Hard News: Cultures and violence
464 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 19 Newer→ Last
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
while 'acceptance' definitely is not.
It was your acceptance I was referring to.
Acceptance that these things happen, acceptance that there are people out there you can't do anything about. The common denominator is these are all mass deaths. They happen. We have become accepting of (some of) them happening and life carries on. But this mass shooting has moved us deeper in our self than is usual because we as parents have kids and are fearful of how vulnerable they are, and, it is possible it could be us, however small a chance/risk it is. And we won't be able to do a bloody thing about it.
As you alluded to, I think that one may have to accept this will happen again and again even though it is an "unacceptable" act. I could use all the words that describe how appalling it was but no description will counter our need to grieve.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
This…
I’ve said more times than I can recall in talks about this that the great gift of learning to understand how my boys were different was learning along the way how everyone is different. That people may respond differently because their actual experience of the world is different.
Well said, and whilst this pertains to your kids, I’d like to add that I try to apply that to all the beings I meet and some of them don’t even like me ?? ;)
I have found it beneficial to engage with more difficult/interesting types than to ignore them and to say the least, I feel I do get a better understanding of human behaviour than others I know, who gravitate toward like minded people.
and this…I actually regard that insight as a significant professional benefit in my line of work.
That’s one of your many fine traits, witnessed on many an occasion. Maestro!
ETA I quite like these twitter feeds that run down the page. So Longstones gone eh?? Can Parata follow suit. -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
On the other hand this XXXX is probably quite nice, and I remember various other beers designated by various numbers of Xs on the cask.
The name dates back to the days when most people couldn't read. Some argue that Castlemaine XXXX is so called because Queenslanders/Australians still can't.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I have to go and do an interview about drug law reform in Latin America now. Bizarrely
Oh and this ,not that bizarre, $30 and someone else can use their gun for you. One thing my bro found crazy down Guatemala way.He, who came from being frisked for weapons to get into school each morning at Venice High in CA
-
John Armstrong, in reply to
But I don't accept anything about this, beyond the fact that it has happened. My understanding of acceptance is that you no longer strive for change. That is not my response.
That said, I have a feeling that we are on slightly different wavelengths here, so apologies if I am still misconstruing your point .
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
In part that’s because it can feel really quite perilous to do so.
Because… feminists are so mean?
I tried half a dozen responses to that and the best that I could come up with was that I’d be sure to let you know when I’d stopped beating my wife.
But that wouldn’t be a good-faith response, and I’ve been off and had a bike ride, so …
As Keir noted, part of the problem for men discussing gender is that it will almost always be a discussion framed by women, and by women who have the benefit of a particular academic background, and will use a particular related vocabulary. (I don’t really know what “performative” means.)
As Bart said, even if you’re talking about your own feelings, the risk of being informed that you’re doing it wrong is quite high.
In some settings, it’s also really important to steer clear of the idea that women and men are biologically and neurologically different and their responses to their environment may consequently differ, even though that’s an uncontroversial fact anywhere outside the humanities. (In an area I know something about, the experience of autism appears to be profoundly different in women and men. The same appears to be true of depression.) It will likely cause a a shitfight. It’s really only safe to talk about gender as a social construct, and that can seem suffocating.
The risk of being deemed an asshole in such a discussion is also considerably higher if you’re male. You can’t fall back on privilege arguments.
In sum, it’s a discussion that’s structurally difficult for men to have on their own terms, and it can be hard to feel safe doing so on someone else’s. It’s a lot easier not to go there.
PS: This has come out more about discussing gender on blogs like this one, but I think the point holds about it being a discussion often not readily available to men.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
That was a really good bike ride! Exactly that feeling for me.
-
Yamis, in reply to
It was your acceptance I was referring to.
Acceptance that these things happen, acceptance that there are people out there you can't do anything about. The common denominator is these are all mass deaths. They happen. We have become accepting of (some of) them happening and life carries on. But this mass shooting has moved us deeper in our self than is usual because we as parents have kids and are fearful of how vulnerable they are, and, it is possible it could be us, however small a chance/risk it is. And we won't be able to do a bloody thing about it.There are plenty of people in the US who don't accept these mass shootings and campaign year after year to get mroe gun control to try to prevent them.
To go back to your earlier comments on road deaths, ... it's like accepting road deaths. We don't. Yes they happen, but there are lot's of things constantly being done to reduce the likelihood of them happening from road design, to drink driving laws, to speed limits, to seatbelt and airbags to better designed vehicles...
Will they keep happening? yes
Will we we have to deal with that? yes.But I think dealing with something is very different to accepting something.
-
This is all very interesting.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/latest-updates-on-connecticut-shooting-aftermath/?hp
Even Rupert Murdoch has come out in support of tighter gun controls and given his media empire that could carry some influence.
and from the NRA in another NY Times article: “The N.R.A. is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to make sure this never happens again,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/states-leaders-proposing-steps-to-control-guns.html?hp&_r=0
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
it’s also really important to steer clear of the idea that women and men are biologically and neurologically different and their responses to their environment may consequently differ, even though that’s an uncontroversial fact anywhere outside the humanities. ... It will likely cause a a shitfight. It’s really only safe to talk about gender as a social construct
It would be a bit less likely to cause a shitfight if we could rigorously use quantifiers like "some" and "many". Lots of indisputably biological differences (for example height, upper body strength) are only differences in an aggregate, statistical sense, and we shouldn't erroneously extrapolate out that I'm taller than Danielle.
I personally feel on safer ground talking about masculinity whatever that is than speculating about the experience of a group I don't belong to, but maybe that's down to my upbringing by a stern 70s feminist ;-)
In the present case, where we are talking about antisocial behaviour that skews strongly male, it's not clear to me how labelling its cause as neurological or biological actually would shape a reasonable policy response -- it seems to me that a response aimed at shaping culture will be hard to tell from a response aimed at blunting innate behaviour. I just don't think it's as helpful as it is interesting. And it may be that the biological basis for spree killing is not testosterone driven status aggression alone. Perhaps the biological fact of having a penis makes it much more likely that you get a particular kind of socialisation which is also a prerequisite.
-
Islander, in reply to
And it may be that the biological basis for spree killing is not testosterone driven status aggression alone. Perhaps the biological fact of having a penis makes it much more likely that you get a particular kind of socialisation which is also a prerequisite.
My family is a matriarchy (and it took an outside male, marrying in, to wake us to the fact.) It's always just been - normal. The senior women decide, and the rest of us do...we come from Kai Tahu, Orkney Scots & Lancashire lines, and the socially dominant women in those cultures have always -urm, ruled the roost?
One of my male sibs doesnt like shooting. He's a really good fisher. He is very gentle with younger/way older/ disabled family members. It's - just the way he is. The other of my male sibs has been - since he was in his very early teens - a superb hunter (fisher not so much) and an easily-dominating male (his family & friends just accept that that is - him.) I can always rely on them for family/personal help. Despite having the same parentage, they are very different people-
my younger brother can be so gentle with his kids that it makes me want to weep- but he can also be uncompromisingly tough. My other brother has not had kids - he is good with anyone who needs support.
Sooo...
May I point out our father died when I was 11? I am oldest.
Both my male sibs were way younger (one 4 years younger than me, and the other 7 years younger.)
The matriarch - aside from all the stories - was my tiny (she stood 4'9") Nanna
and her only daughter, our mother...
who knows how family currents & expectations mould people? -
I tried half a dozen responses to that and the best that I could come up with was that I’d be sure to let you know when I’d stopped beating my wife.
It was a slightly snippy question, but it actually was an honest one. (And frankly, your answer does contain a few elements of “feminists are so mean”. Doesn’t it?)
part of the problem for men discussing gender is that it will almost always be a discussion framed by women, and by women who have the benefit of a particular academic background, and will use a particular related vocabulary.
I am hard-pressed to think of a similar area of expertise on PAS which causes these sorts of objections. When Ben talks hardcore philosophy, or when the computer-expert types talk about security holes, I am going to tell you right now: I have no fucking idea what any of it means (sorry Ben. :) ) Now, it may be that people are more invested in this topic – we are, after all, wrestling with ideas about gender every day – but shouldn’t that mean you would be pretty happy about having someone who *thinks about this for a living* involved in the discussion? (I, incidentally, am not that person: I last took a postgraduate class in Women’s Studies in 2001, so I am hardly on the bleeding edge of academic theory at this point. I get many of my recent ideas from blogs. That’s probably where I learned about performativity, as it happens.)
even though that’s an uncontroversial fact anywhere outside the humanities
It’s actually a pretty accepted fact within the humanities too, but the point is that no one really understands to what extent those biological differences create behavioural differences – and, as Stephen said above, what good does it do in these discussions to keep saying that over and over if it can’t shape a reasonable response anyway? (Also, everything else he said.)
It’s really only safe to talk about gender as a social construct, and that can seem suffocating. The risk of being deemed an asshole in such a discussion is also considerably higher if you’re male. You can’t fall back on privilege arguments.
Honestly, do you really think of us as a bunch of hatchet-raised harpies, Russell, poised to come down on you like a tonne of bricks? Because that’s the impression you’re giving me right now.
a discussion that’s structurally difficult for men to have on their own terms
I don’t quite understand what this means. Are you saying that because women created the terminology, men can’t use it to discuss things? Or…?
I have had plenty of discussions about gender with men which haven’t turned into the shitfight you’re describing. We can rebuild it! We have the technology! (I make that reference knowing full well that anyone under 35 won’t get it. Sigh.)
ETA Stephen, you probably are taller than me. EVERYONE is taller than me. Except Snooki.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It would be a bit less likely to cause a shitfight if we could rigorously use quantifiers like “some” and “many”.
Or "may"? I said "may".
and we shouldn’t erroneously extrapolate out that I’m taller than Danielle.
But I can 100% guarantee you that your neurophysiology -- your brain -- is different to Danielle's, and that that has an influence on your responses to your environment. It's a value-neutral fact.
In the present case, where we are talking about antisocial behaviour that skews strongly male, it’s not clear to me how labelling its cause as neurological or biological actually would shape a reasonable policy response
And yet we regard depression as an illness, rather than telling people to pull themselves together. And many of the men who harm their families and themselves suffer from depression. The decades in which autism was treated purely as a behavioural or social issue -- the "Refrigerator Mother" years -- were disastrous. I'm puzzled as to how medicine could not inform a social policy response.
And it may be that the biological basis for spree killing is not testosterone driven status aggression alone.
But who, anywhere in this thread, has actually said that? Not me.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Honestly, do you really think of us as a bunch of hatchet-raised harpies, Russell, poised to come down on you like a tonne of bricks? Because that’s the impression you’re giving me right now.
This is hyperbole. I tried to give a good-faith answer to your question. Let's leave it at that.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I can 100% guarantee you that your neurophysiology – your brain – is different to Danielle’s, and that that has an influence on your responses to your environment. It’s a value-neutral fact.
Erm, I'm pretty sure the male-brain/female-brain thing is a myth. I can't Google it right now but I have read that idea being roundly debunked. There may be statistical trends, but that says nothing about any particular individual, and individuals are soooo various.
To a lesser extent, hormones are less dichotomous than people assume. Men have varying levels of testosterone and women have it in small quantities also. Variability is high. -
Danielle, in reply to
This is hyperbole.
Yes. I couldn't resist the alliteration or the imagery. :) The rest of my post isn't, however, and you appear to... not want to engage with that.
-
Possibly that reluctance to engage is like, a thing worth dealing with.
-
andin, in reply to
who knows how family currents & expectations mould people?
By watching beautifully as you seem to have.
When it comes to bad, urm, behaviour families have to "learn as you go" (sounds corny I know)
Or the state apparatus will step in. And that seems a fearful prospect. It shouldn't be. -
Danielle, in reply to
I am completely nonplussed, because really, seriously, I am not trying to offend Russell. I am actually trying to have a non-angry discussion. Pinky swear.
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
I am sure! I wouldn't imagine otherwise. It's just that the fact of that reluctance is a super interesting thing in and of itself, if that makes sense? Like, it's really interesting how certain codes/strategies interact.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
unfathomable...
Variability is high.
and that is the problem, way too many variables..
there is no one answer or reason, too much we don't know,
too may random factors, too many seeds sown with
strange random triggers
- the ebon flow of dark tides and emotional rips.
When the perpetrators of these violent events
ends up dead, we can never know what really happened,
and as with most things, I find there
may be perceived or attributed 'Good reasons'
and buried under it all the 'Real reasons'
even if it is just a momentary lack of reason
or a pearl of accreted reasonsI don't know if it's specifically
a gender thing
maybe an agenda thing...It's a complex world and we/they
keep adding layers of complexity -
But I can 100% guarantee you that your neurophysiology – your brain – is different to Danielle’s, and that that has an influence on your responses to your environment. It’s a value-neutral fact.
However, because brains within a population range, we cannot speak about th specifics of those differences between two individuals - Danielle could have a more masculine brain than Ben, or a more Tibetian brain.
I am not (intending) to bring this up to be picky, but to show that there are several different modes of talking about things: personal - in my experience I have met both violent men and women and from what I saw the way and to whom they expressed that was different, and impersonal - the massive rise in violent crime among teenage girls in the past decade is more likely to be explained by the sociocultural factors influencing the expression of violence being much more gender neutral than they used to be than it is to be explained by some sudden cross generational change in human brain chemistry.
The thing is, when one is personally invested in the topic, by falling into one of the labelled groups, the impersonal becomes the personal. As you know from the experience of being a parent, it can be hard to differentiate between general statements that have some applicability in a specific case, general statements that are based on bollocks and should not be followed by anyone, and general statements that are not bollocks but not applicable to a particular case (let alone sub-divisions of those made up on the spot categories).
On top of that, there is alll the arguments around to what extent these differences are social constructions and to what extent differences should be accepted or rejected as a basis for change. I fall fairly far down the social construction opinion (but then my degrees are in Anthropology) but it is not something I will ever participate in a discussion why discussion (which is why I've largely kept out of this one) becuase I think in situations where the causitives are complex and cannot be proven with raising a generation in skinner boxes it is not productive compared to the questions "can we recognise that there is a problem here" and "what can actually be done about it"
I will also note that the blog that highlighted the awful gun ads, the good men project, have an implicit acceptance of masculinity as a thing that I have some issues with, however I do see them as try to address a real problem and doing at least some good. -
Emma Hart, in reply to
Honestly, do you really think of us as a bunch of hatchet-raised harpies, Russell, poised to come down on you like a tonne of bricks? Because that’s the impression you’re giving me right now.
But it does happen. Sometimes. One of the biggest problems we have in comments at The Lady Garden is people getting pissed off at men entering the discussions, or objecting to male perspectives, or male victims, being included in discussions. (Srsly, I've been told off for including men by a man. My brain, etc.)
There may be statistical trends, but that says nothing about any particular individual, and individuals are soooo various.
Yep. Just like height. There are population differences, but sufficient variation within the population that the data can't tell you anything about an individual. So that trend to tailoring education styles by gender? Isn't just useless, it also reinforces a bunch of ideas about gender. Boys are boistrous hands-on learners (mine isn't), girls are chatty social learners (mine isn't).
Thing is, I've had lots of conversations about gender with men. I've had lots of conversations about gender with Russell. And I've learned things from those discussions. This year, I found out that there are men - and not just a few men - who will consciously alter their behaviour or the route walking home at night so they don't frighten women.
And many times I've thought about entering this thread to talk about the men I knew growing up. The poor under-educated straight white able-bodied men. I think I know quite a bit about them: they were my father, my brothers, my friends and boyfriends. Only I'm not one of them, I can't speak for them. I'd be another female voice, and perhaps I'd talk about their problems with expressing their feelings. But who here is qualified to speak for them?
-
Sacha, in reply to
and perhaps I'd talk about their problems with expressing their feelings
in words perhaps
-
When Ben talks hardcore philosophy
Did you mean Emma? :-)
Danielle could have a more masculine brain than Ben, or a more Tibetian brain.
I'm a long way from understanding my brain, much less anyone else's.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.