Why do so many men turn bad...?

Oh I know. On a thread about why so many men turn bad, let's talk about women being bad! Novel idea

"The evidence is that where women have power, they behave more collaboratively and co-operatively with other human beings and do not in fact, use their power and resources for self-aggrandisement and to exploit other humans in anything like the degree men do."

That's not true as far as I can tell. In power women are a mixed bag. Some of the few female political leaders that have existed so far have been as ruthless and nefarious as men. Elizabeth 1? Margaret Thatcher? What do you think Marine Le Pen would be like if she became the French premier?

Indeed, look to Theresa May at the moment.

In my own experience of working in large institutions my female bosses have been not much different from my male ones. Some have been fantastic and others have autocrats and bullies.

For what reason do you think women would be any different in power? That's a strange idea.

Females hunted too in primitive society. And men foraged.

There simply were not enough people to divide the tasks along the lines of if you had dangly bits you did this and if you had other bits, you did somethign else.

I don't agree that women would behave the way men have if they had power.

The evidence is that where women have power, they behave more collaboratively and co-operatively with other human beings and do not in fact, use their power and resources for self-aggrandisement and to exploit other humans in anything like the degree men do.

Charities who distribute funding in developing countries, have learned this. If you put women in charge of the funds, they will ensure that the community benefits. If you put men in charge of the funds, they will ensure that only their immediate family and allies will benefit.

If you want your project to go ahead as you have envisaged, you need to ensure that men don't control the money, but that women do.

In societies where women are more equal (there are a tiny number), abuses of power are not as great as in most societies of the world where men have a disproportionate level of power.

It may be very comforting for men to reason that if women had power, they would behave as men do, but that's not actually borne out by the evidence. Women behave differently.

JosefK

I think your statement is correct in a way. I think men have a tendency to be more violent as it's a connection to the primeval past.

At the end of the day we are still animals, just slightly more evolved. But we still share that primeval part of the brain with other creatures. It the part that recognizes the smell of wood smoke, the rotting smell of death. The fight or flight reflex.

I believe that men's brains are perhaps more violent In The primeval part as, just like mail lions, chimps etc.....the hunter. Female brains are the gatherer.

"Because it's fairly clear that more men 'turn bad' than women. Mass shootings, genocide, sexual offending, child abuse and violent crime, very much the preserve of men."

That is indeed true. But I wonder if that is because men have 'turned bad' or whether they are more demonstrably bad because they have the opportunity to be so.

The disparity is partly attributable to physical diferences. In other words, men are violent because they are physically endowed with a capacity for violence. But there must also be an element of socialisation because women are not as violent towards other women. My theory is that female solidarity is born out of necessity. If you are disempowered it makes sense to befriend and make common cause with other members of your disempowered class. Conversely men find common cause with their fellow male agressors. Then those identities become culturally embedded.

In essence I think it's very simple. The human race bring really quite awful in lots of ways, people abuse power because they can. Men have the most power - whether politically or just physically - and therefore they have more power to abuse. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

Just as many women turn bad

Do you mean:

Just as many women turn bad as men?

OR

Many men turn bad, jut as many women do?

Because it's fairly clear that more men 'turn bad' than women. Mass shootings, genocide, sexual offending, child abuse and violent crime, very much the preserve of men.

NAMALT and all that jazz.

Just as many women turn bad

I am a man, and it pains me to admit that the vast majority of the bad things in the world are done my men. Serial killers: almost always men. Sex criminals: almost always men. Genocidal maniacs: almost always men. Terrorists: almost always men.

Is this because there is something different about the male brain - a violent tendency all men are born with that can be activated by environmental triggers? Or is it because men are taught by their society that they are entitled to go around raping and murdering and terrorising and serial killing? If so, why do lots of men not go around raping and murdering etc? And why do the minority of women who do bad things do bad things?

I have lots of questions but no obvious answers.

My tentative conclusion would be that people do terrible things simply because they are bad people and have the power to do so. So far men have had more power than women, so they have done most of the terrible things. Maybe if women were in charge they would do terrible things too. After all, Theresa May is arguably proving herself to be a rather terrible human being at the moment. Though to be fair she hasn't bombed anyone yet. Thouhgh thinking about it, Margaret Thatcher did.

I don't know to be honest. I'd like to think that I wasn't born with a bad brain just because I am a man. That's a rather unsettling thought.

I would have thought it was clear that my second statement replaced my first. I take the point that the experiment postulated in my first statement can't be run. I hope you can take the point my rephrase makes this clear: 'were it possible'. I even put it in helpful italics.

Your full phrase:

"so it will not surprise me at all if someone can produce some research that shows that children raised in an entirely gender neutral environment end up with, on average, slightly different traits depending on if they are girls or boy"

You implied that the research might actually be something that could be produced. My point is that it can't.

If you are now saying your point is theoretical, then that wasn't clear from your first statement.

Hope that's clear now. I'm done.

No, Helen, not the test of practicality. The test of being a reasonable, though theoretical, comment.

middle class men tend to think that because they've got a degree and a high status career, they know fucking everything. Even though they know fuck all about anything outside the subject they studied and their careers.

Ha! so very true..
Middle class "professional" men are the worst for knowing everything, and not even noticing that you might know anything at all, let alone more than them.
I definitely don't get patronised by working men as much, although i had assumed that was because I am Northern and working class-ish myself. Perhaps not.

I do think testosterone has a lot to do with why bad men do bad things, plus the lesser expectations on men to control their anger.
Bad women are out there, but the bad things they do don't tend to be as violent.
I also agree with whoever pointed out that women turn abuse inwards, and men outwards. I think that, as women, we are well set-up for self hatred anyway, so if abused as children will self harm/overeat/drink etc whereas men will express their hurt and pain outwards at other people.
I also think women are well trained in feeling helpless, and powerless at times and can mentally process the times when they have been made to feel that way.
If a boy grows up feeling powerless the humiliation of that can be a very dangerous catylist.(sp?)

I think it's easy to say that men are more violent than women but it totally ignores that by the time we reach adulthood we've had decades of socialisation.

I had a terrible temper as a child but I learnt that fighting meant that I was the one who was held responsible (because as a girl I should know better) and even before puberty I was not as strong as the boys so I stopped lashing out. I also quickly learnt to take responsibility for my actions as I wasn't allowed to shift the blame.

I still occasionally have flashes of white hot anger (fairly high testosterone levels if my hairy arms are an indicator) but my instinct is to look inwards at why I'm angry, not outside to find the cause. I cannot remember the last time I even raised my voice, and it's the lessons I learnt in infants that keep me in check.

Lumela

Not the test of practicality, no. It's an unknowable. The answer you are seeking is inaccessible by any experiment you can design or suggest.

Sure. But in the context of postulating an experiment to determine whether difference between females and males are innate or a product of their social environment, the fact that a gender neutral environment is impossible is highly relevant.
Okay, Helen. How about I rephrase it to say, I strongly suspect that, were it possible to create a gender-neutral environment, it could be shown that males and females have different traits?

Does that pass the test?

And I suppose that's what feminism is all about. It's not about targeting individuals, blaming them or excusing them, it's about looking at the norms and saying they're weighted against women.

Discarding the question of how many bad eggs there are in each sex, I think it's about what normal people do, what normal people think is acceptable behaviour.

In some societies honor killings are more accepted than in others (even the name implies this). In some having sex with a sleeping woman is moving from grey territory to "out of order" territory.

It's not about the psychopaths who transcend social norms regardless, it's about the social norms and what they allow people to think is acceptable.

Vestal There is such a thing as male aggression. You can observe it in animals. If you keep small pets such as mice, it is usually recommended to keep two females, as the males will fight among each other.

... and if you keep two rabbits, and I think guinea pigs too, the most likely pairing that will work is male-female, followed by male-male, with femal-female being the most likely to fight (this is with them all neutered). Unneutered females in particular are the most aggressive.

I might not be making much sense because I have raging PMT including feeling confused and angry but it just occurred to me that women have these kind of hormonal things and we don't go around being aggressive to people although I feel like it right now.

I think its self-evident that men in general are more aggressive than women - there's much to be said as to the pros and cons of testosterone.

There is such a thing as male aggression. You can observe it in animals. If you keep small pets such as mice, it is usually recommended to keep two females, as the males will fight among each other. It is likely that such a tendency towards violence exists in human males, too.
(Yes, it is encouraged by society, but at one point, society was invented, right? They didn't just throw a coin and decide to bring boys up to be violent.)

In humans, yes, childhood does play a role, but it is not like all male criminals had an oh so terrible childhood, it is more like the parents did not, or could not, make enough of an effort to teach them that aggression is not okay. (If you live in an environment where all other parents teach their sons to be aggressive, it's a lot of work to try to counteract that - it is like the pinkification of girls, only, you know, much more dangerous and horrid.)
Boys can be perfectly pampered only children and still turn out horrible - there are studies on criminals reporting less abusive childhoods if you use a lie detector, so ....

Society needs to be more aware of the problem of male violence. Programs that aim to tackle the problem have often been rather successful - and this is not 24-hour-intervention, it is things with social workers that takes perhaps a few hours a week.

Men do have a natural tendency to turn bad, but that's a) not an excuse, they should go to prison if they're criminal, period, and b) it is not something we just have to accept. It can be counteracted.

"Look, I can hope, okay?"

Sure. But in the context of postulating an experiment to determine whether difference between females and males are innate or a product of their social environment, the fact that a gender neutral environment is impossible is highly relevant.

"The same as women who become child abusers, stalkers, murderers etc. Some people are just bad."
How depressing. Why do you think there are so many more "just bad" men than women?

The thing is that while probably not so much can be done about the "just bad" / psycho people, there are a large proportion of crimes that are perpetrated by people who are quite "normal". These are the crimes that can be reduced, and we see being reduced in different types of societies.

On whether levels differ through different cuts of society - I think probably not. I do think that if you have a larger house and more to lose and a "behind closed doors" upbringing then it's easier to hide things / not have the neighbours etc notice. On race / religion / whatever, then any differences IMO are down to the society / prevailing attitudes in that community - the fact that in the UK the vast majority of sex offenders are white - the vast majority of men are white.

Although - I think in the US family annihilation and mass shootings are almost always white men? This may well be to do with entitlement / feelings related to what position in society should be vs what they feel it is.

Whereas middle class men tend to think that because they've got a degree and a high status career, they know fucking everything. Even though they know fuck all about anything outside the subject they studied and their careers

Yup I know some men like this.
Not just middle class ones either- the overconfident upper middles that I work for are totally jaw dropping for this, and based on zero normal life experience.