[X-post from r/science] New "scientific study" links mass shooters to "masculine overcompensation" and toxic masculinity.

a-man-from-earth · 2021-03-19T19:04:07+00:00

Since both this paper is paywalled and the original topic over on the crossposted sub is removed, I don't think there's much to discuss here.

SamaelET · 2021-03-19T01:43:05+00:00

"Scientific study" interpret reality to fit their narrative.

ShortTailBoa · 2021-03-19T01:21:08+00:00

We're into straight up eugenics and yet people still don't think the West has a problem with misandry.

It's so fucking scary because the whole thing my entire life has been "How could Germany have let the holocaust happen?!" and yet we're going down the same exact path.

a-man-from-earth · 2021-03-19T00:35:48+00:00

As with all crossposts, please do not downvote brigade the linked post against reddit's ToS. Thank you. I'm linking this because I thought members here might like to engage the people over at r/science in healthy discussion on the topic of mass shooters and the causes for it.

OirishM · 2021-03-19T14:18:19+00:00

Assuming because it's paywalled a lot of people are just reacting to the abstract.

It's a fairly basic computational text analysis that looks for specific terms in 27 shooter manifestos (FREX / Frequency and Exclusivity approach).

Topic headers and words assigned are, in order in which they appeared in the results:

APOLOGIES (love, god, hate, sorry, help, together)

PLANNED SHOOTING (shoot, today, school, date, past, dear)

FRAGILE MASCULINITY (kill, men, girls, world, near, rejected)

STATUS THREAT (white, black, university, laws, favourite, women)

ANGER (fuck, fucked, children, weak, single, fucking)

HOMELIFE/SOCIAL EXCLUSION (real, knew, suicide, end, began, home)

Their implications/recommendations in closing are:

Understand shootings in their social context
Address root causes, which includes addressing social processes which lead to toxic masculinity and white supremacy
structural change is necessary, particularly because bigoted beliefs are framed as equality struggles (they do explicitly name men's rights and reverse racism here)
anti-bullying campaigns often neglect to focus on the home life of bullying victims, and school life shouldn't be the sole focus

I'd personally say I'm not 100pc convinced the text analysis is solid, but computer based sentiment analysis is not an uncommon approach in other fields too. There is nothing inherently wrong with reviewing a tranche of manifestos for common themes. I'd only really be concerned about how broad their interpretation of men's rights is, and to what extent they consider that problematic. Ditto whether their notion of structural issues includes those affecting men. However, there isn't enough in this paper alone to conclude that they are outright hostile to our sorts of concerns. At best, given the theoretical lineage they declare at the start of their paper, they are potentially just ignorant to alternative lenses and frameworks (not a rare occurrence in social sciences).

THINGS THIS PAPER IS NOT:

A call for eugenics
Part of a path to genocide

Personal background: Degrees in both hard and soft science. Yeah, this paper is scientific, bruhs. Method and framework declared, measurements presented, conclusions and possible issues with the approach set out. That people are willing to read shit into it that isn't there (and I'd again question how many people actually read the paper) and get spooked over a very creative reading of the abstract (while accusing the authors of interpreting creatively to fit a narrative...hm) doesn't do anything to change the merits of this paper. It's not making statements about all men, the main focus of the paper is the final declaration of a couple of dozen specific men, and talking about some of the broader threads in society that contribute to men like that committing mass shootings.

It's an interesting approach, and I hope more research of this kind is done.

2021-03-19T04:14:49+00:00

Men by default are blank slates and don't really have anything valuable about them. Sperm is in such abundance it's absolutely worthless. Women have something valuable about them just by being a woman. So they get taken care of much more, they're "included" in society. In some sense they are society. Women and children are the core of society while men are just kind of darting around in every which way trying to fit in. Men only really get to be included if they have something valuable they bring to the table. A man being part of society and belonging is a fleeting thing, it's not something he can ever take as a given.

So overall men are really are pushed to the wire in terms of trying to find their place in the world. So you get these extreme outcomes from men, they end up all over the place, both at the very top and the very bottom. I't's like Camille Paglia said: There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.

A common theme amongst shooters is they are generally extremely low in the hierarchy and excluded from everything. We have the phrase which by now has been said so much its a cliche but it's still true: The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.

Going back to my first paragraph, I think feminists and gender abolitionists are just blind to this fundamental difference between men and women. Women have an innate value that men simply don't have. So all men's high standing in society is merely a way to compensate for that. Men have a drive to achieve status because they need to have it. But to look at the final outcome and declare it's an injustice, that's ridiculous. If you artificially force men and women to have completely equal standings in society (with quotas and programs whenever women are under represented)... we're going to end up in a position where women have their innate value AND societal value over men. Men will be fucked. And I dont think that will be good for women anyway, women have no desire to seek partners beneath themselves.

Neveah_Hope_Dreams · 2021-03-19T06:11:48+00:00

Are they sure this is scientific?

AutoModerator · 2021-03-19T00:34:43+00:00

Reminder everyone - Don't brigade the crossposted sub. It's against reddit rules.

To document instances of misandry, consider these options

1) take screenshots and upload them to Imgur
2) archive the page using a site like https://archive.vn/
3) crosspost the link to a dedicated subreddit like /r/everydaymisandry

You can also report misandry directly to the admins here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

RockmanXX · 2021-03-19T13:00:36+00:00

Your post has been removed because the referenced research was published in a journal that fails to meet the minimum quality requirement per our Submission Rules

Now, that brings a smile to my face.

Title	[X-post from r/science] New "scientific study" links mass shooters to "masculine overcompensation" and toxic masculinity.
Author	Gamer_Jack_Gameson
Upvotes	13
Comments	32
Date	March 19, 2021 12:34 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/m852gt/xpost_from_rscience_new_scientific_study_links/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/x-post-from-rscience-new-scientific-study-links.1190695 https://theredarchive.com/post/1190695

Comments