Nearly every mass killer is a man. Why aren’t we talking about that?

@Kursk but an abuser or rapist would argue that violence was “required” too. Surely? I’ve never met an abuser that didn’t think they had cause to do what they did. XH is still adamant I “drove him to it” 10 years later! (Sustained, long term physical and verbal abuse with one incident of rape)

Maybe men being able to exercise self control might result in a reduction in other types of crime as well.

This book about sociopaths by Martha Stout, entitled “The Sociopath Next Door.” helped me understand violence. I am not saying it's a male thing, but a smaller weaker human female will do less damage than the larger framed male human with a lack of any conscience.

There is a piece about it on this blog;
www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/sociopath-next-door/
"Perhaps the most difficult for the rest of us to understand is that the sociopath has absolutely no conscience. In other words, they are without any sense of morality or guilt. The cannot and do not empathize with others and how they feel. When most of us look at other people we feel a sense of commonality and shared humanity. That is why we find it difficult to believe that there is a type of person who does not share the kind of compassion and connectedness that characterizes most of humanity."

you would have 96% of violent crime just disappear

I don’t think that number is remotely possible. For some crimes violence is required (mugging, robbery) violence is a technique used to obtain the goods.

In these cases a man or a woman needs to be violent even if they don’t want to be otherwise the crime will fail.

I was explaining the link between female attraction to masculine stereotypes

Which has heehaw buckshee to do with this thread, so may I suggest it is you who starts a new thread?

Spaghetti

Oh my god are you still on this. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this at length.

I never said it explains male violence, it was a throwaway example of one small aspect of dominance hierarchies and their effect on societies. I was explaining the link between female attraction to masculine stereotypes.

There will always be a certain percentage of people who, through genetics, upbringing or (most likely) a combination will be unacceptably violent.

I don’t accept that. We have control over our actions.

If women can control ourselves despite being labelled as the hysterical ones, I’m sure that men, given a few thousand years of social progress and civilisation, can do it too.

What percentage do you think we could get down to, if society tackled the things that you fee cause some men not to be able to control their natural hormone-driven violent urges?

It’s a revolutionary question. Because if you could reduce the level down to that committed by women, you would have 96% of violent crime just disappear

Just imagine.

I don't think you really understand Dominance hierarchy theory Patriarchy. Apart from anything Social Dominance theory is more applicable to humans and even that has a lot of problems. It does attempt to explain male violence but it's got nothing to do with women choosing mates.

What percentage do you think we could get down to, if society tackled the things that you fee cause some men not to be able to control their natural hormone-driven violent urges?

Patriarchy,

It is no coincidence that young men are more violent. That is when they have the most circulating testosterone. It is also to do with a not fully developed prefrontal cortex.

Surely, also, size has something to do with it. If you are going to get beaten up if you are violent, you tend not to do it. Men are, on average, larger.

Again, the above are not excuses, they are reasons, which is surely what this thread is about.

As for the 'solution', clearly good laws which are well enforced are a part of it. The other oft neglected factor is positive male role models. Sadly, primary school teachers are almost all females now (the reasons are debatable and not what this thread is about). Wealth is also clearly a factor. Rich societies tend to be less violent than poor ones; there is less reason to be violent.

We also do need to tackle the glorification of violence and misogyny in rap culture and a lot of current pornography.

However, some of the 'solutions' are not worth it. They are way too extreme and throw the baby out with the bath water. Totalitarian societies are rarely violent, the control is too extreme. However, the costs in terms of freedom are immense. And, as a society, we have decided not to go there. People should have reasonable freedoms until they commit a crime.

However, we will never eliminate violent men (or the smaller proportion of violent women) absolutely. There will always be a certain percentage of people who, through genetics, upbringing or (most likely) a combination will be unacceptably violent.

So all men have hormonally driven violent urges, where women do not. Most men are able to exercise self control, but many do not. What is it that means many men can control their violent urges where others can't, other than age?

Men are hormonal?

Spaghetti

Seriously dude, you don't have to even read anything academic if you don't want to. There is a Wikipedia article on this. Google 'dominance hierarchy wikipedia' and you'll get there. It'll be easier than asking me the same questions all day.

Assassinated

Men have a genetic predisposition to be more confrontational and violent than women. It's hormonal.

For the fifth (or sixth) time of saying this, it's not an excuse for violent behaviour, it's a reason why men are more violent (on average).

Why are some men are more violent than others? That is a good question and comes down to lots of factors. Although the primary one is age. Male violence peaks in society between 16-27 and then gradually declines.

In this instance yes it is

Well, perhaps self harm rather than violence towards others. Or recklessness. Or a breakdown where you're unable to be coherent. Is it only anger that needs self control?

AssassinatedBeauty

What else would a lack of self control lead to? It comes down to being able to control your temper.

Most people have a weakness, or several. Mostly towards alcohol, cigarettes and sugar.

To be fair Patriarchy, if you're going to state something with no evidence that doesn't seem in any way true, you have to expect to be questioned on it. Your assertion that there was a mythical situation in which women chose the 'winning' men is pretty barmy.

Anyway even if such a thing ever happened, it still doesn't explain why, for example, 'non-violent' men wanted to ensure that men could rape their wives with impunity? That's not direct violence but it's condoning and supporting violence.

@PatriarchyPersonified would you mind stating the reason again?

Right, so why do some men have such an issue with self control, and why does a loss of control lead to violence?

Bloody hell, and I get accused of thread derailment!

I mentioned this in passing, hours ago, as a throwaway example of how hierarchies exert pressure on men to compete.

We have now drilled into this in excruciating detail for post after post after post because (I assume) Spaghetti and others think there is a chance they can somehow prove me wrong on something. If you really want to know how it works, it's easy to look up socialisation and male dominance hierarchies in nature.

Coming back to the point of the thread, as I stated earlier, there is a completely uncontroversial and easy to understand reason why men are on average more violent than women. It has been stated, on this thread, numerous times.

To be fair humans are animals with a thin veneer of civility

Most men are not violent, so it is not something that is inevitable. Why can some men control violent urges or just don't have them? What makes them different to other men?

Lack of self control,

The idea that there was a point in time where strong fit men competed and then these powerful women chose the winner as a mate is a total fairy story and has no basis whatsoever in any sort of fact. In today's world, in a society that has at least started to see women as people and has pretty strong laws against rape, women are still raped in their millions. Rape is a weapon men have always used against women and women have always had to deal with it. At no point was there ever a situation where men respectfully sat by and waited to be chosen.

'When all the men are competing, that is evolutionary pressure selecting the fittest and strongest. The males are doing the selection hard work, the females are just waiting to see who wins. That's the outsourcing of effort. Like I said, it's not a conscious decision the females have made.'

They may be waiting to see who wins, but in human history, other than in the last 50 years or so, there has never been a time recorded when women have been the ones to choose. Never. I have no idea why we would ever think that back in the times when there were fewer societal controls, in terms of laws and social morality etc, women would have had more power than they had say in 1930 - it doesn't make sense.