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

pat doesnt have any male violence arguments so he is talking about the mating habits of animals instead

What is the point in all this waffling on about evolution and what different species do? It's avoiding the issue.

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?

Depends on the species. As I said earlier, in some species females are choosy maters, in others they aren't.

Thread about HUMAN male violence and you are blethering on about the mating habits of other species

Babel

Depends on the species. As I said earlier, in some species females are choosy maters, in others they aren't.

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.

That argument doesn’t hold.

Generally speaking all females will mate - the males are the ones competing, even in harem type environments (back to our red deer for example.)

Females have no problem getting ‘good’ stags to mate with them. One stage can mate many does. It’s the males who compete for access to females. There’s no need for females to ‘outsource’ this. The Pressure is the other way around.

Spaghetti

To outsource in this context is to obtain something externally so you don't have to do it yourself.

Rather than use resources of their own to assess potential mates, evolution furnished them with the dominance hierarchy which provides a ready reckoner of who the healthiest, most virile males in any society are.

The statement doesn't imply they made a conscious choice to do this, it is was an evolutionary pressure.

Patriarchy, I'm still trying to understand this:

'Women then outsourced their mate selection to the male dominance hierarchy, because it is easier and more effective. The most dominant 'alpha' male is the most likely to have the best genetics and therefore the healthiest children.'

How did they outsource their mate selection?

Xenophile

For someone so intent on criticising other peoples academic knowledge, your english is appalling. I can't understand your last post. Mobile phones?

Nobody has said 'men can't help murdering prostitutes' because of evolution.

I've stated that point at least four times now.

Well that males acknowledge the violence.
That the law deals with it appropriately
That society as a whole works towards reducing it to as close to zero as we can.

That’d cover it.

So what’s the solution being proposed here?

Maybe it's having too many spare males around that makes more males mass killers? So now what? Evolutionarily speaking?

War seems to be the human way of dealing with that one...

Evolutionary psychology is dangerous stuff.

Especially in the hands of people who have patently never made much of a study of it but merely use it to prove a random talking point like "oh, men can't help murdering prostituted women, because that's just how we evolved... look at " while also suggesting that humans are somehow better than because we built mobile phones. All the while forgetting that has fewer males of that species because spare males are dangerous to have around.

Maybe it's having too many spare males around that makes more males mass killers? So now what? Evolutionarily speaking?

Most well brought up, well educated men are non violent. You said upthread that you did not know of any violent men.

I don’t know any violent men either. I wouldn’t class myself as a violent woman but I hunt, shoot and fish, by the measure of this thread that makes me violent.

DH would never be violent towards me. In fact the only time he would be violent is in defense of me/family. But I believe that is different, as that would be a situation that requires violence.

Evolutionary psychology is dangerous stuff. If I said that we all had a deep rooted predisposition to eat insects and build burrows I’d be laughed at. But if a guys says ‘well males have always been dominant since picks point where males were probably dominant‘ then suddenly we are nodding safely and yes, it’s nature, the natural order of things, it’s how it should be.

YY. PP, there have been plenty of evo psych studies which have looked to explain rape as an evolutionary adaptation. Google Thornhill and Palmer.

However, once you say that is the only thing that affects our behaviour,

I haven’t said that.

Equally, however, if you entirely discount evolutionary psychology, you are claiming that how we think and react is entirely unaffected by evolution. That would make it the only aspect of us unaffected by evolution. Why would that be the case?

I am not discounting socialisation. However, once you say that is the only thing that affects our behaviour, it leads to certain conclusions which are not necessarily true.

Babel

But I've never said its how it should be. I've actually said the exact opposite, several times.

This thread is presumably about why men are mass killers, which is a proxy question for why are men more violent than women?

I have suggested a pretty good explanation right from the start of this entire discussion, and funnily enough, I haven't made it up, its based on actual science and all that...

I'm not sure what some of the posters on here actually want from this thread?

It feels like no answer will be good enough until someone comes on and just says "actually, scientists have now proven that men are more violent because it turns out they are all just bastards..."

Which I’m afraid makes me think of this

But where does that stop? When you ask that question you see where the motivation lies . Do we go as far back as the very first hominids? First mammals? The first fish like thing that crawled out of a pond? First multi cellular whatever it was?

Because when I’ve asked this question before the point we stop is wherever suits the agenda of the stopper.

Evolutionary psychology is dangerous stuff. If I said that we all had a deep rooted predisposition to eat insects and build burrows I’d be laughed at. But if a guys says ‘well males have always been dominant since picks point where males were probably dominant‘ then suddenly we are nodding safely and yes, it’s nature, the natural order of things, it’s how it should be.

Babel

What research is this that concluded women are 'excited' by rape? What university? Which department?

That sounds a bit... hmmm. The explanation for a womans physical reaction to seeing someone be raped you just outlined is bloody obvious to anyone, never mind a social scientist.

I'd seriously question your source for that info.

Babel

I don't think my interpretation is off. I'm describing evolutionary pressure.

I never mentioned the stone age, Spaghetti did. Stone Age humans are still classed as 'modern humans'. I'm talking about animal instincts that predate the development of trees and complex organisms.

If we're comparing humans to other animal species in order to understand "evolutionary" dynamics, then it needs to be pointed out that in most species spare males are killed. There are therefore fewer male to female animals because even the most stupid animals know that spare males around cause nothing but problems.

I did make it clear in my post that none of these instincts are a conscious choice.

Sigh. It’s not an instinct. It’s either having no bloody choice at all or making the best of a situation where you’re likely to be killed otherwise.

Your interpretation is off. I’m reminded of a study a while back that concluded that women were excited by rape - the research team measured lubrication while exposing women to violent imagery. The Male researchers concluded women were excited by it. The female critic posited that it was a protective response - if you’re seeing someone get raped chances are you’re next, so librication reduces the chance of serious injury somewhat. See the absolute certainty of the first conclusion? And the shift in mindset to the second?

And which Stone Age society? There were plenty. Pre or post agricultural? Climate? Social structure? Ecological surroundings? Humans haven’t been living one single way ever. At any point in our history. Right from us emerging from a jumble of hominids in various bits of Africa. During that time we have no idea what our social structures were like. Probably varied according to local resources and pressures. Look at chimps and bonobos - both v similar, both patriarchal, but in one the incidence of violence and rape is exponentially higher.

We just don’t know what most Stone Age societies were like. We do know that patriarchal control intensified with settled agriculture.

Spaghetti

Right so you have evidence that in the stone age women had full control over who they chose as a mate? That for some reason men at that time didn't use any of the coercion and violence that they use now?

Eh? Please re-read my previous posts.

Dominance hierarchies have existed in nature for longer than trees have. Just think about how long that actually is.

Right so you have evidence that in the stone age women had full control over who they chose as a mate? That for some reason men at that time didn't use any of the coercion and violence that they use now?