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.