51
52

‘Damaged masculinity’ may help explain Columbine and other mass shootings (washingtonpost.com)

Zenga99 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Zenga99[S] 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

Mass shooters in the United States are overwhelmingly men. This has prompted experts, like Dr. Jackson Katz, to argue that masculinity, rather than guns or mental illness, should be at the forefront of the national conversation on what causes mass shootings.

This article follows a similar line of thought in discussing the Columbine shooters’ “damaged masculinity” (today is the anniversary of the Columbine massacre). The article discusses how one of the shooters was born with birth defects that required surgery and gave him a sunken, frail chest. As a result, he had difficulty gaining acceptance as strong or traditionally masculine, and so turned to guns to give him a sense of power and control.

I think a conversation on masculinity as it relates to mass shooters is important for two reasons. First, while gun control is an important issue, women have generally the same access to guns and yet aren’t committing mass murders at the same rate, indicating there is some kind of relationship between masculinity and mass shootings. Second, the national conversation regarding mental illness in the wake of mass shootings only serves to stigmatize the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom are not violent and are more likely to be the victims of violence than to commit it.

I think positive, healthy discussions regarding masculinity can help men by allowing them to construct their own masculine identity- one that doesn’t need to be reinforced through violence. This can help both men on an individual level and societal level by allowing them to feel secure in their identity.

[–]jolly_mcfats 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Disclaimer: I was present at a school shooting, and the school was small enough that I knew both the shooter and the victims. I have to watch what I type when I discuss these things because these conversations tend to be very frustrating.

I think positive, healthy discussions regarding masculinity can help men by allowing them to construct their own masculine identity- one that doesn’t need to be reinforced through violence. This can help both men on an individual level and societal level by allowing them to feel secure in their identity.

Let me start out referencing an earlier post. I don't think that the problem is exclusively fixed by individual men constructing their own, positive, masculine identity. The way men choose to perform masculinity is- at least in part- a response to the norms that surround them, and the way that men and women of their community enforce those norms. The way that the community presents masculinity in terms to men contributes to the pressure to constantly perform masculinity, and what behavior is coded as masculine. Our attitudes relating to boys and men who do not demonstrate that they can earn...

ok, I was tempted to write "real man" status here, but I think that that sidesteps the issue, liberals and feminists tend to hear that and think "well, I think 'real man' is a stupid term, so I'm not part of the problem"- but I'm not talking about "real man" in the term of a lumber jack stereotype. "Real men" can also look like John Stewart or Justin Trudeau. If you use terms like "man-child" or "man-baby", "loser", etc... You are still feeding into this man/boy dichotomy. Even a lot of people who think that they are progressive seem to reinforce a lot of norms about how men should behave which deny men moral patiency. I often see this just written off as the fault of "traditional masculinity"- but honestly, I don't think "progressive" masculinity differs too greatly from traditional masculinity. There's still a lot of responsibility laid at the feet of men, a lot of calls for stoicism, a great discomfort with men expressing frustration and anger, still an emphasis on protecting and providing, and- while I think which behaviors are "male-coded", I still don't think progressive men are less inclined to continually perform gender than traditional men (even if that gender performance happens to be wearing a utilikilt).

I do think that mental health issues figure into this- but I also think that socially we create a situation where men in dark places feel that it is better to perform "bad" masculinity than it is to continue to endure whatever it is they are enduring. Norms which say that men are responsible for their fixing their own problems and that men who can't don't matter- that's (IMO) part of the reason that we see a correlation between gender and spree-killings.

[–]Mobilematt1 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

This has prompted experts, like Dr. Jackson Katz, to argue that masculinity, rather than guns or mental illness, should be at the forefront of the national conversation on what causes mass shootings.

I fear this statement could be misused. Masculinity is a natural thing that exists. There are men, there are certain attributes typical of men. It is a good thing. It is this damaged masculinity (that you later specify) that causes men to act out like this. They can't achieve masculinity on their own, so they find violence as a tool they can use to achieve it.

[–]Zenga99[S] 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

Masculinity is a natural thing that exists.

I would actually argue that what we think of as "masculinity" (as a gender role) is largely a social construct, as opposed to biological male sex, but that's just nitpicking, your point is well taken.

I agree, and this is where I think the concept of multiple masculinities, that is to say the idea that a man can forge his own identity as a man, is beneficial. This way men aren't held to a ridiculous, unhealthy social standard of masculinity, and there's no sense of damage from not achieving it. Instead, men can determine for themselves what being a man means to them.

I think it leads to interesting discussions about what healthy and positive masculinities would look like. An interesting example is something like toughness. I actually really value toughness as a trait and I would want my son (or daughter) to be mentally and physically tough. But how do we measure when the trait is taken too far? How do we distinguish being mentally tough from being self-destructive, e.g. a man not opening up about a problem that is seriously bothering him until he snaps? These are the kinds of areas I think the current standards for masculinity are poor, and letting men determine for themselves what situations call for toughness/strength/resilience and what situations call for help would be great for our collective mental health.

[–]CCwind 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would actually argue that what we think of as "masculinity" (as a gender role) is largely a social construct, as opposed to biological male sex, but that's just nitpicking,*

Like most things, there is likely a mix of nature and nurture involved as the expression of natural tendencies is guided by social expectations. The greatest obstacle at the moment is that we lack an in depth understanding of what masculinity is, or rather how that interplay of nature and nurture play out.

What I have seen is a default rejection of traditional ideas about masculinity in the realm of gender discussions, since the traditional is associated with the Patriarchy and must be torn down and made from from scratch. But unlike the process of investigation that occurred with feminists exploring what it means to be a woman, most of the discussion around masculinity seems to be "what do we want masculinity to be". This is valid if and only if masculinity is entirely a social construct. If there is a biological component, then trying to prescribe the form of masculinity will inevitably lead to a form of dysphoria, not unlike the discomfort felt by those who feel they can't achieve the expectations of masculinity described in the article.

Traditional masculinity as a whole and not just the parts deemed toxic in the present discussion, is the result of many centuries of humans that were just as wise and smart as you and I finding an optimal balance of the natural tendencies and the needs of society. It may well be that the present society is fundamentally different from previous societies, so not everything is applicable. But there is wisdom and understanding in the old views of masculinity (again not just the toxic components) that can gleaned and added to newer thinking to create a healthy masculinity.

Of course this may mean that not everyone will be able to get what they want in this new masculinity, but defining masculinity in a certain way just because someone thinks it is a good idea isn't going to work.

*this isn't aimed as a response or refutation of the quoted comment, just using it as a jumping off point.