To the public, mass shooters in the United States seem to adhere to a strict demographic guideline. The FBI knows all about it, and has the statistics to back up that premise.
Being male is chief among those traits.
"The Boys Are Not All Right," from Wednesday's New York Times, illustrates the stark differences in how parents raise their children, the boys and the girls. It's worth a listen:
"The past 50 years have redefined what it means to be female in America. Girls today are told that they can do anything, be anyone. They’ve absorbed the message: They’re outperforming boys in school at every level. But it isn’t just about performance. To be a girl today is to be the beneficiary of decades of conversation about the complexities of womanhood, its many forms and expressions.
"Boys, though, have been left behind. No commensurate movement has emerged to help them navigate toward a full expression of their gender. It’s no longer enough to 'be a man' — we no longer even know what that means."
That line of reasoning will undoubtedly have its critics. Truth be told, I had to read the op-ed a few times to get a better understanding of what it was saying, and whether I agreed or not. It's a meaty subject.
It'll take someone much smarter to determine if the prevalence of male shooters is linked somehow to their upbringing. That's above my pay grade. But given what's happening, and the statistics behind this bloody phenomena, it's worth a discussion.
-- Phillip Tutor