PDF from the top.
 
Tell us how you account for more mass murders by males in the US than males in most rich countries?

They have greater access to the tools for killing.
I wouldn't make said tools illegal though, if that's what you're getting at.



You are in luck! I found it in a PDF for you here. It is the 6th PDF from the top.

Good deal, I'll read it right now.
 
That's not true.
Most victims of male murder, are other males.

I am not quite prepared to say that I stand corrected, but I will admit that in western democracies what you say appears to be correct. That said, from what I can understand, in many countries the differential is considerably less than in the US .
 
If that were the case, then the example of the US (which you hold up) would be a problematic data point for you.

How do you figure that, what other rich nations have higher incidence of mass murders than the US?
 
I am not quite prepared to say that I stand corrected, but I will admit that in western democracies what you say appears to be correct. That said, from what I can understand, in many countries the differential is considerably less than in the US .

Strictly speaking of murder, not necessarily mass murder.
Most victims are male.

In mass murder, there tend to be more female victims, but mass murders aren't as prevalent as people think.
 
How do you figure that, what other rich nations have higher incidence of mass murders than the US?

I don't dismiss your theory on incidents of mass murder - but rather on your notion that the US is a culture of hegemonic masculinity in comparison with other cultures. Most cultures are more male-dominant than our own, Western one.
 
They have greater access to the tools for killing.
I wouldn't make said tools illegal though, if that's what you're getting at.


Are saying more guns lead to more mass murders? And you have ruled out learned behavior based on culture on what basis?
 
Are saying more guns lead to more mass murders? And you have ruled out learned behavior based on culture on what basis?

I'm saying that access to the tools can increase that incidence of mass murders.
I don't think it's learned behavior that causes mass murder.

That paper you linked doesn't say so either.
I'm still reading it though.
 
I don't dismiss your theory on incidents of mass murder - but rather on your notion that the US is a culture of hegemonic masculinity in comparison with other cultures. Most cultures are more male-dominant than our own, Western one.

Which other rich nations are more militaristic than the US? Which rich nations have started more wars against other countries than the US?
 
Which other rich nations are more militaristic than the US? Which rich nations have started more wars against other countries than the US?

Now you are shifting goal posts from individual incidents of mass-murder to national warfare. However, the answer is: lots. Britain, for example. China for another. Japan less so, but France and don't even get me started on Italy :).

But hey, don't sell us short - we're young :).
 
Are saying more guns lead to more mass murders? And you have ruled out learned behavior based on culture on what basis?

Just finalizing things from the paper.
It seems that they've identified the wrong thing which encourages/causes mass murder.

To me it seems like they think that having control over ones life is inherently masculine, but women too like having control over their lives.
To me, the primary cause of mass murder, just from reading this paper is a temporary psychotic episode.
 
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!

feeling powerless.

males are brought up to believe that they should be in control. when they aren't, some will look for someone to blame. often it will be family members, including their partner (especially if she has rejected him), or people who have, by their actions, tarnished the reputation of the killer - at least according to the killer. if this develops into an obsession (which may be more likely with those who already are showing some forms of mental illness) it can become extremely dangerous, especially if they have access to weapons.

this can account for higher suicide rates in males as well.

it is more likely that men who live in a society which promotes a "culture of honour" around masculinity will direct their anger outwards towards others.

why do some of these killers shoot soft targets?

that may be a measure of how powerless they feel in some cases - or, as in the case of anders Breivik as an example, his ideology allowed him to argue that he was doing society a favour by exterminating those who subscribed to a different view of the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom