Just feeling really angry at all the murder, assault, rape of females that goes on

Sorry, leith, I probably read your post too quickly.

novack - by definition, you surely couldn't have figures? But I would imagine it's high. It's thought figures of women not reporting it are pretty high, I believe, and it's still less taboo for women to admit.

leith put it perfectly, through my work and some social situations I have seen women practically fighting ( no, actually have seen women fighting) to be with the gang leader, the Mr.Big, and instigating, provoking and directing violence to others.

In counselling sessions with men, in certain conversations, we explored some terrible facets of deeper drives, and we understood the social norms and expectations that rein us in. But I know, in myself and others, men and women, that there is a capacity for violence and cruelty that is shockingly near to the surface .

There are the famous studies of prison warders, or students and volunteers acting the part, who when given permission or encouragement to inflict or allow pain to be applied did so, often happily and without question.

A question we used to discuss was ''If you knew you would never be caught, never be punished, or even applauded for it, what is the 'worst' thing you want to do?'' Once that ball got rolling, it was very very scary what people could be capable of.

Does anyone have the actual figures for the percentage of domestic violence against men that goes unreported. I would be surprised if even one in 50 men reported domestic abuse by their female partners to the police.

Lrd I think or maybe feel we are not talking about the same thing here, I do not disagree with what your saying it just was not what I was getting at, my fault or maybe lack of language to get to where I want to be. My intention was not to talk about the sexual excitement, It was more about some women being with violent men as a way to secure themselves in a community or society that is full of predators. Or as a means of achieving some status. None of this is desirable but does happen. Look at any crime ridden area, the gang bosses most if not all male, are not short of female company. Same with the Italian mobsters, they hardly live like monks. The children of these couples also get special treatment in schools. I saw one young lad beat another in front of a teacher and get away with it cos his dad was the local armed robber. His mother was also known to be pretty handy in a fight. Women's violence in general is on the increase... actually I am going to stop there. Probably still not on the same wavelength so better not to dig any further.

whatme, you tried to explain human behaviour, you messed up and linked to a description of animals' antlers.

I really don't think you can accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about.

Why not just accept you need better refs than wiki, and a tiny bit more understanding and knowledge? There's no shame in being ignorant or making a silly slip, only in refusing to acknowledge it when you've done it.

I picked you up for linking to the description of animals' development of antlers to support a point about human aggression - that is a mistake few children would make

But biologists would, because Humans are animals too...you don't know what you're talking about LRD.

I see, plenty, ok.

I still found that post very hard to read.

I x posted with others and so my post about getting rid of violence seems a bit niave in the light of others saying we will never be free of it. To an extent I agree and also agree that it would not be useful to society to be rid of violence, although I think Huxley's idea is as blinkered as any rape myth. I do think that we could do a lot to reduce the level of violence in the whole of society by lowering the kudos we give to people who use force to achieve what they want. Not just phyisicle force.

Isn't that what a psychopath is, someone who has these deep desires?

No, a psychopath would have those desires and not be horrified by them. A psychopath would not only have the desires but would carry them out without any moral qualms at all.

Also, there is a difference between 'desires' and intrusive thoughts

Not read it either MrG - I thought it was about RPatz's hair and him holding his knob in his hand, judging by the Victorian Coren article.

leith - yes, but what I'm getting at is, there seems to me a huge difference between saying that women spur on male violence because male violence is a way of attracting women, and saying that some women are turned on by violence in certain very ritualized contexts (eg. boxing), or saying that some women aspire to be with criminals. I mean, most of us don't aspire to be with criminals. I may be wrong, but my impression is that women who are with violent men do not tend to be what we'd all aspire to for women we know, right?

It's scary. Violence is scary.

I watch judo and I enjoy it, and it's all very exciting.

That is not, IMO, comparable to enjoying violence, because the point is that I know these people have rules restraining them, and I know they are not going to turn around and hit me.

We started out talking about murder, assault and rape. I don't think they are comparable to play-fighting like boxing or wrestling, I just don't.

Isn't 50 Shades full of sexual violence ? ( not read it ) and that's super popular with women.

Some people do find violence sexually exciting. Ever seen a bunch of grannies watching a wrestling match?

Going to dip a toe in here and offer observation not science, but both as a welfare benefits advisor and then as a community worker in some of the most poverty stricken communities in my large city of residence, I can say that I have seen and witnessed situations where women not just choose to be with a violent man, but actively aspire to it. We arer talking drug dealers, men who have done serious armed crimes, gang members, crime bosses, and men who may not be involved in criminality but who use their fists on others to dominate and portray power. One woman I know finally left her husband after she was shot at in her own home by a rival gang. She sayd that for a long time she felt as if she was the queen bee and enjoyed that level of power she got from being the wife of this man. Also after she left she felt some level of grief for losing that lifestyle.

The point I am trying to make is a follow on from what LRD is saying about the essence of the thing is that we agree that this behaviour is not acceptable and should be "trained" out of all humans. I would add though and I doubt that any one was saying this I am just making it clear, that it is not just a male thing or for males to stop. It is for everyone to be involved. Men and women both glorify violence, their are as many women boxing fans as male. Women want to right to join the army to kill people where as I would really rather that we had no army at all. Support for the death penalty in the u.s. and in the U.K is pretty evenly spread across society. Seeing violence any violence as acceptable is the problem.

ohdo - I find that post very scary. And horrifying, actually.

Isn't that what a psychopath is, someone who has these deep desires?

We discussed women who're attracted to violent men above - I believe it is correct that women who are, are usually those who've been exposed to violence?

mrGin - I agree about war, I am sure that's part of the problem.

If you fight, you have to compartmentalize the 'violence is ok' and the 'I'm still a good person' bits of your mind - that leads to immense stress, I think.

I agree with the fiction bit, that the idea is too simple - you could never identify the people who would end up being violent before they were, not in all cases.

That's why it has to be a lowest common denominator - under UK law, all men are potential rapists who have the physical capacity to rape; we're all potential murderers, etc. etc. Doesn't mean we know who would turn out to be the actual murderer.

LRD , just to come in late on this topic, but I think we are still driven by very basic drives that lurk under our different socialisations and cultural taboos. Male violence towards women is very real and simmering in many men, but is controlled to an extent by moral and physical repercussions.

I know men who are horrified at some of the reactions and thoughts they have, unbidden, towards their partners or women in general. There seems to be a gap between what they know is the right and correct behaviour and some deep, atavistic drives which are still allowed some expression in some societies, and often in warfare too.

Oh, and I definitely know some women who are attracted to violent men, and repeatedly enjoy seeing that violence expressed, either onto other men or even to themselves.

Sorry, himalaya, cross posted.

I don't believe that if something has an evolutionary basis, it can't be challenged - why would I say that? That's the opposite of what I am saying!

I take your point about violence as a learning strategy - yes, we're surely never going to get rid of toddler tantrums!

I suppose what I mean is the institutionalized (if that's the right word) violence we have now. I'd like to see it go the way of, say, laws making it ok to beat your wife.

I think smacking is an interesting case here - it used to be accepted as not only normal, but ideal parenting. Now there's much more dissent.

I didn't say violence was a completely learned cultural practice - and you are right, it's not - but also, I'm not sure speaking Latin is the comparison. I think there are lots of learned cultural practices - like, say, clicking your thumbs to attract attention - that have roots in something perfectly physically natural, but have an overlay of cultural meaning. So they're both determined by physical bodies, and by social understanding. I think a lot of violence is like that.

Aldus Huxley wrote about his utopia in The Island. Pure fiction of course, but in his utopia individuals with violent tenancies were identified early in life and steered into activities that gave outlet to their aggression which harmed no one. Nice idea, but of course fiction.

I think the problem when it comes to these discussions, and division comes from the 'all men are potential rapists' school of thought, and the confines and framing of discussion. In that a discussion about male violence is within the context of violence against women. Understandable, but I#d hazard a guess that the sort of bloke who wants to pick a fight with a random stranger after the pub is exactly the type who won't think twice about going back home to abuse his partner or kids. So in some sense, possibly small I don't know, we face the same violent individuals. Some of us in the home, some of us outside the pub.

I suspect that war has something to do with some of this. There was something on the BBC recently about soldiers returning from conflict and being unable to control their tempers with their families as a result of intensely traumatic experiences in war zones. I'm sure this has been going on for ever and seed more violence through the generations.

whatme, you keep confusing evolutionary psychology with evolutionary theory, you don't seem to understand that wikipedia, especially when it doesn't cite sources, is an extremely poor reference. I picked you up for linking to the description of animals' development of antlers to support a point about human aggression - that is a mistake few children would make. And yet you're taunting other people about lack of knowledge?!

For goodness' sake, if you have anything at all to contribute other than taunts, why not do it?

LRD

Yes I see how you are bundling "it's not natural" with "we don't have to be like this" and I can see the intuitive attractiveness of that.

But that leads to the converse reasoning where if something is shown to have an innate/evolutionary basis then it seems to imply it can't be challenged (that is false) So you end up arguing against the science because of what you think it implies rather than because of the data. Which is the wrong way to go about engaging with science.

I DO think violence and aggression will always be with us. individuals in every generation needs to learn how to control their anger, how to use reason, how to think ahead and to respect others (thats the hard work of parenting ). Every generation of boys and girls needs to learn that no means no, whatever the context.

People with a hot- headed and aggressive temperament need more learning than other, including the real threat of punishment.... and it appears likely that there are more people at that end of the spectrum amongst the male population than female. Most people are not extreme cases, and the more that society makes clear in its norms that violence and force are not acceptable for either sex the better it will be.

I.e. - as with most things it is a combination of nature and nurture.

Saying that violence is a completely learned cultural practice, means it is something akin to speaking Latin. Once it dies out it doesn't come back. You never have to teach children to not speak Latin. I just don't think violence works like this.

Maybe the issue is that we need better terminology

The issue is that RadFems don't like (nor really understand) what evolutionary theory is or says. Nor do creationists and various other belief systems, so you all try to get it censored, as seen on this thread.

This is what is meant by the Closing of the Western Mind, this increasing pressure to censor science and revert from the an Age of Reason back to a Woo-World of half-cocked beliefs and superstitions.

I don't think humans have antlers, whatme, and that seems a fact fairly well accepted by the biologists too

QED....

*what change do the children have, sorry.

I wouldn't know the details, amillion, but I agree with you that justice plays a huge role.

I do hold out hope violence would become, at least much rarer.

As I understand it, we know that children who grow up with violence are more likely to become violent. It could well be that if they grew up with the violent figure removed (in prison, or just because mum - and it usually is mum - has the support to get out), this would decrease violence in the next generation.

It is very difficult, though, as you say, when there's not enough going into preventing violence.

I was thinking again about schools - now I know someone who started teaching in a school where they regularly had knife incidents, and people on the gates, and so on ... it makes you think, what change to the children have who're exposed to all of that? But maybe, if we mark out violence as something that is not ok, not the norm, maybe it can be stopped?

LRD,I think that is where justice comes in.
To my mind,violence will never become eradicated.Also,I think the trouble with justice is,that there comes a tipping point,as is happening now.
The Government[and it seems to be of all persuasians,and I certainly dont want this thread to become political],chooses not to build more prisons.
I think the prison population of this country is 90,000?
Governements seem to want to keep to that,so that means people are either let out quicker,given shorter sentences,not sent there at all,etc.
Which mean they are out in the community.Im not meaning just men,women also I should imagine.
In reality,there should maybe say 150,000 people in prison?