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

are you telling me you diddnt report it?

Yeah, but porn, I know what I'm talking about.

meow, honestly, I don't think you can blame me for you being deleted. If MNHQ deleted everything I think is misogynistic woman-blaming, this board would be much emptier.

no doctrine you diddnt make an excuse for rape, i diddnt mean that.
i was slightly put out that you thought i would benifit from the feminist literature in "we belive you" i was pointing out "no more than you do".

it got deleated because LRD turned it into something it wasnt, by arguing not with what i had said but something else, thus making mumsnet towers think that too.

i say "men use violence in vieing for position in the pecking order"

LRD says "do you realise how many women are abused !!!!!"

the fact the two things are not linked in any way doesnt matter, what matters is LRD gets a victim to vent her spleen at and MNHQ choses to appease her.

you must have belived her otherwise you wouldnt have thought i was in such need of rape myth education.

dragon, are you aware how often you "don't understand", on the many threads you have an arguement opinion on? Almost all of them.

Meow, I was explaining why I thought your deleted post might be against the spirit of We Believe You. This may or may not be why MNHQ deleted it. Nothing in your subsequent non-deleted posts has been against this spirit.

Where did I make excuses for rape, please?

you want evedence for female mate selection?

the fact that men are usually bigger than women, thats a result of sexual selection, women choseing bigger partners.

doctrine in passing me that link your just preaching to the converted, i could just as easily pass you that link assuming you made excuses for rape.

LRD you are so wide of the mark, your just not arguing with me but with someone else who has said some terrible things.

my comments about the way adult human females select mates and it's regard to the male peking order has nothing, i repeat NOTHING to do with male violence towareds women nor is it in any way an apology for male violence.

a number of times now i have said one thing and you start ranting about something totaly different.

amillionyears, that was Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Interesting example - I wonder if DSK ever used any violence against males.

Not sure what I am saying tbh,but I dont think violence is just limited to those who feel socially excluded

It isn't, but it is more likely as they have very few other methods.

I repeat: What possible evidene could you have for this?

Are you really saying you are unaware of any evidence that male violence is used to create status among males?

Mind you,he may be an exception to your rule.

Bluegrass,for some reason,the man who was leader of the IMF,I forget his name,keeps coming to mind.He was in a position of a lot of power,but still got arrested for attempted rape,if I remember correctly.
Not sure what I am saying tbh,but I dont think violence is just limited to those who feel socially excluded.

I repeat: What possible evidene could you have for this?

What ... so some males, poor things, just don't have the correct status-creating behaviours 'available' so they must resort to violence? What possible evidence could you have for this?

Are you for real?

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that violence, or the threat of violence is one strategy some men use for asserting what they consider to be higher status over other men. There must be all sorts of reasons why this happens. In less stable societies where violence from others is an ever present threat there must be an element of an arms race, of people outdoing one another in order to ensure that they are not a victim and to lay claim to rewards that apparently come when you are top of the pile (sex, money, "respect"). Even if you are not actively violent it has to be there as a threat to encourage others to move to weaker prey. If you are at the bottom in that sort of society those rewards are harder to get, and if you do get them someone else will take them from you.

Unfortunately that sort of survival of the fittest society has defined life on Earth for far longer than the more mutually cooperative, law abiding society that we are still struggling to create. The more a society develops and the more that individuals feel they have a stake in it the less likely they are to indulge in risky activities like violence. A less chaotic society also grants status to people who show other talents that go beyond hitting other people.

There will always be people who don't have those talents though, and if they live in a environment where they see that violence can still grant them access to rewards (sex, money, "respect") they are otherwise unable to claim by more socially acceptable means it will remain for them as a tempting option.

Presumably only when the risk always far out weighs any possible reward will these guys stop seeing violence as a valid strategy for getting on in life. It has to be seen to be unsuccessful- no sex, no money, no respect. If we could reach that point, but without losing any of the desire to compete and survive in the wider world (which is arguably the useful face of channeled agression) then our society would be in a much happier place.

Sorry, novack, who are you asking?

So what you are saying is that the men and woman are are violent as one another to their partners except the woman are convicted at a far fewer rate and their sentencing is far lower than that of a man.

'I am also saying that Human males have developed a far larger repertoire of staus-creating behavours instead of violence, but they are not equally available to all males..'

What ... so some males, poor things, just don't have the correct status-creating behaviours 'available' so they must resort to violence?

What possible evidence could you have for this?

Oh, yes, I think both men and women show off for each other - there's no need for a study there!

But I would distinguish between risky behaviour, and violence.

There have also been some studies which seem to show that young men's willingness to indulge in activities which carry a level of personal risk increases in the presence of females. Violence is one form of risky activity, particularly when it takes place between men.

It raises interesting questions about the impact of a female observer on the behaviour of young men particularly although I'm aware that just putting that out there as an interesting issue might be seen by some as trying to push responsibility from the men to the observer herself (which isn't the intention).

worry, are you saying that an alpha male must also be a violent male?

No, I am saying they can be. And so can males trying to establish some form of Alpha male status.

I am also saying that Human males have developed a far larger repertoire of staus-creating behavours instead of violence, but they are not equally available to all males..

I don't understand your post whatme.

I have no idea why MNHQ removed the post (other than what they said, which I assume is true), and my post was my views, not theirs. Obviously.

worry, are you saying that an alpha male must also be a violent male?

I think comments that offer an apology for male violence towards women, and do so by implicating women, should not stand

I objected to the censorship of that post and wanted an explanation, the MNHQ explanation for its removal was about the overly generalised way it was expressed, so it's removal:

(i) had nothing to do with male to male violence as a form of sexual selection per se, and

(ii) nothing to do with the "we believe you" campaign.

My exposition of the same point stood, so fwiw I think expressing it thus works:

I'd express it more that alpha males get to select more/better females, so that means the males will fight to determine dominance over other males. All species do it, not just humans

....

Of course humans have developed more than animals so young men also use wit, art, music, wealth, brains, personality etc to compete, but violence is still an often used option - especially among frustrated young men who have [few] other skills

What it does mean is that young males trying to establish their status are fairly dangerous to other (mainly young) males

www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-campaign-rape-myths-busted

Meow, try myth number 2, substituting the word rape, a form of violence, with the more general word violence.