Men’s response to threats was more pronounced than women’s, an asymmetry we attribute to the cultural devaluation of femininity.

It's really interesting that the article blames excessive masculinity, while the abstract makes it seem like it is the result of a 'devaluation of femininity.' They may be saying almost the else thing, but the implications of the wording choice are kind of strange.

What I'd still like to see is if it can be experimentally shown that females are more likely to try to act as peacekeepers or mdore reserved, as per traditional gender roles. That would obviously result in less women mass shooters. When pressured, they might react like men, conforming more to traditional gender roles, but for them, it would move them to be a smaller chance of becoming a mass shooter. Hopefully a freed full article can explain that.

There is still some things going against statistics. The greater San Fran area has 4 shootings on the map. Houston has zero, Dallas two, Denver two and Portland two all out West. Out East, Philly has zero, DC one, Chicago three out East. These are all in the top 20 metro areas. But NYC, LA, Detroit, and Atlanta have a ton it seems. What is it about these areas that make them have more mass shootings? It goes beyond population here, into regional culture, which definitely opens up new areas of investigation.