🐱 The problem is men. Ninety-eight percent of mass shootings are done by men. What is wrong with men?

CatParty

There were 692 mass shootings last yearand this year we have had over 300 mass shootings, and the variable connecting the overwhelming majority of mass shooters is that they are men. Ninety-eight percent of mass shooters are male. Most members of that 98 percent are white, but just for now, let’s leave race alone. America is clearly suffering from having to deal with men who are armed and angry. I mean, we take it for granted that mass shooters will be male, but why is it that so many men want to shoot other people?



1. American masculinity is particularly toxic—we link masculinity with violence and dominance and with a sense that might makes right and the toughest one is the rightest one. From John Wayne movies to Boyz N the Hood to The Sopranos to The Wire, America lionizes men who are tough and unafraid to pull the trigger.

2. American toxic masculinity teaches men that being hurt means being weak and that exploring your feelings or even talking about them is weak. This leads to men who are in pain and refusing to deal with it.

3. America makes buying guns extremely easy—they’re more available in America than in any major country in the world. So men who want to blame the world for their problems have an easy time getting guns. Forty-five percent of American men own guns while just 19 percent of women do.



4. American toxic masculinity—yes, back to that—is the problem. “If you ask American men, what’s the role of a man? He will tell you, ‘To provide for and protect my family,'” said Michael Kimmel, author of Angry White Males. “In this uncertain economic world, being a provider is actually far more difficult than it was in my father’s generation than it was in his father’s generation. I think some part of American men’s fascination with guns and arming themselves has to do with, ‘If I can’t be a provider, at least I can be a protector.'”

5. America has a Toxic Masculinity Industrial Complex, an ecosystem in which people like Jordan Peterson and others teach men a dangerous brand of masculinity where they are victims in a war against things like feminization and they are robbed by the success of non-white people. They are helping to breed more toxic men. Also, there’s a robust online world that allows men to talk and to teach each other to be toxic, hateful and homicidal. In the fever swamps of the internet, more mass shooters are being created every day. A recent New Yorker piece called “The Online Spaces That Enable Mass Shooters” said, “Extremists don’t become radicalized solely by perusing the automated algorithmic feeds that the rest of us see on Facebook or YouTube. They seek out forums for those who have similar views, follow charismatic voices, and egg one another on.” It’s not the video games. It’s the secret Discord group chats.

6. Some hypertoxic potentially homicidal men are paying attention to the others who have already committed notorious mass murders—they are watching and noticing what worked so that they can copy. James Densely, a professor of criminal justice, and one of the founders of the Violence Project, which has studied hundreds of mass shootings, told Politico, “Mass shooters study other mass shooters. They often find a way of relating to them, like, “There are other people out there who feel like me.”



7. Densely’s partner in the Violence Project, Jillian Peterson, a criminology professor, said their research found several commonalities linking mass shooters. “Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying,” she told Politico. “Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts… Their self-hate turns against a group. They start asking themselves, “Whose fault is this?” Is it a racial group or women or a religious group, or is it my classmates? The hate turns outward. There’s also this quest for fame and notoriety.” The quest for fame, or infamy, seems particularly American—we seem obsessed with fame.

8. It’s really about toxic masculinity, not mental health or psychosis. The Violence Project found that “psychosis played no role in 70% of mass shootings.” According to the Violence Project, mass murderers are more often set off by domestic or relationship problems, or workplace issues, or an interpersonal conflict, or hate, in addition to early childhood trauma and the other life events mentioned earlier.

9. Just so we’re clear, what is toxic masculinity? From the New York Times: “Researchers have defined it, in part, as a set of behaviors and beliefs that include the following: (1) Suppressing emotions or masking distress, (2) Maintaining an appearance of hardness, and (3) Violence as an indicator of power (think: “tough-guy” behavior).”

10. Toxic masculinity teaches men to believe that violence can solve problems. It makes them believe that anger can make them powerful. It also tells them we can blame others for our problems. It also teaches them that talking about your feelings is weak, that even having feelings is weak and not for men.

Look at this equation—America teaches men that violence can solve problems and that men must be protectors. Dealing with your emotions is for women and might makes right and, also, guns are really easy to get and if you watch TV you can see what happens if you shoot up a school or a movie theater or something—you sort of become famous, in a way. The Violence Project says hatred and fame-seeking are on the rise as reasons why men commit mass murder but this country will have a significant shooting problem until we deal with both the accessibility of guns and, perhaps more importantly, the way we teach men what it is to be men.
 
It's also hypocritical because the same people hand-wringing about the violence inherent in men are themselves violently threatening to do something to the rest of us because we took their abortions away, without a hint of irony.
 
Women like the author of this article probably inspire more rage than anything she lists in her stupid article. If only the mass shooters would fire at people like her, some good night come of their efforts.
 
India is one of the most multicultural countries. It wasn't ever a single nation until the British mashed them all together into a single state, creating the monstrosity we have today. It has dozens of languages, cultures and religions present, many of which hate each other historically.
India’s culture is overwhelmingly Hindu, and the few deviations from that (Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism) are not only vastly outnumbered but also compatible, in that they are practiced by the same ‘people’.

A Sikh has vastly more in common with a Hindu than with, say, a Japanese Shintoist or an Egyptian pantheist. India is a ‘multicultural’ country only in a vague and ancient sense, in that they derive from the same geographic area.

India’s greatest experiment with ‘multiculturalism’ ended in partition in 1947 with the formation of Pakistan and the forcible expulsion of Indian Muslims. Does that sound multicultural to you?

Modern multiculturalism is definitively dysfunctional in that it falsely claims that a superior society can be built from large numbers of people who share literally nothing in common- not a land of origin, skin tone, language, religion, beliefs or values.
 
Last edited:
Most members of that 98 percent are white, but just for now, let’s leave race alone.
Yeah, let's not get into percentages and race, hey? :story:

No, women teach us that.
Exactly. I mean fuck, even the soyest of the faggots on Reddit have learned this lesson the hard way. Women do not like vulnerability in their men. Which is fine (and preferable, to be honest), but why do they insist on lying about it?
 
The good news is that according to this article, there have only been 132 mass shootings since 1982, of which 70 of those 300 mass shootings this year and 692 last year were done by white men…
8DDBFC46-9C6B-47F2-BB73-3D2F70E93CFA.jpeg
…and that’s within expectations given the racial makeup of the country. I know you don’t gotta be booksmart or nothing to write for The Grio but holy shit, at least try to be consistent with your numbers.
 
American toxic masculinity—yes, back to that—is the problem. “If you ask American men, what’s the role of a man? He will tell you, ‘To provide for and protect my family,'”
Yes. That’s how it’s supposed to be. That’s how it’s been for millennia. Men provide for and protect their families.
The idea that John Wayne or old Gillette adverts with three chiselled looking men crewing a yacht/gazing into the middle distance in nice knitwear is toxic
masculinity
is just ridiculous.
Toxic masculinity teaches men to believe that violence can solve problems.
Violence does solve problems. This is provably true and has been so since the dawn of time. Diplomacy is great, but it has to be backed by a threat in some way or it usually fails.
Women also use violence, but since we are smaller and weaker we use psychological violence - and this is what cancel culture and the woke nightmare and SJW stuff is. It’s feminine violence modes. The only thing it fails against is actual physical violence because at its heart it has no real power behind it.
The women pushing for the emasculation of men and the people pushing for the emasculation of society will one day have a rude awakening, when they’ve weakened the people who protect them so much that a hostile tribe will walk right in.
 
American toxic masculinity—yes, back to that—is the problem. “If you ask American men, what’s the role of a man? He will tell you, ‘To provide for and protect my family,'”
Yes. That’s how it’s supposed to be. That’s how it’s been for millennia. Men provide for and protect their families.
The idea that John Wayne or old Gillette adverts with three chiselled looking men crewing a yacht/gazing into the middle distance in nice knitwear is toxic
masculinity
is just ridiculous.
Toxic masculinity teaches men to believe that violence can solve problems.
Violence does solve problems. This is provably true and has been so since the dawn of time. Diplomacy is great, but it has to be backed by a threat in some way or it usually fails.
Women also use violence, but since we are smaller and weaker we use psychological violence - and this is what cancel culture and the woke nightmare and SJW stuff is. It’s feminine violence modes. The only thing it fails against is actual physical violence because at its heart it has no real power behind it.
The women pushing for the emasculation of men and the people pushing for the emasculation of society will one day have a rude awakening, when they’ve weakened the people who protect them so much that a hostile tribe will walk right in.
That's actually already happening with the mass importation of browns and darks by the western world.
it's a mystery of how crime and rape skyrocketed during that time
 
The problem is women. The vast majority of broken men are raised by single women. You'd think that if men were the problem, the women who raised them from the moment they were born would be able to influence them somehow, but no: They relinquish that duty to society as a whole while complaining that the sons of other women oppress them.
 
India’s culture is overwhelmingly Hindu, and the few deviations from that (Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism) are not only vastly outnumbered but also compatible, in that they are practiced by the same ‘people’.

A Sikh has vastly more in common with a Hindu than with, say, a Japanese Shintoist or an Egyptian pantheist. India is a ‘multicultural’ country only in a vague and ancient sense, in that they derive from the same geographic area.

India’s greatest experiment with ‘multiculturalism’ ended in partition in 1947 with the formation of Pakistan and the forcible expulsion of Indian Muslims. Does that sound multicultural to you?

Modern multiculturalism is definitively dysfunctional in that it falsely claims that a superior society can be built from large numbers of people who share literally nothing in common- not a land of origin, skin tone, language, religion, beliefs or values.
I know all that, it's just that places like Japan, which is 99% one ethnic group, one language, two religions that coexist (though the overwhelming majority of Japanese are nonreligious), only having tiny indigenous minorities like the Ainu that are culturally suppressed even to this day, and a sense of national identity going back nearly two millennia is incomparable to India. I suppose in that sense, India is sort of a less extreme China (whose modern borders are fairly new, mostly conquered during the Qing Dynasty), where there are several minorities that used to be independent (or even ruled China, in the case of the Manchu), but the Han cultural majority has become so all-consuming and numerous they seriously don't matter despite them sometimes numbering in the millions. It's just that a national identity in China goes back even farther than Japan. India as a single independent nation and identity isn't even a century old yet. I suppose this logic can be applied to Italy and Germany, relative newcomers to nation-statehood, but at least they had a theoretic sense of cultural kinship going back to antiquity. Places like India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and several sub-Saharan African countries lack that sort of legacy and are products of European imperialism. If push comes to shove in any of these countries, which they often do, they can easily fall to internecine conflict since the basis of their unity lacks a good amount of legitimacy.
 
>Abandon men for generations culturally
>Directionless men become despondent and lash out as they know something is wrong but can't pin what
>'Here's why men are the problem!'


Never change, journowhores.
Women also use violence, but since we are smaller and weaker we use psychological violence - and this is what cancel culture and the woke nightmare and SJW stuff is. It’s feminine violence modes. The only thing it fails against is actual physical violence because at its heart it has no real power behind it.
The people in charge benefit a lot from men not having power as historically women have been foillowers. It's how they survived when an opposing tribe slaughtered all their men - any of them that rebelled were way more likely to get abandoned.
The women pushing for the emasculation of men and the people pushing for the emasculation of society will one day have a rude awakening, when they’ve weakened the people who protect them so much that a hostile tribe will walk right in.
The women will protest but they'll inevitably fall in line, but the people pushing for this? They'd better hope that their jets can get them out of the blast radius of a new culture that would want them among the bodies.
 
Back