There were a few things the Buffalo and Uvalde mass shooters who killed a combined 31 people had in common: Both used AR-15-style rifles bought legally. Both were just 18 years old. But perhaps most overlooked in the corporate press as a shared characteristic worthy of commentary: They were both male.
Scholars, activists and even healthcare professionals have long highlighted the gendered nature of mass violence. Since 1982, of 129 mass shootings that killed four or more people, men or boys were perpetrators in 126 of them (Statista, 6/2/22).
Toxic masculinity
The concept of toxic masculinity originated in the pro-feminist men’s movement of the 1980s, and argues that hegemonic ideals of masculinity that promote emotional repression, violence and power are deeply harmful, not only to society at large, but to men themselves (American Psychiatric Association, 9/18).
There’s also a significant connection between mass shootings and other types of misogynistic violence and ideology: Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen allegedly emotionally, financially and physically abused his wife prior to the 2016 massacre (Rolling Stone, 6/13/16). Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza had a Word document on his computer explaining “why females are inherently selfish” (New Yorker, 3/10/14). University of California shooter Elliot Rodger posted a YouTube video in which he ranted about women not being attracted to him and swore to seek revenge (BBC, 4/26/18). Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho allegedly stalked and harassed two students leading up to the massacre (Newsweek, 5/28/14). Nova Scotia shooter Gabriel Wortman allegedly restrained and beat his partner leading up to—and just hours before—the shooting (Business Insider, 5/16/20). This list is far from exhaustive.
A 2021 study (Injury Epidemiology, 5/21/21) found that in 68% of mass shootings that injured or killed four or more people between 2014–19, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of domestic violence.
A 2013 essay by Jackson Katz published in the pro-feminist men’s activist journal Voice Male (Winter/13) argued that news media have repeatedly failed to identify maleness as one of the greatest predictive factors of mass violence. After the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, the press rushed to blame jihadism and Islamic radicalism, but overlooked
the ideology of a certain type of manhood that links acts of violence to masculine identity. It is the idea that committing an act of violence—whether the precipitating rationale is personal, religious or political—is a legitimate means to assert and prove one’s manhood.
Between the Buffalo shooting on May 14 and June 9, more than two weeks after the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, US newspapers published more than 20,000 articles discussing one or both shootings, according to a search of the Nexis database and the website of the Washington Post (which is not in the Nexis database). But of those thousands of articles, FAIR found only 37 unique pieces that made links to toxic masculinity, misogyny, or differences in socialization of boys and girls. Seven were syndicated columns reprinted in multiple outlets, bringing the total times such pieces appeared to 51.
‘Differences in socialization’
The fact that nine of the nine deadliest mass shootings since 2018 were committed by males is apparently a less disturbing pattern to the New York Times (6/2/22).
Only eight of those 51 total pieces were published in the news sections of newspapers; the rest were in the opinion sections. Four of the mentions of masculinity or misogyny in news articles (USA Today, 5/25/22, 5/25/22, 5/26/22; New York Observer, 5/25/22) referenced the successful lawsuit brought by the families of the Sandy Hook victims against Remington, the producer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the assault, which ran ads targeting young men and suggesting the weapon granted them their “man card.”
A front-page New York Times article (6/2/22) sought to investigate why so many mass shooters tend to be young, largely downplaying the question of gender and masculinity, but did quote Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine pediatrics professor Sara Johnson, who pointed out “major differences in socialization for males and females related to aggressive behavior, appropriate ways to seek support, how to display emotions and acceptability of firearm use.”
Notably, the Washington Post referenced misogyny and/or masculinity in three news articles (5/15/22, 5/28/22, 6/3/22)—more than any other paper in our search—and embedded a 2019 Post mini-documentary on American masculinity and gun culture in another (5/24/22), which otherwise did not mention the topic.
In its June 3 news article, the Post described the trend of young men committing acts of gun violence, chalking it up mainly to age and lack of brain development, but also cited a study that noted the role male socialization plays:
Peter Langman, a psychologist who researches school shootings, noted in the Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention that “the sense of damaged masculinity is common to many shooters and often involves failures and inadequacies.”
The reporters also quoted Eric Madfis, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Washington at Tacoma, who said, “We teach boys and men that the only socially acceptable emotion to have is not to be vulnerable and sensitive, but to be tough and macho and aggressive.”
The other two Washington Post articles covered the Uvalde shooter’s history of threatening teen girls online (5/28/22), and a post by the Buffalo shooter using misogynist slurs to complain about New York’s gun laws (5/15/22).
‘Confronting misogyny’
Leah Binkovitz (Houston Chronicle, 6/7/22): “Misogyny intertwines and cross-pollinates with a range of extreme ideologies, from white supremacy to anti-Jewish hate, because of the way they appeal to a retrenchment of supposedly threatened identities.”
In opinion sections, most mentions of the gendered nature of mass shootings came in columns or op-eds (35), with an additional eight mentions in editorials.
While most of the opinion pieces (72%) agreed that toxic masculinity and misogyny contribute to mass violence, it was seldom more than a fleeting mention. Out of these 31 opinion pieces that viewed these as factors, only eight (26%) centered their arguments on it. The majority tended to focus on other issues, mentioning pathologies related to masculinity in passing.
“The motives and reasons for mass shootings are varied: disputes, racism, misogyny, festering grievances, work-related issues, mental illness,” wrote Thomas Gabor in a column that focused on the need for stricter gun laws and background checks (Gainesville Sun, 5/29/22; Palm Beach Post, 5/31/22). An op-ed by Rich Elfers (Enumclaw Courier-Herald, 6/8/22; Quincy Valley Post Register, 6/8/22) suggested “de-glamoriz[ing] guns as a symbol of masculinity and coolness” as one way to prevent mass shootings.
In one of the more pointed columns drawing attention to the role of misogyny in mass shootings, Leah Binkovitz (Houston Chronicle, 6/7/22) wrote:
The connection between mass shooters, who are overwhelmingly men, and domestic violence, sexual harassment and misogyny has been made again and again and again. And yet it remains, by and large, a muted part of our response and soul-searching each time. Confronting the full scope of gun violence, however, has to include confronting misogyny.
Two papers (Eagle Times, 5/24/22; Columbian, 5/26/22) published a column by activist Rob Okun, urging Americans to stop ignoring “how these murderous men were socialized as boys and men” and recognize that Buffalo, like countless other mass shootings, was not only racist but also “an affirmation of male supremacy.”
‘Womanish wimps’
Cynthia Allen (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 6/4/22): “Our decades of eschewing gender roles and their associated characteristics in pursuit of equality have had some undesirable effects.”
To compare, all 12 of the opinion pieces arguing against the idea that toxic masculinity leads to mass shootings made it their central argument.
The most-reprinted column, by conservative Tribune News Services columnist Jay Ambrose, appeared in seven different papers, including the Boston Herald (6/1/22) and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (6/2/22). It attributed teen mass shooters’ behavior to “raggedy families,” arguing that “a missing father can mean missing lessons in masculinity for the boy,” which leads to bullies harassing them as “womanish wimps,” culminating in “supposedly brave, masculine acts” of violence by the fatherless boy. It ended with a call for “helping to rebuild the family in this country” and “restoring certain old norms.”
Another syndicated column, by Cynthia Allen, blamed the poor police response in Uvalde on “decades of eschewing gender roles and their associated characteristics in pursuit of equality,” and the Uvalde shooter’s actions on fatherlessness (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 6/4/22; Miami Herald, 6/8/22)
In an even more direct attack on the concept of toxic masculinity, Miranda Devine at the New York Post (6/2/22) wrote that the reason for the much-criticized police inaction on the day of the Uvalde shooting was that men are “vilified” and bullied for bravery.
Out of all of the outrageous and horrific details of the shooting, Devine chose to bemoan the fact that heavily armed officers, who opted to handcuff one distraught parent and pepper spray another as a shooter took 21 lives inside, failed to act because “the only acceptable man now is a man who wants to be a woman. We celebrate ‘pregnant men’ and ‘chestfeeding’ men.”
Miranda Devine (New York Post, 6/2/22): “We pathologize manly virtues and bow to the tyranny of identity politics that seeks power by overthrowing a make-believe patriarchy.”
Eight of the opinion articles were editorials—six agreeing that toxic masculinity contributes to violence, and two disagreeing. One was from the news organ of a right-wing think tank, the Foundation for Economic Education (5/25/22), which argued (citing Jordan Peterson) that blame on toxic masculinity is “misplaced,” because “aggression is an innate part of human nature,” and that it’s incorrect to think boys and girls should be socialized in the same ways. The other was part of a list of “fast takes” compiled by the New York Post editorial board (6/1/22), citing a Spectator World (6/1/22) piece that argued that not all masculinity is toxic, and that “there must be consequences to telling men that…their behavior is wrong, and that all their intentions are tainted by dint of their chromosomes.”
Relegating the bulk of these conversations to the opinion sections of papers presents them as adjacent “culture war” debates between the left and right. If the central role that gender and masculinity play in mass shootings is never acknowledged as a fact, how can it ever be addressed?
The writers who sought to dismiss the significance of toxic masculinity in their columns and editorials demonstrated a deliberate false understanding of the concept, beating a straw man to argue that not all masculine traits are harmful. The “not all men” argument distracts from the very real crisis that a disproportionate number of men are driving.
It’s a bogus way for the right to play the victim in the midst of unspeakable tragedy—a harmful ruse accommodated by an overall lack of coverage, a dearth of news articles, and a shortage of opinion pieces that truly center toxic masculinity’s role in mass shootings.
Featured image: Collage of mass shooters compiled by JSTOR Daily (10/21/15).
On a wider scale – it is also unmentionable that it is men who plan, prepare ,and carry out the mass violence that is war. Take a look at not only the ”operatives” i.e. the soldiers (many of whom seem to love fighting’), but at the leaders. You will find the odd token woman going along with the patriarchy, wearing her pink jacket and looking just how she ”should”
History is all about men fighting, and aiming to win at all costs.
I suspect that homo sapiens will survive only if it adapts, like the bees and the ants, to a basically female society
Spoiler alert Noel: BOTH bees and ants commit to warfare against their own kind.
Maybe stop projecting your feminist ideals onto the insect world?
Yes, the US would be less violent if Hillary Clinton was President.
This timely piece brings to mind a digital poster displayed at Ungun.org (http://ungun.weebly.com). Titled “Penis Envy”, it reads: “Assault guns don’t compensate for imagined deficiency. Wise up. Ditch the gun.”
I created the website and posters following Adam Lanza’s slaughter of twenty 6- and 7-year-olds and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary, Newtown CT.
The homepage says: “Ungun.org seeks public attitude change to make assault guns and high capacity ammo clips as unacceptable as drunk driving and sex abuse.”
This article prompted me to look up gender statistics. Turns out males account for 3 of 4 drunk driving arrests; females are victimized in 9 of 10 sex abuse cases. Further, males commit 19 of 20 instances of child sex abuse. I couldn’t readily find a statistic for ownership of assault guns by gender, but assume they’re nearly all male.
Yea, its male, across may races and colors BTW but you missed or blew it. Its actually Hollywood, its been Hollywood and it remains Hollywood. Turn on ANY movie and shooting a gun always is/becomes a focal point. Piss poor broad analysis by Fair once again.
Strange, then, that the many countries which have for many decades displayed Hollywood films and US TV series in prime places don’t have the levels of gun violence that the exceptional USA enjoys. Might it be linked to guns themselves being allowed and prioritised in the USA, whereas here in the UK only a tiny percentage of the population, and few police, possess a gun?
Yep! And the Norwegians ended US TV programming the day after a child died.
America’s heroes male heroes are not peacemakers, they’re soldiers, snipers, and mass murderers. When other nations don’t do what our criminal capitalist leaders believe they should, we kill them. It’s simple. The US has nearly 1,000 military bases all over the world, ready to attack any nation that doesn’t go along with the US plan of FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. The US spends more on violence than all other nations combined if we include the violence of our own domestic policy. There are 50,000 SWAT team invasions annually in this “land of the free.” The DHS is a trillion dollar operation geared to naming every American as some kind of enemy. Like George Bush said, “Yer either with us or against us.” No negotiation. If our leaders don’t like you, we will brand you as the enemy and we will go to great violent lengths to bring you down, even if it means blowing up a school or hospital if there’s a “terrrrrist” inside we need ta git. We support horrific violence against Palestine, including the slaughter of young children because God told our leaders that Israel can do no wrong. Neither can the US because God condones the mass use of violence in the name of righteousness. If the male sky God is on “our” side in all this violence, why wouldn’t young socially troubled males believe that violence is the best way to solve problems? That same male sky god has set up women as needing to be ruled by men.
Showing genitals and making love on media is pornographic, shameful, and forbidden, but brains being blown out, women being raped and murdered, and countless other atrocious acts are considered entertainment. “Action” means mass violence, and makes for best selling movies. America LOVES violence, and until it addresses that hideous issue, we will continue to see mass shootings on a regular basis. “Step One – Admit you have a problem.” Well, that ain’t gonna happen. The US is just too violently arrogant.
FAIR’s new undergraduate declarative style, truth by proclamation*, is remarkable for a site devoted to press criticism.
The failure of that press at large to accept “toxic masculinity” as eagerly as these two authors may reflect the notion’s ideological, rather than psychiatric, basis. There can be no expectation that the term, and the view of the world, preferred by 23 year-olds far and wide will enter the general lexicon.
Meanwhile, I wonder if the press really does have to point out that male shooters are male, or attribute indiscriminate killing sprees to misogyny, absent a psychiatric examination.
___________________________
*”The writers who sought to dismiss the significance of toxic masculinity in their columns and editorials demonstrated a deliberate false understanding….” “It’s a bogus way for the right to play the victim….” Is this press criticism or the circular argumentation of twitter, where it’s assumed your followers agree with your every day. And why wouldn’t they, when we’re right about everything?
Bingo Jake and that is how this site works along with Ifso Facto.
Jake and Barry,
Do you think the U.S. is doing a number one great job at raising its males or no? Does this line of inquiry make the two of you uncomfortable, if so why?
Oh, are you uncomfortable, are your feelings hurt ?? Well that doesn’t take precedence over facing uncomfortable facts.
To Barry,
Okay? I guess the jokes on me.
Sorry, but your lesson is always lost on those who aspire to dominate others.
Yeah,
Probably true, Barry tells Jake he’s pissing in the wind with the unnamed person, you tell the unnamed person that a lesson will be lost on those who aspire to dominate others….and around and around the elephant circle dance goes ((don’t look that up if you’re eating.)
If the unnamed person is misunderstanding you Bradley, and you believe it was the unnamed person who was trying to dominate Jake and Barry by way of asking them a few questions…well that’s pretty glib. What would we have to go on if we cease asking each other questions? Who knows? No one could ask to find out eh?
BTW: an old workmate of someone close to the unnamed person was only blocks away from the Highland Park, IL shooting as it occurred today…and guess what the sex the Illinois shooter was?
Since you require an explanation… my response will remain unnamed
This is to Jake and Barry:
Can’t speak for Barry, but funny and so very telling, how the ‘rebuttal’ is always ad hominem and always amounts to a charge of “white fragility” in one form or another. Object to the prevailing dogma and it’s a sign of your own corruption and weakness! Deny you’re a racist, in your soul or as expressed public policy, and that’s proof you are one!
And why not? There couldn’t possibly be a public policy question worth talking about if the social justice program has already answered it.
What will happen when you’ve vanquished all our enemies in the progressive nutshell and then turn on each other? Actually, that’s going on in the Democratic party right now. When you’re finished, there won’t be any one left. Just lots of seething powerless people with very pure souls.
Will there be enough jobs at FAIR to feed y’all? Will you immigrate to mythical countries which are free of all the horrors you claim to despise, including the ones in your own souls, even if public policy is just a little Maoist?
To Jake,
It appears that you misunderstood the questions, or maybe you thought there was an ulterior motive behind the questions to begin with
To be more explicit, here are the questions again, reworded and broken down into separate possible answers (multiple choice) hopefully this will avoid any further confusion, and at least inspire an answer if you’d like.
1. Does Jake think the U.S. is doing a great job at raising its males?
(a) yes America is doing just fine raising its males.
(b) no America needs a monarch and all problems magically vanish.
(c) It’s complicated
(d) we don’t have enough information to readily discern any patterns.
(e) something else
2. How does Jake see the topic of how males are raised in America?
(a) unimportant
(b) irrelevant
(c) ad hominem
(d) important but with a qualifier.
(e) something else
Jake I admire that you appear to have a lot on your mind, and thank you for at least taking the time to post something in response to the questions.
“To Jake”
Oh boy. One last time.
No, I don’t think America is doing a great job raising its males. Or its females. Or its non-binaries. This site still engages with public policy questions — the bizarre gender claims of a tiny fraction of the population haven’t yet taken over completely — so we can still put it in simple terms: when half the population, including tens of millions of women, actively supports the Republican party, American child-rearing may be deficient in some ways.
Whether we want to put the social justice movement, with its imaginary science and tireless racial/gender preoccupations, in charge of American youth might require more thought.
For the rest, this site is not well situated to determine what makes men — hardly American men alone — do what they do. And I suppose there’s no point mentioning, absurd as it sounds, the contributions of men to civilization. Arts, music, literature, sciences, math, engineering — doesn’t mean a thing?
In any event, your language prohibitions and identity politics (thank Hillary!) will not cure humanity, men, women or other, of its ills.
Jake you are pissing in the wind. This unnamed person (probably a male) who writes in riddles and poses multiple choice questions is a pure Woke true believer who has enough Kool Aid for life. In other words, don’t waste your time with logical, common sense rebuttals
To Jake,
Are you into philosophy? If so there is a philosopher you may or may not like named Bernardo Kastrup, the stuff you post on FAIR reminds me of a recent article of his (Hallucinated Implication Creep) – which talks about when people online read too far into something that someone else says to them.)
Where do you get your news and information? Have you always been a conservative or Republican or?
You probably will not answer these questions which is fine.
Personally was bombarded with references to this material. Ughh!
Yo Bradley,
“Personally was bombarded with references to this material. Ughh!”
Yeah one comment is totally akin to wall to wall bombardment ain’t it? Especially since t was naive of me to even think you’d be into it…oh well.
Swing and a miss.
Same anonymous poster pushing the propaganda… methinks. OUCH!
We’re horrified by mass shootings. But, the fact is, the number of people who are killed in them is quite small, compared to the population. The number of killers even smaller. You wouldn’t know that from watching the MSM, OR from reading this article. To me, as a man, this needlessly demonizes men in a general way, as feminists have been doing since the late 60s.
So… 700 mass shootings a year that kill or injure four or more is now meaningless?
While it’s unquestionably true that the overwhelming gender trait of mass shooters is male, that is not THE overwhelming – in fact 100% – trait. That would be – duh – THE POSSESSION OF A GUN!!!!!
Yes, Steve, I for-one strongly agree that the availability—legal and illegal— of firearms in the US is the KEY factor at-play here. As we’ve done with explosives in this country, remove them from the equation and you would have a lot fewer mass killings. It’s just common knowledge that guns and explosives are very efficient tools for destroying things and they take very little physical strength to wield, unlike knives or clubs. If they’re available, a sick-minded violence-prone individual will seek them out and some will use them to slaughter innocents. If these twisted guys only have knives/clubs/spears/bows & arrows etc available, then they won’t be able to kill as many people and it will be much easier for bystanders to disarm them. As hard as it would be to start reducing firearms in this country, I still believe that it would be easier than trying to treat/permanently rehabilitate the millions of mentally-ill people…
Very simple: dog bites man = no news. Man bites dog = big news.
Mass shooter is mail = no news. Mass shooter is female = big news.
Sometimes comments aren’t very helpful. I was recently directed toward Richard Rhodes by a short quote on the cover of a book I read. It seems that he wrote a biography about the life of a criminologist; it’s called “Why They Kill”. I read something about the concept of “violentization” which is akin to the “socialization” used here. Rhodes also wrote a book about the life of E.O. Wilson, titled “Scientist”. This might help me better understand discussions around sociobiology.
Hmmm young teen boys and their guns and murders.
I wonder if those teens associate their bullets flying with having an imagined sex life?
IF THEY CAN’T or DON’T HAVE SEX—- bullets are as close as they get?
Just wondering
I see another common trait with these shooters.