Male violence and terrorism

Attraction is a complex area and it's a bit reductive to blame women's dating preferences for male violence.

I think that's a bit much ? I'm not blaming anyone, i'm just suggesting that since other mammals tend to live in groups with an "alpha" male, it's not unreasonable to see many parallels with human behaviour. Look at the way teenage girls worship pop stars etc, i rather think it is "reductive" to dismiss any evolutionary context to our behaviour and say "oh it's just cos of marketing". Also surprised to hear you know men that are 9 feet tall Dervel :)

Matilda - I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think you can base what is or is not natural by looking at the outcome, you need to look at the context in which a car came to exist, is the desire to move quickly and safely from one place to another natural ? Surely you don't think that because early humans didn't drive cars, cars are not "natural" ?

I agree re parents and children, but it is also the case that not only is it socially unacceptable to beat your kids, it's against the law. Perhaps in the future, as it becomes less likely that people will get away with violence, maybe through new technology, then it'll become a thing of the past. I do think that the likely hood of another global conflict between major world powers has largely gone thanks to technology. However that doesn't seem to mean that those nations spend any less on weapons. I dunno....

I think you are over egging the issue re: women's preferences in partners. I'm 6ft tall broad of shoulder, and yeah maybe some women would be comforted by that but by no means all, and my stance on non-violence has never gotten in the way of dating.

Conversely I've known men with 2-3 feet on me fail to get anywhere with women because they are so meek and unassuming.

Attraction is a complex area and it's a bit reductive to blame women's dating preferences for male violence.

I'd say we are all attracted to successful and powerful people, but you can be both in this day and age without being violent.

That didn't entirely make sense, i was attempting to draw a parallel between what appears to be women's preference for tall men with evolutionary reward for violence.

The threat of physical force is so pervasive in our society that it's not clear to me that any other workable model has ever been suggested. Trying to influence or control behaviour, especially when it's known that some people actually desire to harm others, i mean - how would you do that ? Guilt them into by fear of what will happen to them in the after life ? Evolution has rewarded violence, so it's wrong to say that it is purely cultural, and that women generally seem to like men who are bigger than them (see threads on here re "would you date a man shorter than you?"). What desirable attributes does a large broad shouldered man exhibit ?

I can't begin really begin to comprehend how you can socially engineer this out of existence.

Not really the motivations of a sadist are entirely different to someone who punches you out of garden variety frustration and anger. Note a sadist can perform violence in a self defense capacity.

Recall shootings in America where whilst in self defense there have been racial components.

I'm no expert of the literature, but my guess is a lot domestic violence and violence towards children is committed by sadists.

My own point of view is that men’s biology makes violence inevitable at a higher rate than it will occur in women, and that short of biological engineering, we are stuck with it.

I don't believe there is any aspect of human, or specifically male biology that makes violence inevitable. Biology may give you an increased propensity to violence. It is culture, religion or society or a combination of them that gives you license to do it.

The increased propensity may in reality be fairly small, I don't know. It may mean that in ideal circumstances you would not be very violent at all. Most people could probably channel the propensity into other actions, like sports.

Not exactly I think the pathology is different. People who are violent to those weaker than them (ie bullies) are sub category within violence itself. Hence generalising all violence as the same is unhelpful.

I think violence (an action), can have multiple causes.

It's not violence and aggression per se that I find objectionable, it is the initiation of force that is. We have evolved from nature, and nature is violent.

Now we have this capacity to reason we can use negotiation and look for the Pareto efficiency ie as close to win/win for all parties.

The problem lies in where the ethical line is drawn which is a subjective value. Nobody would bat an eyelid if a rapist or suicide bomber were to be injured or killed before they could complete their crime. Not hold the person responsible.

Recalling my own childhood my peer group would all broadly agree that if someone thumped someone for insulting their mother the victim of my thump was asking for it. That would still be initiating aggression and in my view therefore wrong.

I was physically bullied very briefly early on at a boarding school. I resolved it by lining up my bullies one night and instructing them to hit me as hard as they can and get it out their systems. The first few hit really hard, but after the third or fourth seeing me keep getting up the punches got progressively weaker until they were barely taps. I was rarely if ever hit following that night.

I think it's well worth going over Ghandi's principle of Ahimsa in a modern context. It really is the gold standard in non-violence.

Itllallbefine: probably a bit picky of me. but actually biologically women are the stronger sex. Men are the stronger sex physiologically though, which gives them the edge to control society via violence and the threat of violence.

FWIW, and although there would be no way of knowing this, i suspect that if women were the biologically stronger sex, we would still organise socially at a macro level by the ability to direct violence.

I am a man, and I never initiate aggression. I'm raising my son without any violence, and as he gets older I will encourage him to find non-violent ways to resolve conflicts.

Of course men have the capacity to not be violent. However respective murder rates place male victims as more numerous, so we are both the class that perpetrates it, and yet also its biggest victims.

It's very useful to zero in on the gendered element when we're discussing 2 women a week being murdered by partners and men they know.

Widening our view to violence in general I believe is less helpful, as I believe we are all complicit in creating the society where initiation of aggression is nurtured.

The answer is as our children grow up they do so feeling as safe as possible, nurtured and guided to handle frustration and anger without lashing out at those around them.

I'm almost not really bothered re: male biological predispositions to violence. Even if that is the case we can clearly do better with what we have.

I think socialisation only gets you so far, ultimately "law and order" have to maintained. How is it maintained ? By a monopoly on organised violence.

Direction of male violence and harnessing male violence is why many MN'ers are typing on an shiny iDevice with a 4x4 parked in the drive way, it's why our country is rich. I think you would need to somehow do away with all of this, otherwise there will always be a reward for some kinds of violence, suitably directed of course.

I've been pondering this all morning. Not reached any conclusions, glad I'm not the only one though.

I agree Matilda.

I don't think Grimarse is suggesting that, but just trying to find a cause for it so we can move forward with some progress.

It is nicer to think of violence as a product of socialisation because there's more hope but that doesn't make it true.

Is there an evolutionary reason for men to be violent? Yes of course. But there is also an evolutionary reason for them to be cooperative and altruistic.

"Whenever I see footage of ISIS, the IRA, football hooligans or the EDF - my overriding impression is not one of 'evil' but of immaturity.

I just see whingy, pathetic, immature young men with an overinflated sense of importance.

Overly simplistic perhaps!"

I think a common theme is young men who feel ostracised finding a cause that brings them together. Whether that's a gang, a firm or a terrorist group.