Violent boys have been all over the news lately. Kevin Madden sentenced for first-degree murder for stabbing his 12-year-old brother 71 times in a quiet Toronto suburb. A 19-year-old in North Carolina killed his father and then randomly shot at students at a nearby high school last month. Early in September, Kimveer Gill shot 20 people at Dawson College, killing one innocent girl. A 15-year-old Wisconsin boy shot his school principal in cold blood last week. Two days before that Duane Morrison, a 53-year-old drifter, held six high school girls hostage for hours, sexually assaulting them before killing one (and then himself).
And now milk truck driver Charles Carl Roberts has shot 10 Amish girls in a one-room school house in Pennsylvania. He did the exact same thing that Morrison did he sent all the boys out of the classroom and focused his malice solely on the girls. Just like the infamous misogynist Marc Lépine did at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1989. And its apparent, based on the lube he was carrying and from what he told his wife, that Roberts was planning on molesting the girls (anybody surprised?).
There have been a lot of school shootings over the years. I remember coming home from school when I was 16 to see footage from Columbine on CNN, and crying. There have been a lot of shootings since then but I cant remember one single incident where the shooter was a girl. Not one. Ive looked all over the internet trying to find an example, and Ive come up empty handed. If you can name just one, just one, let me know.
When youre faced with horrific incidents like these and when the killer shoots girls, and only girls its really hard not to spend an afternoon thinking that there is something deeply, darkly twisted in the male psyche.
In an effort to do away with racial and sexual prejudice, progressive thinking people nowadays like to believe that everybody is really the same, that its just society and culture that make us different. But on days like today, its really hard to buy that.
There is no good evidence that racial differences have any real biological influence on your personality or intelligence. But the same cannot be said of gender - men and women are not the same. We arent. Not just in the shape of our bodies, but in the actual way our brains work. It would take many blog entries to go through all the differences, but this article lists a few. Suffice to say, men and women are equal, but we are not the same.
When I talk with friends about the prevalence of misogyny in our culture, I like to bring out this famous statistic: one in four women will be sexually assaulted in their lives. All my girlfriends silently nod we know from the intimate conversations we have when boys arent around that this is true. But all the guys in the room scoff and say it must be an exaggeration.
So I bring out another famous statistic. In 1990 sex researchers Randy and Nancy Thornhill asked the following question of a large number of men: If you could rape a woman, knowing with certainty that there would be no chance you would get caught and no one would ever find out, would you commit the act? In one of those surveys, 35 per cent of the men said yes. And as they say, rape is not about sex its about power, the same kind of power people who shoot innocent children are seeking.
When school shootings happen the media likes to blame video games, goth metal music, poor gun laws, and parents who just dont raise their kids right. Of course culture and society have a massive influence on what we think, feel, and do. But if you took all the video games and movies away, boys would still be more prone to violent behaviour than girls. Its that simple. Im not saying men are evil not at all. Nor am I saying girls dont ever murder or rape women can be sadistic too.
All Im saying is that theres a reason why whenever you hear about a school shooting on the news, you dont even have to look at the TV to know what the sex of the gunman is. And most of the time, you can probably guess the sex of the victims too.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
12 comments
Well, since you asked, in 1996 a 19-year-old student named Jillian Robbins shot and killed one woman and wounded four other students at Penn State university. But you're right, this is one single woman in a sea of male-orchestrated school violence. And yeah, it goes without saying that it doesn't take a psychic or a master of sociology to divine the gender of your average perpetrator of random violence. What I always wonder, though, when these things happen - as they seem to, a frightening amount right now - is less about the "male psyche" than about the social forces that shape the behaviour of men prone to solitude, delusions, and violent outbursts. I can't pretend to know what's going on inside the head of a killer, but I do know that most men are not a hair's breadth away from a murderous rampage - as a friend of mine pointed out, most humans have a huge innate mental resistance to killing other humans, and doing so causes permanent psychological damage. Thus I think, without knowing a lot about it, that mental illness, and the inability to find ways of coping with it, is a friggin' huge part of why random killing happens. Maybe I've got too much relativism in my blood, but I don't think there's much point in talking about men's violent tendencies separate from social constructions of masculinity and power. I'm not suggesting that "inside, we're all the same", and but for a few gory video games we'd all be holding hands and singing Kumbaya. But what leads men to think that women's and girls' lives aren't valuable - and that they won't be held accountable for taking them? I'm pretty sure it's not biology. Anyway, there's no easy answer to any of this. I just hope that women don't start to take on even more of the burden of fear and trepidation that's already such a part of our lives. It's hard not to.
Posted by Anna
October 4, 2006, 12:27 AM
Word on the post and Anna's comment, especially concerning the statistics. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said so far and truly believe that it's the culture, the media and not just the family that is implicated when this happens. One of the first things I thought of when hearing about these two cases was the Marv character in Sin City because as shown through the gunmen taking their lives after murdering the women and girls, there's this sort of kamikaze Kurt Cobain "die in a blaze of glory" mentality which as mentioned is centered on the social construction of masculinity: to be brash and have no regard for life only to "get the job done." And absolutely, absolutely this isn't biology nor is it some bogus "I just lost it/my temper" that so many men like to use as a cop-out. It may be mental illness in some cases of the shooters...but when people write them off as nutjobs and lunatics...takes gender out of the equation when it's hard enough to get people to talk about gender in the first place. One sure thing I think is...that if it were Black men, Asian men, Latino men who committed a string of similar crimes, in any random succession more than 2...they'd be talking all night about how these were black/asian/latino men killing women and girls.
Posted by Luke
October 4, 2006, 2:28 AM
As a male, I was naturally interested in the Randy and Nancy Thornhill statistic. I don't believe I have any latent desire to rape anyone, even if there were no consequences; what makes me so different from that 35%? Perhaps Thornhill and Thornhill had the answer!
Alas, I have found no reference to the 35% figure in their work, though it appears Randy Thornhill has attracted a lot of attention for his work on evolution and rape, especially the theory developed with Craig Palmer that rape may in fact be an evolutionary response, an alternative method of ensuring male reproductive success (related PDF). For obvious reasons, this is a controversial stance. Oh, and though it follows from the thesis, it's worth mentioning again: Thornhill and Palmer state explicitly in the PDF I linked that "many facts point to the conclusion that rape is, in its very essence, a sexual act."
The researcher who does seem to come up with the 35% figure is Neil Malamuth, who published an article called "Rape Proclivity Among Males" in the Journal of Social Issues in 1981. It's hard to find a copy online, even with access to a university network, but the best quotes I can find say that 35% of male college students surveyed report "at least some degree of likelihood of raping" if they were assured of escaping punishment. Note the various qualifiers: "college students," not "men" as a general group; "some degree of likelihood," not an absolute.
Aside from the specifics of the report, I take issue with the idea that thought necessarily equals action. Where's the study that asks men if they would kill, were there to be no consequences to their actions? And yet in general, people find it extraordinarily hard to kill other people, even in times of war when theoretically there are no consequences. There's a world of difference between saying you would kill someone given the perfect out, and actually killing someone; I submit a similar difference exists for rape.
And where's the justification for the statement that "if you took all the video games and movies away, boys would still be more prone to violent behaviour than girls"? Isn't there still a lot of discussion about whether violent tendencies are reinforced by cultural phenomena as opposed to biological phenomena? In fact, even the question of whether things like video games and violent movies cause an increase in aggressive or violent behavior is still open.
I don't want to minimize the issue of rape and domestic violence, believe me. I'm just ever-so-slightly offended at the notion that the only thing keeping me from raping every woman I know is the threat of jail time.
Posted by Wesley
October 4, 2006, 3:29 AM
Susan G. Cole over at NOW Magazine wrote a piece on this: http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006.... It's an interesting read; she touches on many of the themes discussed here so far, particularly the social and cultural (and political and economic, I would add) causes of male violence.
As Zoe has said, this is important stuff to talk about.
Posted by Nicole
October 4, 2006, 7:49 AM
Yesterday the Globe and Mail ran a "compare and contrast" box next to their three-page spread about the shooting in the Amish community: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servle... killings. They listed facts about the lives of Carl Charles Roberts,
Posted by thea
October 4, 2006, 11:38 AM
Not to blow our own horn, but I was pretty pleased with us yesterday when, after a day of reading news reports on the Pennsylvania killings that made not one mention of gender, I turned on my computer and found this very thoughtful discussion!
Yesterday the Globe and Mail ran a "compare and contrast" box that listed life facts about Carl Charles Roberts, Duane Morrison, Kimveer Gill and Eric Hainstock (that's the 15 year old who shot his principal in Wisconsin). The headline read "Aside from recent crimes, school shooters share few common traits." I was a leetle shocked that they didn't think it necessary to note that hey, all of them were men, all of them experienced some kind of abuse as children, and with the exception of Kimveer Gill, it seems like most of these kinds of killings are carried out by white men. (I don't know whether or not it is worth noting, or just a grim coincidence, that both Montreal shooters - Kimveer Gill and Marc Lepine in 1989 - were men of colour)
As Luke noted, if these crimes were all committed by men of colour, we'd be reading about the immigrant/native/black crime wave. Instead, reporters appear to be INCAPABLE of identifying the common gender and mostly common race of the shooters, along with their common cultural backgrounds (ie they're all North Americans - what are the stats for school shootings outside of Canada and America?).
This reminds me of the sex strike in Colombia, where the women are trying to tell the men that violence isn't sexy. That violence is sexy - and the acceptable and sometimes only way to express your thoughts and feelings - is a message that men hear everyday, and it must be at least a little part of why these shootings are happening.
That's not to say that I think male violence is rooted in video games and goth culture. I think it's pretty misguided to only locate violence in fringe elements of our way of life. I think our whole entire culture, from bottom to top, is lousy with the notion that violence is good and acceptable, from the way the school system works, from the evening news, from the latest Brad Pitt movie where all the dialogue contains anti-war rhetoric, but all the images glamourise extreme violence.
I do feel that culture far more than biology creates male violence. A huge part of the reason why I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's nature over nurture is because biology is unalterable, and leads to conclusions like "rape is necessary male behaviour." I don't for a sec believe that life has to be this way - that women and children have to live in continuous terror of being brutalised, and that men have to be so hurt, warped and twisted by their environment that one day extreme violence, rape and murder turn into good options.
Posted by thea
October 4, 2006, 12:17 PM
Wow, look at all these comments. So happy to see people talking about this, whether you agree with me or not.
First: thanks to Anna for telling us about Jillian Robbins, I stand corrected. Hats off to Robbins for taking us another step on the road to equality, by proving once again that a woman can be just as violent and crazy as any man girl power!
Just to clarify: I certainly dont think biology automatically determines your behaviour. Culture and society are enormously important and what we need to change. But there is unquestionably a biologically-rooted violent tendency that is much greater in a large number of men compared to women, and I think its important to recognize this. We cant change our genes, and we cant change our instincts but we can change our behaviour.
The I lost it argument, as Luke puts it, is indeed doesn't cut it. We all have some kind of devil dancing around in the back of our brain whether it be violent, insecure or selfish and part of the beauty of being human is learning to overcome those things.
Which is exactly why we need to focus on changing the social forces that shape the behaviour of men and social constructions of masculinity and power as Anna so puts it. But hey, then you have to wonder: where did those social constructions ultimately come from?
About the Thornhill and Thornhill study: I read about it in an extensive, detailed and incredibly absorbing book called Sex, Time and Power, by Dr. Leonard Shlain (which I would not recommend to most people who haven't studied highschool biology, it's very jargony). The paper in question is from Ethology and Sociobiology. Unfortunately, the University of Toronto cut off my library account six months after I got my zoology B.Sc. (thanks a lot, U of T) and ethological journals are not easily found without it.
Academics aside, rape is undoubtedly a successful sexual strategy in the animal kingdom in some species of ducks its practically the norm...so? In praying mantids and some spiders, female devouring male (sometimes while hes still copulating) is the norm. It doesnt mean that thats how it works in humans. But one thing we do know from other species is that rape is rare among most primates and monkeys and yet undeniably common in humans.
I dont want to give anyone the impression I think men are only kept from rape and murder by the threat of jail time - of course not. Nor did I (or anyone here) ever make the implication that thought equals action.
I would, though, like to post a response to two of Wesleys questions:
And wheres the justification for the statement that if you took all the video games and movies away, boys would still be more prone to violent behaviour than girls?
- Theres a great deal of research that shows that men are inherently more violent, probably due in part to the hormone testosterone - men contain about ten times more testosterone than women. This hormone is unquestionably linked to aggressive behaviour in all species. Generally, males with more testosterone will be bigger, stronger, and more violent. Its the same in humans - research shows that the more testosterone a man has, the more likely he is to be abusive.
And:
Isnt there still a lot of discussion about whether violent tendencies are reinforced by cultural phenomena as opposed to biological phenomena?
- Who said it had to be opposed to? Why not both cultural phenomena and biological phenomenons?
Of course not all men are rapists and murderers at heart - nor are all women wise and caring. And few things make a man more enjoyable than when he genuinely respects women as his equals (or even reads feminist internet blogs). And in most cases, whenever anybody is good or bad - male or female - it was probably not nature that made them so. Instead its more often nurture - parental, societal or otherwise.
Posted by zoe
October 4, 2006, 11:58 PM
Okay, I'm willing to buy both answers, though I'd still like to see the evidence of testosterone levels and violence (though it makes sense in my head). I guess the real issue was the idea of biological determinism, and the indictment I felt as a result. The hidden message I was taking away, and I probably just misinterpreted, was that the capacity for extreme violence lay in every man, and that we should all be held under greater suspicion as a result.
Setting that aside. I still think there is an element of "I lost it" in there, because clearly not all high school males walk into a classroom and shoot people. It may simply be a case of additional stresses on top of the baseline of male cultural conditioning and biology that causes extreme behavior, such that when you apply the same stresses to a female, you get a different result. So do you address the stuff that pushes men over the top to start shooting people and sexually assaulting women, or do you address the baseline somehow so that it never gets that far?
Posted by Wesley
October 5, 2006, 2:33 AM
Just a quick reply.
On testosterone and aggression and violence in the animal kingdom: I've devoted the better part of my adult life to studying animal physiology and behaviour, trust me, there's a mountain of evidence, its not controversial. And in terms of humans, there's lots of interesting studies one how hormones in general affect behaviour (testosterone in particular), enough for another blog post. Give me a few days so I can gather the research together and I'll post something new - its very interesting indeed.
Most guys, good or not, don't like to feel judged because of the behaviour of a few (or many) bad men. But, as Susan G Cole points out in that excellent Now piece, all of society - men and women - really need to admit that something is deeply wrong with the way women everywhere are treated by men. Not just a small minority of men, but a significant chunk of men worldwide.
As to what we need to address - the baseline or the stuff that pushes men over the edge - I'd say we can only address the stuff we can actually control. So we'd better address what we can properly.
Posted by zoe
October 5, 2006, 10:35 PM
I havn't read all of this, but I am outraged! when i think of my father, brother, spouce, friends! It is not normality and very raraly sanity, that drives to violence. I pitty you if all the males you know are more prone to violence than you are.
And as for the highschool murders:
THESE ARE BOYS!
Most of these boys can't even fathom the complexity of the repercussions to theire actions. it doesn't excuse them, but add inexpirience, to an abusive background, to everyday mistreatment at the schoolyard which leads to deap depressions(I've been there and have wished people dead, amongst myself): this WILL warp one's perception of right and wrong. People who don't deal with all this s**t, don't go on killing/raping sprees because of a video game!!
Posted by Tali
October 7, 2006, 5 AM
One of the first recorded instances of a school shooting was by a girl called Brenda in the late 1970s. She's the subject of the song I Don't Like Mondays by The Boomtown Rats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_A...
Posted by Jane
October 14, 2006, 10:34 AM
I'm weighing in very late to this topic, but stumbled upon it by accident and would like to mention something that may have been overlooked.
Though I am sure that testosterone does play a role in repetitive aggressive behavior, I wouldn't believe that it would be the determining factor in a "lashing out" kind of attack that is usually reported on in the news (i.e. school shootings and the like). I believe that testosterone levels would probably result in consistent aggressive behavior that likely is more ritualistic than impulsive.
I would hesitate to place the blame on video games or entertainment such as movies and music as entertainment has always been an excellent way for anyone of any sex to "blow off steam" and with the exponentialy growing video gaming market hitting its stride, we haven't seen an exponential increase (or anywhere near significant increase) in these types of violence.
If I were to give my opinion on what could be pushing these people (mainly males) to violence, I would point at current societal perceptions of men who vent their feelings, frustrations, etc openly. Any male who cries or shows weakness in public is generally mocked, demeaned, or made a public spectacle of not only in our society, but in their homes as well.
I would certainly not rule this out as aside from chemical disparities between males and female and traditional societal roles (nurturers vs. hunters/providers), it stands out as the one major difference between the genders.
The choice of gender in victim could be a result of subconscious envy over those who can vent their emotions, hatred over those causing the feelings in the cases of rejected suitors being projected on the gender as a whole, etc.
Posted by Chad
February 19, 2008, 3:30 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.