'The Overwhelming Maleness of Mass Homicide'

Rather, on the contrary. She seems to be trying to point out something that is indeed routinely ignored. Much of the kind of mass-murder violence that does occur is done by men, often younger ones. Note how she closes the piece:

'Our refusal to talk about violence as a public-health problem with known (or knowable) risk factors keeps us from helping the young men who are at most risk and, of course, their potential victims. When we view terrible events as random, we lose the ability to identify and treat potential problems, for example by finding better ways to intervene with young men during their vulnerable years. There is so much more we need to learn about how to prevent violence, but we could start with the sex difference that is staring us in the face.'

This isn't the ideological rant of a feminist. This sounds more like someone who has a real concern for a segment of the population that seems to be at greater risk for displaying aberrant and dangerous behavior than others. Seems to me like there ought to be more effort placed into helping men go from being boys to men and deal with the strains of young adulthood, especially as a man in our society, than is being done now. There is a lot of effort put forth for girls and women, but not much for boys and men. Seems like it's time that problem was addressed.

I expected this. I doubt we'll read much about the four men who saved the lives of their girlfriends. Everything has to fit the "narrative," not the facts.

One obvious exception to this narrative is abortion. Women abort about 1.3 million babies a year. Blaming this all on men seems a bit unfair. It's also considered by many women to be the most important right a woman has.

As to men starting wars, virtually every female leader from Cleopatra to Thatcher has started or been involved a war. War is a way for the state to gain its ends. The states uses men because they do the job better and because they're more expendable. Perhaps the real answer to ending war is to quit viewing men as expendable. That's what Rambo said: "I'm expendable." And he was.

As to teaching boys to be men, well, the answer is obvious: boys need fathers. Only a man can teach a boy to become a man because only a man knows what it takes. Women don't. Many try valiantly. Those women who succeed do it with humility, recognizing their own shortcomings. Those who fail usually do it with arrogance: you don't need no stinkin' father. Fathers today are--like Rambo--expendable. Get rid of him and force him to pay so mom can afford to get rid of him.

The real problem, I suspect, is male expend-ability. Males have no value in themselves, only in relation to how they serve others, especially women. A man who is expendable has no intrinsic value. A man with no intrinsic value suffers from psychic pain. And from that pain issues problematic behavior.

And a final note: blaming men relieves women of any responsibility and shrouds them in their holier-than-thou cocoon. But what if it wasn't that easy? What if they are their brother's keeper?

Seems to me, what she is trying to say is "men are dangerous and violent, and we need to come to acknowledge and accept that if we wish to help them". Her last line gives this away, in trying to force an acknowledgement of sex differences regarding violence. She could have made the argument you are suggesting in a way that could have actually helped men without condemning them, such as by asking us to look at what could cause these events, and what kinds of support systems were available, or not, to help those people, noting the utter absence of support for men out there. Instead she choose to pin it on men, asked us to acknowledge the problem is with men, and that we need to accept this acknowledgement before we can help men (presuming, once it is acknowledged, people would even want to help. Last I checked, rottweilers were forced to wear muzzles most places, because people were expected to acknowledge they were a violent bread that needed. Are we violent dangerous males to be helped, or simply muzzled?)

The mainstay of the feminist party line views gender (masculine or feminine characteristics or behavior) to be the result of sociocultural socialization, and, indeed, that feminine ways of knowing and characteristics are superior, more peaceful and democratic, and better. This illogical, unscientific, ridiculous reasoning extends into every domain - when you say "men are typically physically stronger," "men are more rational," "the nature of sexuality is different," feminists denounce such claims as sexist and as stereotypical. Arguing that the sexes are different by nature, in any way, deviates from the mainline propaganda of Western femdom. We might call it "progressive femi-dology."