The
least surprising headline I've seen lately, except that we haven't had a big mass shooting lately: "Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings; Blame Men."
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.
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.
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.
