• Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    25 days ago

    Unfortunately in our society women don’t get enough opportunities. If we truly care about equality we should be supporting women who want to become serial killers, help them break through that glass ceiling.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    This is not just modern age, this is how it has been for as long as our knowledge reach back. Women are less prone to violence than men.

    Some say testosterone makes men more aggressive, but the problem is that the difference in aggressive behavior can be observed before sexual hormones kick in.

    Another possibility could be social structures.

    This article says there are 2 theories:
    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/roots-aggression

    One being male competition for reproduction, and the other social.

    Problem is IMO, that it doesn’t swing with behavioral studies of children, that to me seem to exclude both as the fundamental course for higher male aggression and tendency towards violence.
    Seems to me it goes deeper, yes we do have competition for reproduction, but so do women, and women can be quite competitive and aggressive about it too, but generally in a less violent way.

    A third more likely possibility IMO, is that in a society where mankind consisted of small nomadic groups, the men had a role of protecting the group, while women protected the children.
    This role for the male, needs the male to be less prone to fear of consequences of violence, giving the ability to confront danger, where women protecting the children were probably more prone to evade danger.

    So yes you could say it’s based on a social role, but that role is not just learned, it’s a genetically encoded social role, that is then reinforced by social structure and hormones. Obviously women have the ability to take the role if needed, because we are sentient beings with ability to learn traits.
    Now there is a curiosity in that women have actually become relatively MORE prone to violence for the past 50 years. And the above hypothesis does not explain that.

    As I see it, there must be new factors playing a role that did not exist previously. I suspect it could be an increase of man made hormone like chemicals in the environment, that influence our behavior.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      25 days ago

      Not refuting this at all, or claiming to be schooled on the topic, but also consider success rate. It could also be that women are less successful at physically destroying another human

    • mononomi@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      In your third option, why would the men protect the group and the woman protect the children?

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        Good question.
        It’s a thing that evolved among humans over millions of years. Men evolved bigger stronger muscles, because women are more vulnerable during pregnancy, and infants need their mother to survive.
        Making men more available for the more dangerous task of protection and hunting.
        So by the numbers, we evolved those roles, because it improved chances of survival for the group.
        Males are more aggressive, because it actually help the group to survive short term attacks and hunting for food, and women are on average more cautious because that helps infants and the group survive long term.
        It all boils down to survival of our ancestors.

        • mononomi@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          If they are vulnerable during pregnancy, why wouldn’t the woman evolve stronger muscles? Then they could also make the men care for infants. I guess suckling would still be a woman thing but that doesn’t take the whole day right.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            25 days ago

            Being pregnant takes lots of caloric energy, and is an inherently vulnerable time.

            Not saying women are less, just saying calories are being spent, energy is being focused. Many pregnant women have accomplished insane thing and overcome incredible hardship during their term.

  • madjo@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    25 days ago

    (semi-unserious answer) women listen to a lot of true crime podcasts, thus know what pitfalls caused other serial killers to be discovered and know how to avoid that.

    • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 days ago

      That sounds like inequality! We should create programs to help introduce them into this male dominated field. /S

  • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    25 days ago

    I frequently see the statistic that men commit something like 90% of homicides, but then you’ll notice that the clearance rate for homicide in this country is below 50%. makes you wonder

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    Well, truth is that nobody knows.

    There’s just not enough information available for anyone to have a reliable predictor of what will make someone become a serial. There are definitely the common things among serials, but they aren’t always present, and aren’t present in every serial. You know, the whole animal torture/killing thing, escalating lesser crimes, etc.

    So it’s impossible to know why more serials are men since we don’t even know why anyone goes serial in the first place. There’s not even definitive proof that the percentage of women serial killing represents all of them, or just the ones that got caught. For all we know, the numbers could be the same, and women are just better at getting away with it.

    So, there’s not really an answer to the question, though there are theories.

    The two theories I ran across that were the most convincing are that “triggering” whatever it is that makes people become serials is more likely to occur with men; and that there may be some linkage to the differences in hormones and brain development that go back to the womb. There’s also the idea that it’s both of those in conjunction, which seems more likely that it being only one of them.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      it’s impossible to know why more serials are men

      I disagree, it’s part of a pattern where men are generally more violent than women.

      For all we know, the numbers could be the same, and women are just better at getting away with it.

      No this is not likely, since serial killers are generally caught, it’s very difficult to hide multiple killings.

  • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    Being a serial killer requires taking risks. Women, in comparison to men, are more risk-averse.

    +

    Suicide attempts are between two and four times more frequent among females. Researchers have partly attributed the difference between suicide and attempted suicide among the sexes to males using more lethal means to end their lives.

    How are you suppose to succeed in killing others when you can’t even kill yourself?