#Behaviours that often make me think of the domestication theory is when I see women be polite to creeps.

[blackpilljesus]

There's a strong link between the way moids treat cattle/animals and the way they treat women. Believing they're here for moids to use as they see fit, keeping them in enclosures to extract from them while claiming to protect them when they've forced them to be dependent on moids, forcing them to reproduce so they can have more fodder to exploit, and domesticating them.

Saw a video of torture devices that were used on women that were anything but quiet docile submissive slaves. Considering this and things like the witch trials, authorities turning a blind eye most times when moids kill women but imprisoning women who fight back against abusers, moids impregnating -raping- girls whose bodies hadn't developed yet (which could be a contributing factor to why we have a huge gap inbetween our physical strength) moids seeking younger women & girls to reproduce with because these women wont have reached a level of self actualisation to realise how pathetic the xy is, etc. I believe that moids have -attempted to- domesticate women through femicide as well as social punishments & torture.

Emphasis on "attempt" because I dont think women are naturally the empathetic emotionally observant yet mindless mommy bangmaids moids want them to be. There are a few far gone but most just act in a manner that pleases maIes to survive. The difference in womens behaviour when there's maIes around vs when there's not is the biggest telltale sign of this.

Women who weren't useful to maIe supremacy were killed off or brutalised into conforming. Women who conformed went on to reproduce.

This reddit post from the (rip) blackpillfeminism sub explains this concept so well:

This is all something that explains our environment. The war has been fought & the damage has been done. What we see/live today are consequences of the aforementioned. Moids have taken everything from women they are literal terrorists they wont change & cant be forgiven idgaf. Most we can do is save possible lives going through this by refusing to add to it.

Side note; I'm not saying this to absolve anybody of responsibility. In the end moids choose to be evil & women choose to love n worship them so long as other women to be shields are around. My point is about how maIe terrorism has shaped womens behaviour/being as a whole. Those who are separatists/blackpilled wouldn't reproduce so our ideologies & systems die when we die. Sure there's outliers of every batch so I dont think the concept entirely will die but it's maIe supremacy that has systems guaranteeing its ingrained continuation.

[oasis-nadrama]

Patriarchal repurposing of a feminist approach

Oasis Nadrama, 02/02/2019

[Content warning: mention of misogyny and various LGBTQIA+phobias]

Unicorn hunting is a toxic trend affecting polyamorous communities.

In this text, we will work exclusively with the following definition of unicorn hunters: a cisgender heterosexual man and a cisgender woman looking for a cisgender bisexual woman in order to form an exclusive romantic and sexual triad with rules predetermined by the couple.

Other varieties exist, and other varieties may or may not be problematic, but this is the variety we will focus on, since it is a common and recurring problem.

A lot has already been written about how unicorn hunting is destructive, delusional and unethical (see Unicorns-R-Us, To Unicorn Hunters From an Ex-Unicorn or You Cannot 'Add Someone To Your Relationship').

In this article, we are going to introduce a more deontological argument. Unicorn hunting is not polyamory. Polyamory is a fundamentally feminist relationship philosophy, while unicorn hunting is fundamentally misogynistic, lesbophobic, biphobic and transphobic.

  ABOUT POLYAMORY'S FUNDAMENTALLY FEMINIST NATURE

  While it is true various forms of multi-partner relationships and free love have existed since the dawn of times, polyamory is not synonymous with "multiple partners" or "true love". It is commonly defined as “ethical non-monogamy”.

Numerous examples of such configurations can be found in non-Western cultures. Hoa-tun, Gilyak, Aleut, Marquesan, Bororo, Tibetan, Nepalese, Yoeme, Maasai cultures, amongst others, practiced (and often still practice) various forms of open ethical relationships.

In North America, the Comanches were traditionally polyamorous, complete with free decision-making and the metamour concept (men married to the same women were called "brothers").

In China, the Mosuo model, where women decide to accept or to refuse a man for the night, is both close to relationship anarchy and empowering for women.

In past Western European societies, which we tend to envision as monogamous, exclusivity was not always the rule in intimate relationships. Still, monogamy was common, and became the rule under the twin influences of capitalism and patriarchy. Then, between the 1800s and the 1960s, various anarchists, feminists and complex marriage practitioners laid out the foundations of the western polyamory movement.

George Sand, Frida Kahlo or Simone de Beauvoir enthusiastically and often publicly practiced some form of sexual and emotional open relationships. They were all progressive, revolutionary, anarchist figures, they were all queer women and they were all feminists.

Starting with the 70s, what were until now unspoken rules of conduct among sexually open and free-thinking individuals began to coalesce into a structure of rules and practices that are still recognisable in today's polyamourous behaviours.

In the following decade, practices corresponding all of the current principles of polyamory can be observed amongst USA radical feminists in the 70s.

(The recent queer series "When We Rise" shows on occasion how these feminist/lesbian communities practiced open, equal relationships.)

In the 80s-90s, the word "polyamory" started being used in the United States to refer to multiple ethical relationships based on knowledge and consent of all involved partners (there is a popular rumour pretending that the term was coined by a pagan couple, the Z-R, but we won’t talk about them here). A woman named Wesp founded the Usenet community which started popularizing the term, discussing and archiving the practices, with a specific accent on female empowerment.

One of the first books written on modern polyamory was “Love Without Limits”, as soon as 1992. Dr. Anapol, a feminist clinical psychologist, columnist and lecturer, later enriched and republished her work as “Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits”. Anapol spent her life advocating for polyamory and organizing the community; she was one of the founders of the modern movement.

In 1997, two feminist queer women, Easton & Hardy, synthetized previous practices and observations, with added suggestions, in "The Ethical Slut". This famous book start from sex positivity and emancipation from compulsory, alienating monogamy, and then develops a theory for the gestion of multiple relationships.

More recent references include Veaux & Rickert's “More than Two” and Patterson's "Love's Not Color Blind: Race and Representation in Polyamorous and Other Alternative Communities". In the academic world, Dr. Zelaika Hepworth Clarke (clinical sexologist and social worker) published important finding on polyamory. (Clarke is one of many POC leaders in the USA polyamorous community.)

Women, feminist women, have always been at the heart of polyamory.

One can also note the workings of polyamory empower women, for they neutralize rivalry mechanisms and favorize honesty, consent, and exploration of other romantic and sexual inclinations (including exploration of aromantism or asexuality), while redistribution domestic and emotional labour and dismantling the structure of the kyriarchic nuclear family.

Historically and practically, polyamory is a feminist relationship philosophy, period.

(One could also make an argument for polamory being an inherently queer, anticapitalist, anticolonialist and/or anarchist movement, but those are different matters.)

   ABOUT UNICORN HUNTING'S FUNDAMENTALLY MISOGYNYSTIC (ETC) NATURE

 Unicorn hunting is fundamentally misogynistic, lesbophobic, biphobic and transphobic.

It is misogynistic because it aims towards the satisfaction of the cis man, conceives woman/woman relationships as "nonthreatening" and aims to limit the women's romantic and sexual life while broadening the man's.

It it lesbophobic because, once again, it conceives woman/woman relationships as "nonthreatening", and more than often sexually objectifies them.

It is biphobic because it instrumentalizes bi/pansexual women, their romantic and sexual life, while limiting the extent of their experiences in the area; plus it mainly targets single bisexual women and then imposes a set of rules upon them.

It is transphobic because it routinely does not take trans women into account, often rejects them (or fetishizes them), entirely forgets about nonbinary individuals (or erases them by regarding AFAB nonbinary individuals as women).

   HOW PATRIARCHY IS TRYING TO REPURPOSE POLYAMORY

 Since the dominant culture is patriarchal and cishet men are educated to be extremely assertive, entitled and sex-demanding, and to see cisgender women as a resource for sex, emotional support and physical affection, we see repeted attempts of appropriation and repurposing of polyamory for the men’s satisfaction.

This is the origin of the "polymale" (word used in French polyamorous circles, meaning a cishet male womanizer who only joins the movement in order to collect as many lovers as he can, completely disregarding notions of honesty, listening, support, etc, and discarding people as he sees fit) and "unicorn hunting" behaviors.

This is the origin of people saying "Don’t judge", "Let the love flows", "Be free", "Polyamory is whatever you want it to be".

This is the origin of entire polyamorous groups getting invaded by unicorn hunters and polymales, while separate-dating, queer individuals and feminism become secondary or erased entirely, to the point of often being seen as anomalies. Posts such as "I only see couples here, and the single women are fishing for their husbands, and people tell me I’m intolerant for dating separately!" start to multiply.

In such cases, a polyamorous community becomes no longer polyamorous, no longer subversive or healthy in any way. It just starts following the modern injonction of mandatory sex for women so popular since the sexual revolution.

It just becomes another incarnation of patriarchy.

Do not let this happen. Fight for feminism and polyamory.

[trendingnewsb]

The Struggle to Predictand PreventToxic Masculinity

Terrie Moffitt has been trying to figure out why men are terrible for more than 25 years. Or, to calibrate: Why some men are really terrible—violent, criminal, dangerous—but most men are not. And, while she’s at it, how to tell which man is going to become which.

A small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. Many of those people display textbook “antisocial behavior”—technically, a serious disregard for other people’s rights—as adolescents. The shape of the problem is called the age-crime curve, arrests plotted against the age of the offender. It looks like a shark’s dorsal fin, spiking in the teenage years and then long-tailing off to the left.

In 1992, Moffitt, now a psychologist at Duke University, pitched an explanation for that shape: The curve covers two separate groups. Most people don’t do bad things. Some people only do them as teenagers. And a very small number start doing them as toddlers and keep doing them until they go to prison or die. Her paper became a key hypothesis in psychology, criminology, and sociology, cited thousands of times.

In a review article in Nature Human Behaviour this week, Moffitt takes a ride through two decades of attempts to validate the taxonomy. Not for girls, Moffitt writes, because even though she studies both sexes, “findings have not reached consensus.” But for boys and men? Oh yeah.

To be clear, Moffitt isn’t trying to develop a toxicology of toxic masculinity here. As a researcher she’s interested in the interactions of genes and environment, and the reasons some delinquent children—but not all—turn into crime-committing adults. That’s a big enough project. But at this exact cultural moment, with women of the #MeToo movement calling sexual harassers and abusers to account just as mass shootings feel as if they’ve become a permanent recurring event—and when almost every mass shooter, up to and including the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, has been a man—I’m inclined to try to find explanations anywhere that seems plausible. US women are more likely to be killed by partners than anyone else. Men commit the vast majority of crimes in the US. So it’s worth querying Moffitt’s taxonomy to see if it offers any order to that chaos, even if it wasn’t built for it.

“Grown-ups who use aggression, intimidation, and force to get what they want have invariably been pushing other people around since their very early childhood,” Moffitt says via email from a rural vacation in New Zealand. “Their mothers report they were difficult babies, nursery day-care workers say they are difficult to control, and when all the other kids give up hitting and settle in as primary school pupils, teachers say they don’t. Their record of violating the rights of others begins surprisingly early, and goes forward from there.”

So if you could identify those kids then, maybe you could make things better later? Of course, things are way more complicated than that.

Since that 1993 paper, hundreds of studies have tested pieces of Moffitt’s idea. Moffitt herself has worked on a few prospective studies, following kids through life to see if they fall into her categories, and then trying to figure out why.

For example, she worked with the Dunedin Study, which followed health outcomes for more than 1,000 boys and girls in New Zealand starting in the early 1970s. Papers published from the data have included looks at marijuana use, physical and mental health, and psychological outcomes. Moffitt and her colleagues found that about a quarter of the males in the study fit the criteria she’d laid out for “adolescence limited” antisociability; they’re fine until they hit their teens, then they do all sorts of bad stuff, and then they stop. And 10 percent were “life-course persistent”—they have trouble as children, and it doesn’t stop. As adolescents, all had about the same rates of bad conduct.

But as children, the LCP boys scored much higher on a set of specific risks. Their mothers were younger. They tended to have been disciplined more harshly, and have experienced more family strife as kids. They scored lower on reading, vocabulary, and memory tests, and had a lower resting heart rate—some researchers think that people feel lower heart rates as discomfort and undertake riskier behaviors in pursuit of the adrenaline highs that’ll even them out. “LCP boys were impulsive, hostile, alienated, suspicious, cynical, and callous and cold toward others,” Moffitt writes of the Dunedin subjects in her Nature Human Behaviour article. As adults, “they self-reported excess violence toward partners and children.” They had worse physical and mental health in their 30s, were more likely to be incarcerated, and were more likely to attempt suicide.

Other studies have found much the same thing. A small number of identifiable boys turn into rotten, violent, unhappy men.

Could Moffitt’s taxonomy account for sexual harassers and abusers? In one sense, it seems unlikely: Her distinction explicitly says by adulthood there should only be a small number of bad actors, yet one of the lessons of #MeToo has been that every woman, it seems, has experienced some form of harassment.

Meta-analyses of the incidence of workplace sexual harassment vary in their outcomes, but a large-scale one from 2003 that covered 86,000 women reported that 56 percent experienced “potentially harassing” behaviors and 24 percent had definitely been harassed. Other studies get similar results.

But as pollsters say, check the cross-tabs. Harassment has sub-categories. Many—maybe most—women experience the gamut of harassing behaviors, but sub-categories like sexual coercion (being forced to have sex as a quid pro quo or to avoid negative consequences) or outright assault are rarer than basic institutional sexism and jerky, inappropriate comments. “What women are more likely to experience is everyday sexist behavior and hostility, the things we would describe as gender harassment,” says John Pryor, a psychologist at Illinois State University who studies harassment.

Obviously, any number greater than zero here is too high. And studies of prevalence can’t tell you if so many women are affected because all men harass at some low, constant ebb or few men do it, like, all the time. Judging by reports of accusations, the same super-creepy men who plan out sexual coercion may also impulsively grope and assault women. Those kind of behaviors, combined with the cases where many more accusers come forward after the first one, seem to me to jibe with the life-course persistent idea. “Sometimes people get caught for the first time as an adult, but if we delve into their history, the behavior has been there all along,” Moffitt says. “Violating the rights of others is virtually always a life-long lifestyle and an integral part of a person’s personality development.”

That means it’s worth digging into people’s histories. Whisper networks have been the de facto means of protecting women in the workplace; the taxonomy provides an intellectual framework for giving them a louder voice, because it suggests that men with a history of harassment and abuse probably also have a future of it.

Now, some writers have used the idea of toxic masculinity to draw a line between harassment, abuse, and mass shootings. They’re violent, and the perpetrators tend to be men. But here, Moffitt’s taxonomy may be less applicable.

Despite what the past few years have felt like, mass shootings are infrequent. And many mass shooters end up committing suicide or being killed themselves, so science on them is scant. “Mass shootings are such astonishingly rare, idiosyncratic, and multicausal events that it is impossible to explain why one individual decides to shoot his or her classmates, coworkers, or strangers and another does not,” write Benjamin Winegard and Christopher Ferguson in their chapter of The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings.

That said, researchers have found a few commonalities. The shooters are often suicidal, or more precisely have stopped caring whether they live or die, says Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama. Sometimes they’re seeking fame and attention. And they share a sense that they themselves are victims. “That’s how they justify attacking others,” Lankford says. “Sometimes the perceptions are based in reality—I was bullied, or whatever—but sometimes they can be exacerbated by mental health problems or personality characteristics.”

Though reports on mass shooters often say that more than half of them are also domestic abusers, that number needs some unpacking. People have lumped together mass shootings of families—domestic by definition—with public mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas, or school shootings. Disaggregate the public active shooters from the familicides and the number of shooters with histories of domestic abuse goes down. (Of course, that doesn’t change preposterously high number of abused women murdered by their partners outside of mass shooting events.)

What may really tip the mass shooter profile away from Moffitt’s taxonomy, though, is that people in the life-course persistent cohort do uncontrolled, crazy stuff all the time. Yes, some mass shooters have a history of encounters with law enforcement, let’s say. But some don’t. Mass shootings are, characteristically, highly planned events. “I’m not saying it’s impossible to be a mass shooter and have poor impulse control, but if you have poor impulse control you won’t be able to go for 12 months of planning an attack without ending up in jail first,” Lankford says.

Moffitt isn’t trying to build a unified field theory of the deadly patriarchy. When I suggest that the societal structures that keep men in power relative to women, generally, might explain the behavior of her LCP cohort, she disagrees. “If sexual harassment and mass shootings were the result of cultural patriarchy and societal expectations for male behavior, all men would be doing it all the time,” Moffitt says. “Even though media attention creates the impression that these forms of aggression are highly prevalent and all around us, they are nevertheless still extremely rare. Most men are trustworthy, good, and sensible.”

She and her colleagues continue to look for hard markers for violence or lack of impulse control, genes or neurobiological anomalies. (A form of the gene that codes for a neurotransmitter called monoamine oxidase inhibitor A might give some kids protection against lifelong effects of maltreatment, she and her team have found. By implication not having that polymorphism, then, could predispose a child raised under adverse circumstances to psychopathology as an adult.) Similarly, nobody yet knows what digital-native kids in either cohort will do when they move their bad behavior online. One might speculate that it looks a lot like GamerGate and 4chan, though that sociological and psychological work is still in early days.

But for now, Moffitt and her co-workers have identified risk factors and childhood conditions that seem to create these bad behaviors, or allow them to flourish. That’s the good news. “We know a lifestyle of aggression and intimidation toward others starts so young,” Moffitt says. “It could be preventable.”

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/

from Viral News HQ https://ift.tt/2qVBXpg via Viral News HQ

[trendingnewsb]

The Struggle to Predictand PreventToxic Masculinity

Terrie Moffitt has been trying to figure out why men are terrible for more than 25 years. Or, to calibrate: Why some men are really terrible—violent, criminal, dangerous—but most men are not. And, while she’s at it, how to tell which man is going to become which.

A small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. Many of those people display textbook “antisocial behavior”—technically, a serious disregard for other people’s rights—as adolescents. The shape of the problem is called the age-crime curve, arrests plotted against the age of the offender. It looks like a shark’s dorsal fin, spiking in the teenage years and then long-tailing off to the left.

In 1992, Moffitt, now a psychologist at Duke University, pitched an explanation for that shape: The curve covers two separate groups. Most people don’t do bad things. Some people only do them as teenagers. And a very small number start doing them as toddlers and keep doing them until they go to prison or die. Her paper became a key hypothesis in psychology, criminology, and sociology, cited thousands of times.

In a review article in Nature Human Behaviour this week, Moffitt takes a ride through two decades of attempts to validate the taxonomy. Not for girls, Moffitt writes, because even though she studies both sexes, “findings have not reached consensus.” But for boys and men? Oh yeah.

To be clear, Moffitt isn’t trying to develop a toxicology of toxic masculinity here. As a researcher she’s interested in the interactions of genes and environment, and the reasons some delinquent children—but not all—turn into crime-committing adults. That’s a big enough project. But at this exact cultural moment, with women of the #MeToo movement calling sexual harassers and abusers to account just as mass shootings feel as if they’ve become a permanent recurring event—and when almost every mass shooter, up to and including the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, has been a man—I’m inclined to try to find explanations anywhere that seems plausible. US women are more likely to be killed by partners than anyone else. Men commit the vast majority of crimes in the US. So it’s worth querying Moffitt’s taxonomy to see if it offers any order to that chaos, even if it wasn’t built for it.

“Grown-ups who use aggression, intimidation, and force to get what they want have invariably been pushing other people around since their very early childhood,” Moffitt says via email from a rural vacation in New Zealand. “Their mothers report they were difficult babies, nursery day-care workers say they are difficult to control, and when all the other kids give up hitting and settle in as primary school pupils, teachers say they don’t. Their record of violating the rights of others begins surprisingly early, and goes forward from there.”

So if you could identify those kids then, maybe you could make things better later? Of course, things are way more complicated than that.

Since that 1993 paper, hundreds of studies have tested pieces of Moffitt’s idea. Moffitt herself has worked on a few prospective studies, following kids through life to see if they fall into her categories, and then trying to figure out why.

For example, she worked with the Dunedin Study, which followed health outcomes for more than 1,000 boys and girls in New Zealand starting in the early 1970s. Papers published from the data have included looks at marijuana use, physical and mental health, and psychological outcomes. Moffitt and her colleagues found that about a quarter of the males in the study fit the criteria she’d laid out for “adolescence limited” antisociability; they’re fine until they hit their teens, then they do all sorts of bad stuff, and then they stop. And 10 percent were “life-course persistent”—they have trouble as children, and it doesn’t stop. As adolescents, all had about the same rates of bad conduct.

But as children, the LCP boys scored much higher on a set of specific risks. Their mothers were younger. They tended to have been disciplined more harshly, and have experienced more family strife as kids. They scored lower on reading, vocabulary, and memory tests, and had a lower resting heart rate—some researchers think that people feel lower heart rates as discomfort and undertake riskier behaviors in pursuit of the adrenaline highs that’ll even them out. “LCP boys were impulsive, hostile, alienated, suspicious, cynical, and callous and cold toward others,” Moffitt writes of the Dunedin subjects in her Nature Human Behaviour article. As adults, “they self-reported excess violence toward partners and children.” They had worse physical and mental health in their 30s, were more likely to be incarcerated, and were more likely to attempt suicide.

Other studies have found much the same thing. A small number of identifiable boys turn into rotten, violent, unhappy men.

Could Moffitt’s taxonomy account for sexual harassers and abusers? In one sense, it seems unlikely: Her distinction explicitly says by adulthood there should only be a small number of bad actors, yet one of the lessons of #MeToo has been that every woman, it seems, has experienced some form of harassment.

Meta-analyses of the incidence of workplace sexual harassment vary in their outcomes, but a large-scale one from 2003 that covered 86,000 women reported that 56 percent experienced “potentially harassing” behaviors and 24 percent had definitely been harassed. Other studies get similar results.

But as pollsters say, check the cross-tabs. Harassment has sub-categories. Many—maybe most—women experience the gamut of harassing behaviors, but sub-categories like sexual coercion (being forced to have sex as a quid pro quo or to avoid negative consequences) or outright assault are rarer than basic institutional sexism and jerky, inappropriate comments. “What women are more likely to experience is everyday sexist behavior and hostility, the things we would describe as gender harassment,” says John Pryor, a psychologist at Illinois State University who studies harassment.

Obviously, any number greater than zero here is too high. And studies of prevalence can’t tell you if so many women are affected because all men harass at some low, constant ebb or few men do it, like, all the time. Judging by reports of accusations, the same super-creepy men who plan out sexual coercion may also impulsively grope and assault women. Those kind of behaviors, combined with the cases where many more accusers come forward after the first one, seem to me to jibe with the life-course persistent idea. “Sometimes people get caught for the first time as an adult, but if we delve into their history, the behavior has been there all along,” Moffitt says. “Violating the rights of others is virtually always a life-long lifestyle and an integral part of a person’s personality development.”

That means it’s worth digging into people’s histories. Whisper networks have been the de facto means of protecting women in the workplace; the taxonomy provides an intellectual framework for giving them a louder voice, because it suggests that men with a history of harassment and abuse probably also have a future of it.

Now, some writers have used the idea of toxic masculinity to draw a line between harassment, abuse, and mass shootings. They’re violent, and the perpetrators tend to be men. But here, Moffitt’s taxonomy may be less applicable.

Despite what the past few years have felt like, mass shootings are infrequent. And many mass shooters end up committing suicide or being killed themselves, so science on them is scant. “Mass shootings are such astonishingly rare, idiosyncratic, and multicausal events that it is impossible to explain why one individual decides to shoot his or her classmates, coworkers, or strangers and another does not,” write Benjamin Winegard and Christopher Ferguson in their chapter of The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings.

That said, researchers have found a few commonalities. The shooters are often suicidal, or more precisely have stopped caring whether they live or die, says Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama. Sometimes they’re seeking fame and attention. And they share a sense that they themselves are victims. “That’s how they justify attacking others,” Lankford says. “Sometimes the perceptions are based in reality—I was bullied, or whatever—but sometimes they can be exacerbated by mental health problems or personality characteristics.”

Though reports on mass shooters often say that more than half of them are also domestic abusers, that number needs some unpacking. People have lumped together mass shootings of families—domestic by definition—with public mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas, or school shootings. Disaggregate the public active shooters from the familicides and the number of shooters with histories of domestic abuse goes down. (Of course, that doesn’t change preposterously high number of abused women murdered by their partners outside of mass shooting events.)

What may really tip the mass shooter profile away from Moffitt’s taxonomy, though, is that people in the life-course persistent cohort do uncontrolled, crazy stuff all the time. Yes, some mass shooters have a history of encounters with law enforcement, let’s say. But some don’t. Mass shootings are, characteristically, highly planned events. “I’m not saying it’s impossible to be a mass shooter and have poor impulse control, but if you have poor impulse control you won’t be able to go for 12 months of planning an attack without ending up in jail first,” Lankford says.

Moffitt isn’t trying to build a unified field theory of the deadly patriarchy. When I suggest that the societal structures that keep men in power relative to women, generally, might explain the behavior of her LCP cohort, she disagrees. “If sexual harassment and mass shootings were the result of cultural patriarchy and societal expectations for male behavior, all men would be doing it all the time,” Moffitt says. “Even though media attention creates the impression that these forms of aggression are highly prevalent and all around us, they are nevertheless still extremely rare. Most men are trustworthy, good, and sensible.”

She and her colleagues continue to look for hard markers for violence or lack of impulse control, genes or neurobiological anomalies. (A form of the gene that codes for a neurotransmitter called monoamine oxidase inhibitor A might give some kids protection against lifelong effects of maltreatment, she and her team have found. By implication not having that polymorphism, then, could predispose a child raised under adverse circumstances to psychopathology as an adult.) Similarly, nobody yet knows what digital-native kids in either cohort will do when they move their bad behavior online. One might speculate that it looks a lot like GamerGate and 4chan, though that sociological and psychological work is still in early days.

But for now, Moffitt and her co-workers have identified risk factors and childhood conditions that seem to create these bad behaviors, or allow them to flourish. That’s the good news. “We know a lifestyle of aggression and intimidation toward others starts so young,” Moffitt says. “It could be preventable.”

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/

from Viral News HQ https://ift.tt/2qVBXpg via Viral News HQ