Both the linked article and the source it cites focus only on the male results from the threatened gender identity experiments. I'd like to see the female results too. With only 5 female mass shooters in the past 50 years I'd like to see if that were only being blamed on an over-representation of males or if sociology points to a corresponding under-representation of females. Also, the maps presented make me interested to see regional comparisons. On first glance, the places that are largely rural, but also have looser gun laws, seem to have fewer mass shootings. On one hand, of course, less people means less to shoot and to do the shooting. But any town over 5 people could have a mass shooting. Why are they such an urban phenomenon? Could the access to unregistered and untraced weapons contribute? The article seemed to focus on just a single primary cause, but it'd be interesting to see additional factors too.
For the rural thing, it might be that rural locations aren't as affected by "progressive" social issues like feminism and such, where male privilege is a little safer from such movements. Maybe not, just thinking out loud.
It's almost 8 am and I work nights (staying up to go to the bank) so pardon my slow brain, but I'm not sure I follow. Could you expand on that?
I haven't done a thorough analysis of the data, so I'm just as prone to confirmation bias as jleopold. When I look at the map, I see tons of shootings in rural areas in states with no gun laws. When jleopold looks, he (I assume) apparently sees mostly shootings in New York and San Francisco. Actual data shows that states with more guns have more gun deaths. Surprising, right. He (I assume) wants to not only defend guns which are very clearly a part of mass shootings, but (American) men, who are also very clearly a part of mass shootings. My main point above was how quickly he seized on your suggestion that all the shootings happen in San Francisco because of feminism. I think you were just being agreeable and coming up with possibilities. I don't think that is jleopold's motive, but I could be wrong.
To be clear from the start: I'm not trying to defend guns, traditional gender roles, or, Lord forbid, mass shooters. I was also very purposefully trying to not be agreeable. Also, to be brief, I'm really confused as to where I blamed feminism anymore than the article, i.e. that it could contribute to the threats to masculinity felt by mass shooters. There is one side in that situation obviously on the wrong side. My motivation was simply to look at the article as a skeptic. I've found over the past couple months that Hubski can have a tendacy as a whole to turn posts like these into a simple congratulatory,'stick it to the dumn-asses' conversations. I would prefer for questions both about the study and for further development be raised, irregularities and inconsistencies pointed out and discussed, and in general the article taken not as gospel but as suspect. I'm a skeptic by nature, and I have an apparently unfortunate tendency to attempt to share my scepticism. With the map, I am on a mobil, and can't see the whole thing at one time. Also, I'm not as familiar with gun laws in the East, nor their development over history. Of course more guns means more gun deaths. That is obvious. But there are also major psychological differences between a serial killer, a mass shooter, and a 'normal' murderer. With all of that said, I'd encourage to look at my reply to kleinbl00 below in regards to specific cities that raise some questions about environmental factors. And yes, to confirm all of your suspicions, I am a white, American middle-class male.
Aha, I understand you now. Yes, there are plenty of rural loci for mass shootings. My suggestion was just an idea to explain any possible discrepancy that doesn't ignore the "aggrieved entitlement" phenomenon proposed in the article. There is also plenty of data that shows aggression is directly linked to testosterone levels, but that's not directly related to any of the data in the article and I likely only thought of it due to my own cognitive bias and past forays into (only the most basic) criminal psychology.
I was thinking that, but forgot to add it. I can see this easily being a part. Though with increased ease of access, where people on the other side of the globe can be upset about something happening in a tiny town, maybe this isn't as influential as it once was.
Few things: 1) The "source it cites" is here, if one of our scholars wishes to free it from its chains (bfv?). From the abstract: So the research didn't focus on male results, but the male results were "more pronounced." 2) The argument of the article is that "violence" is not a traditional gender role of women. 3) Demographically speaking, 80% of the US population lives in major metropolitan areas. Not necessarily "cities" but "within the cultural influence of cities." So any shooting you see is going to be "on the outskirts of" not "in the middle of nowhere." Fully 50% of America lives in cities while a tiny percent lives in rural areas. The law of averages is going to lean towards urban shootings over rural ones.We experimentally investigated the effects of gender identity threat on men’s and women’s perceptions of date rape and sexual coercion. Results showed that men whose masculinity was threatened responded by blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator more, while threatened women respond by blaming male perpetrators more and placing less blame on female victims. Men’s response to threats was more pronounced than women’s, an asymmetry we attribute to the cultural devaluation of femininity.
This research provides important evidence of what men perceive as masculine in the first place (resources they rely on in a crisis) and a new kind evidence regarding the relationship of masculinity and violence. The research does not suggest that men are somehow inherently more violent than women. Rather, it suggests that men are likely to turn to violence when they perceive themselves to be otherwise unable to stake a claim to a masculine gender identity.
It's really interesting that the article blames excessive masculinity, while the abstract makes it seem like it is the result of a 'devaluation of femininity.' They may be saying almost the else thing, but the implications of the wording choice are kind of strange. What I'd still like to see is if it can be experimentally shown that females are more likely to try to act as peacekeepers or mdore reserved, as per traditional gender roles. That would obviously result in less women mass shooters. When pressured, they might react like men, conforming more to traditional gender roles, but for them, it would move them to be a smaller chance of becoming a mass shooter. Hopefully a freed full article can explain that. There is still some things going against statistics. The greater San Fran area has 4 shootings on the map. Houston has zero, Dallas two, Denver two and Portland two all out West. Out East, Philly has zero, DC one, Chicago three out East. These are all in the top 20 metro areas. But NYC, LA, Detroit, and Atlanta have a ton it seems. What is it about these areas that make them have more mass shootings? It goes beyond population here, into regional culture, which definitely opens up new areas of investigation.Men’s response to threats was more pronounced than women’s, an asymmetry we attribute to the cultural devaluation of femininity.