This part of the argument was more surprising, but she doesn't I think realize what's surprising about it.
Men don’t just constitute almost all mass shooters in recent history; they are also responsible for the vast majority of gun-associated deaths in the country. Men own guns at triple the rate of women in the U.S., at 62 percent compared to 22 percent—and also commit suicide at nearly triple the rate of women.Mass shootings are a very tiny percentage of shootings. Suicides make up two thirds of deaths from shootings. The problem she wants to talk about is small enough that it's hard to say much of use about it using statistics, because it's already an outlier; but the suicide problem is very much not an outlier. If gun deaths are a problem, then suicide is the main part of the problem.
What does it mean that men commit suicide at three times the rate of women? When we speak of other minorities (and men are, however slightly, a minority), a high suicide rate is considered a sign that society is oppressive towards them. Society is blamed for their suffering. Here, of coure, "Blame Men" is the answer because it is always the answer. They are at fault because of "toxic masculinity," which the author describes as not measuring up to the masculine ideal.
This means that nobody wants them. Maybe that's what's driving all the suicide -- and also some of the mass shootings.
Madfis also notes that many men who commit mass shootings tend to be those who have failed to achieve financial and romantic success in ways that our society values and accredits as “manly.” As a result, Madfis explains, men may feel emboldened to resort to violence to gain both revenge and some level of notoriety as compensation for being denied what they thought they were owed, or felt pressure to attain.This is roughly parallel to the big discussion our culture is having about transgenderism, except that there the idea is that society is at fault for not wanting them -- for not accepting them just as they are. Here there is no similar move to try to find ways to embrace and extend love or respect or acceptance, even though it might really solve the problem. Certainly, it's supposed to be the solution for others who suffer from social rejection.
This, though, isn't a problem with men -- well, not straight men. It's a problem with women (and gay men). They generally don't tend to find unmanly men attractive.
Should they be retrained, or forced to pretend that they find unmanly men attractive? No one is suggesting it, and of course it's a useless and terrible suggestion. It does happen to be the suggestion being aimed at straight men where trans-women are concerned, of course, because it's always fine to force straight men to carry the blame for problems. But it's a terrible suggestion there, too, as well as an unworkable one. Nobody's going to be attracted to someone they just aren't attracted to, and it's unconscionable to suggest that they have a moral duty to yield themselves up sexually just because (or even though) it would mean a lot to someone else.
As far as I know, feminism doesn't really even have a sketch at an answer to this problem. "Toxic masculinity" is just an attempt to throw the problem of being unwanted back on the unwanted men, who are told that they shouldn't have to measure up. But even if they free themselves from any sense that they ought to measure up, and go around putting on dresses or whatever, still nobody they want is going to want them.
Being isolated like that must be miserable, and it's no surprise that it leads to suicide in many cases. Instead of blaming them, it might be worth at least trying on some sympathy for the bitter loneliness they must be experiencing day in and day out. Mostly they don't kill anyone else, after all. Mostly they just go home one day and kill themselves.
Indeed, the only thing I've read recently that even sounded a little bit like an answer to this problem came from Vox.
Inequality has been so much a part of the conversation — in terms of economic inequality, health care inequality, and educational inequality. This is probably overdue. But people don’t talk about inequalities in our access to intimacy and our access to sex. I don’t think we pay attention to the way in which, through no fault of their own, lots of people just have a lot of trouble finding partners.I happen to think that this won't solve the problem, as sex is a small part of the real issue of missing human intimacy. But at least it correctly identifies the problem, rather than resorting to the easy solution of blaming the men nobody wants for the fact that nobody wants them.
They may be disabled. They may just not be conventionally attractive. They may be in situations, like prison or mining camps or something like that, where they can’t find people of the opposite sex. Or they may be gay or lesbian and they may be living in a small town in Alabama. There’s lots of ways in which people just don’t have access to any kind of sexual intimacy. I think that technology may not be as ideal as actually having a human partner, but I think, for many people, it’s better than nothing.
9 comments:
On the other hand, is it a good idea to blame people for not wanting men who have nothing going on in their lives or characters to attract their neighbors? I imagine we all suffer from time to time for want of deep, satisfying connections. I know I do, but I also know that the solution has to start in me. The world isn't supposed to beat down my door saying, "I imagine we'd conclude you're fabulous if we tried hard enough to ferret out your hidden qualities!" (Though of course it's lovely when someone does.) I have to get out there, expose myself, take some risks, give of myself, notice other people, form bonds. The opposite is just a virulent form of what starts as ordinary sulking.
That's the real problem, of course: there are good reasons why nobody wants them. Their emotional problems are terrible to contemplate, but you can't rightly impose on others to accept things that will be a problem for them.
It occurs to me that the author's solutions for me are solutions she would never accept for herself -- that I agree to curtail my rights, that I agree to accept sexual advances from people I find deeply unattractive as partners, etc. The hypocrisy of her side doesn't mean that those were good ideas, just that in addition to being bad ideas they're also intended to be unfairly applied.
The thing is, I don't have much of a solution either. The harder part of my heart remembers the line from the Oceans 13 villian: 'He's made the right decision: curl up and die.' The more Christian influenced part of my heart is repelled by the harder part, but aside from sympathy I don't know what to do. I can't make women want these men when there are good reasons not to want them; I don't even want them myself, not as friends or companions. What use are they?
Well, as your post above implies, maybe they have some economic use. I wonder how much even of that kind of use will continue to be found. Maybe we really don't need them, and -- the hard part of the heart whispers -- would be better off without them.
But we can't entertain thoughts like that. Moral duty forbids it.
Economic use? That's not the message I got at all. That guy was thrilled to find that someone needed him for something, anything. It's sad that his first experience was from a boss who needed some bugs killed, but it's great that he realized what a frozen place in his heart was thawed just to find that he was needed. We can become needed in a million ways, only some job-related. People who are painfully isolated are always part of the problem. Always. I don't mean that it's helpful to blame them, I mean that there are actions they can take that will begin to improve their lives. If they wait for the world to change its mind about them, nothing will ever improve.
The really horrible thing about being unemployed is that terrible doubt that there's anything you can do that anyone needs done. Job-hunting is very hard on the psyche for most of us. We may know intellectually that it's just a temporary mismatch, but it's hard. If you're coming out of prison and most employers are scared of you, it's much, much worse. I honor any program that eases people like that back into a give-and-take social world.
Yeah, that's what I meant: being needed (and wanted) to kill bugs is still better than not being needed (or wanted) at all. It's something, which is more than nothing.
On the other hand, plenty of suicides had jobs. Every one I ever knew did. The job just wasn't enough to fill the hole in their heart, and there wasn't anyone else interested in filling it either. Usually that was for understandable reasons.
A job will rarely be enough, but for that guy, the job was his first glimmer of hope toward a life of connection. A painfully alienated guy with a job will never be able to stop there. He's going to have to find a way to make an effort to connect, and if the way he's trying isn't working, he'll have to try another instead of giving and killing everyone in sight.
Womansplaining is becoming a thing.
If we are going to blame men, we ought to consider blaming the right men. What about those mostly male physicians prescribing mind-altering drugs to troubled people? (We can include the female physicians, I'm not picky.)
Many of these terrible events also involve prescription drugs. That information is not as easy to find as it should be. Yes, the shooters tend to be unwanted people long before they break, but they also take strong drugs. Like the opiod epidemic, the handful of mass shooting may have an overly-strong tie to well-intended prescriptions.
At least, it's an avenue worth exploring because there is some indication of possible linkage, unlike the deliberately counterproductive recommendation to blame half of humanity for the crimes of a few outliers.
Valerie
I won't be hard to persuade on this point, Valerie.
The cure to a spiritual problem is a spiritual source, not medication or society.
Post a Comment