Mass shooting at e-sports event in US: 3 confirmed dead

Parksey wrote:How can you tell that men are historically more violent than women though?

The data is skewed surely? Our history is 99% made up of unequal patriarchal societies which has strongly discriminated on gender. Are men leading armies, killing, ruling, invading because they are men, or because they are in positions of leadership and power and they automatically go entirely to men?

If we had enough matriarchal societies to draw on, we might be able make some comparisons, but the fact that men have done stuff in the past doesn't mean much, when it was largely only men being able to do stuff.

How did men become the automatic leaders of the societies? Maybe they asked the ladies nicely and it was agreed?

Maybe all those peaceful men just gave in when the violent and powerful women asked them to pretend the ladies were not in charge?

Men are physically bigger and stronger than women (in general) for a reason. Men (in general) did the fighting.

That’s not to say it goes for every human society that’s ever existed, but (in general) we have the evidence of so many patriarchal societies because men took what they wanted and were willing to fight/kill to get it.

well that's kind of what we've been arguing about for the last 5 pages - men are objectively more violent than women, but why and how is the question if we want to improve society

yeah Moggy youre right; women are pussies lol

<]:^D wrote:yeah Moggy youre right; women are pussies lol

Well that’s not really my argument either.

Traditionally men have been the more violent sex, but that doesn’t mean they have to be.

I blame that Monolith from 2001. Bloody Monoliths, always ruining it for everybody

Moggy wrote:

<]:^D wrote:yeah Moggy youre right; women are pussies lol

Well that’s not really my argument either.

Traditionally men have been the more violent sex, but that doesn’t mean they have to be.

<]:^D wrote:

Moggy wrote:

<]:^D wrote:yeah Moggy youre right; women are pussies lol

Well that’s not really my argument either.

Traditionally men have been the more violent sex, but that doesn’t mean they have to be.

You’re lucky I’ve seen Spongebob or else I’d strawberry floating smash your teeth in.

I was waiting for the first comment along those lines
so predictable

<]:^D wrote:I was waiting for the first comment along those lines
so predictable

I was waiting for the “so predictable” comment.

So easy to read.

mogy pls

It's indisputable that men are statistically as a block biologically stronger than women (EDIT: though there's more overlap than you might think in those statistics!). It's much less clear that men are biologically more violent in their psychology. But it's easy to speculate as to how a story like that developed and became culturally ubiquitous. It began with that slight biological power imbalance, so perhaps men and women gradually specialised in their tribal roles (e.g. war vs. childbearing), and then we started gendering the emotions those activities make us feel (e.g. anger vs. kindness). So now in those prehistoric societies you have socially constructed, self-reinforcing gender roles, masculinity and femininity. Of course, early humans wouldn't contextualise those ideas like we do, and for tens of thousands of years we'd think "well women are just inherently gentle!" rather than realising that's an association we constructed and, through social conformity, reinforce ourselves.

Karl wrote:book speak jibbersmarts

Wouldn't it be fair to say though that women are objectively more gentle as a sex because their evolution has demanded it? Women that bear children are "forced" (through their biology) to care for the infant to prevent it from dying from neglect by the release of hormones (Oxytocin?) during breastfeeding? This makes every child-bearing woman inherently gentler and less prone to violence, as that would endanger their child, whereas the men don't have that same connection (shoot and scoot, as it were).

This is me spitballing off the top of my head, so go easy on me.

book speak jibbersmarts

<]:^D wrote:book speak jibbersmarts

Preezy wrote:

Karl wrote:book speak jibbersmarts

Fair enough.

Preezy wrote:Wouldn't it be fair to say though that women are objectively more gentle as a sex because their evolution has demanded it? Women that bear children are "forced" (through their biology) to care for the infant to prevent it from dying from neglect by the release of hormones (Oxytocin?) during breastfeeding? This makes every child-bearing woman inherently gentler and less prone to violence, as that would endanger their child, whereas the men don't have that same connection (shoot and scoot, as it were).

This is me spitballing off the top of my head, so go easy on me.

Sure. For what it's worth I don't think there's anything wrong/offensive/aggravating about asking that question, it's cool with me.

I do study endocrinology to an extent but I don't know much about the effects of oxytocin. I focus mostly on small-molecule neurotransmitters, particularly monoamines (this is more fancy nerd-talk for "stuff in your brain that looks like dopamine and serotonin", and all that looks very different to oxytocin). I'm aware oxytocin does, in layman's terms, biologically "force" you to imprint onto and love your baby, but it also "forces" you to freak the hell out - sometimes to heroic degrees, like women who have dug through avalanches to find their kids - if your baby is in danger. So I guess one point I think is interesting that it's not entirely a "docile-ising" hormone. Oxytocin isn't an exclusively female hormone either: oxytocin levels spike in men during and post ejaculation, for instance, which appears to be a way for your biology to push you towards forming an emotional bond with your partner (or your hand, heyooo!!!). So this doesn't really support the "innately shoot and scoot" theory of male sexuality.

So I don't think there's anything about oxytocin that would support the argument that women have an intrinsic quality of gentleness. The idea that women and men have intrinsic psychological and emotional qualities is called "gender essentialism". It's hard to Google & read about gender essentialism because it's currently a battleground within feminist academia, with a form of the idea being used (by a small but angry & loud minority of feminists) to simultaneously exclude trans women as well as discredit their existence -- the "trans-exclusionary" argument goes along the lines of "men have a 'male brain' and can never be women because of that; but if you say you feel like you have a 'female brain' then that's offensive, you can't define femininity in such base and sexist terms!", and I swear I'm not misrepresenting that, it's exactly as hypocritical and dumb as it sounds. Anyway, it's a minefield, but the short story is that the concept seems pretty flawed -- there are a few measurable differences in brain structure and psychology between men and women, but it doesn't tend to be anything like "women are inherently gentle", it tends to be technical points like "women on average have higher neuron density in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis".

Karl wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Karl wrote:book speak jibbersmarts

Fair enough.

Preezy wrote:Wouldn't it be fair to say though that women are objectively more gentle as a sex because their evolution has demanded it? Women that bear children are "forced" (through their biology) to care for the infant to prevent it from dying from neglect by the release of hormones (Oxytocin?) during breastfeeding? This makes every child-bearing woman inherently gentler and less prone to violence, as that would endanger their child, whereas the men don't have that same connection (shoot and scoot, as it were).

This is me spitballing off the top of my head, so go easy on me.

Sure. For what it's worth I don't think there's anything wrong/offensive/aggravating about asking that question, it's cool with me.

I do study endocrinology to an extent but I don't know much about the effects of oxytocin. I focus mostly on small-molecule neurotransmitters, particularly monoamines (this is more fancy nerd-talk for "stuff in your brain that looks like dopamine and serotonin", and all that looks very different to oxytocin). I'm aware oxytocin does, in layman's terms, biologically "force" you to imprint onto and love your baby, but it also "forces" you to freak the hell out - sometimes to heroic degrees, like women who have dug through avalanches to find their kids - if your baby is in danger. So I guess one point I think is interesting that it's not entirely a "docile-ising" hormone. Oxytocin isn't an exclusively female hormone either: oxytocin levels spike in men during and post ejaculation, for instance, which appears to be a way for your biology to push you towards forming an emotional bond with your partner (or your hand, heyooo!!!). So this doesn't really support the "innately shoot and scoot" theory of male sexuality.

So I don't think there's anything about oxytocin that would support the argument that women have an intrinsic quality of gentleness. The idea that women and men have intrinsic psychological and emotional qualities is called "gender essentialism". It's hard to Google & read about gender essentialism because it's currently a battleground within feminist academia, with a form of the idea being used (by a small but angry & loud minority of feminists) to simultaneously exclude trans women as well as discredit their existence -- the "trans-exclusionary" argument goes along the lines of "men have a 'male brain' and can never be women because of that; but if you say you feel like you have a 'female brain' then that's offensive, you can't define femininity in such base and sexist terms!", and I swear I'm not misrepresenting that, it's exactly as hypocritical and dumb as it sounds. Anyway, it's a minefield, but the short story is that the concept seems pretty flawed -- there are a few measurable differences in brain structure and psychology between men and women, but it doesn't tend to be anything like "women are inherently gentle", it tends to be technical points like "women on average have higher neuron density in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis".

Are you saying if the gunmen had a wank before they went on a shooting spree then the shooting spree wouldn't have happened?

Yes. He should have gone home, had a good cry, stuck on the grossest porn he could find, spent a couple hours having an epic misery wank, then wasted the rest of that evening watching "cats being assholes" compilations on YouTube and eating an entire family bucket of KFC to himself. The next morning he would feel a bit ashamed but probably not murderous any more. This is what emotional self-care is. Don't @ me.

Karl wrote:Yes. He should have gone home, had a good cry, stuck on the grossest porn he could find, spent a couple hours having an epic misery wank, then wasted the rest of that evening watching "cats being assholes" compilations on YouTube and eating an entire family bucket of KFC to himself. The next morning he would feel a bit ashamed but probably not murderous any more.

Works for me every single day.

@Preezy (and anyone else reading really -- Rightey? Ad7? Kerr?): Genuine question back, legit not trying to lead you anywhere. (This isn't a trap, I'm not gonna spring at you next post with some rant and go "haha I win the discourse", I promise!)

What are your thoughts on male suicide rates? I come at it and try to understand it from a few angles - mental healthcare, also feminism, and I think there's a decent argument to be made that capitalism isn't helping either - but I'm interested in your angle on it. Why do so many men kill themselves?

As a follow-up question, is it ever appropriate to think about that "academically", with cold detachment, and try to put a political view forward? It's an emotive issue for me, I've been stood on the edge of a roof before, so even though 99% of me encourages the debate there's still that 1% saying, y'know, "I'm not a political point!". What are your thoughts on that, is it OK to have an agenda about male suicide, or is that manipulative? Even if that agenda is aimed at helping depressed men?

Karl wrote:Yes. He should have gone home, had a good cry, stuck on the grossest porn he could find, spent a couple hours having an epic misery wank, then wasted the rest of that evening watching "cats being assholes" compilations on YouTube and eating an entire family bucket of KFC to himself. The next morning he would feel a bit ashamed but probably not murderous any more. This is what emotional self-care is. Don't @ me.