I generally agree with you, but I felt that was a bit tortured.
I don't think most acts of male violence have to do with "entitlement." (a word I dislike almost as much as "snowflake", and the like).
I think men are just naturally more violent (by a good margin), *on average,* than females. Like many qualities, I believe this is due to a combination of biology and environment (society). On the biological side, men are physically stronger (and thus can use violence to dominate others) and have higher levels of testosterone (which may be linked to violent behavior). There is also a natural instinct/drive to win females, and thus fight for a higher rank in the sexual hierarchy (= get more sex with more women). Socially, men have been raised to think of themselves as warriors, and compete in physical sports, and it is acceptable for them to fight and roughhouse up to a point, and in this country, to accept and cheer gun violence (in movies, video games, and in "standing one's ground", or simply carrying guns around to be always be ready for a chance to be violent). It often wins them social points to be physically dominant.
All told: they more prone to being violent, by a lot. Is it because they feel "entitled" ?? I don't know, I just don't like that word. I just think , sadly, it comes naturally to many men (biologically, and socially).
Having said all that, I was probably splitting hairs with you.
Let's agree on this: if Conservatives want less innocent young women to get killed, there are 2 easy solutions this (which would work MUCH better than than keeping all Mexicans [or Muslims] out of the country, or locking up all black people):
ELIMINATE ALL GUNS
ELIMINATE MEN
Do one or both those things, and violence against women (and all violence) would PLUMMET. It's 100% true. Do you REALLY want to save the Mollie Tibbets of the world?
whaddya think, right wingers, good proposals? Or would you just rather use her death as point to slam Mexicans ?