"over 70% of unprovoked street attacks were men being violent to other men."

However, the single parent statistics raise a few interesting points IMO.

Do the statistics control for socio-economic status? It's a fact that single parent families tend to considerably poorer and live in more socially disadvantaged areas than families with both parents present. If your statistics don't control for this, they don't tell us much really.

Besides, I ask again (3rd time now): What do you think should be done to deal with the problem of men who abandon their young families?

And I don't intend any if this as a 'gotcha'. I think these difficult questions need to be addressed to move things forward.

So ultimately, it really is women who are to blame for men choosing to be violent.

I think that's a somewhat unfair statement - of course it's not women who are solely to blame.

However, the single parent statistics raise a few interesting points IMO.

Posters above were effectively distancing themselves from any responsibility by saying "sorry men, we can't help you with this." I think that this is a potentially harmful attitude to have when a high proportion of violent men have grown up with a woman as their main role model at home - i.e. she probably was in a position to influence his development.

Also, observing what happens in the absence of a male role model indicates how much positive influence men have on their children (something that is often overlooked on here with the stereotype of the lazy bumbling husband who won't help with the housework).

Dysfunctional couples are probably safer apart,

Well yeah.

But there's a difference between divorcing your partner and abandoning your family. Most divorced fathers remain in touch with their children, but a significant minority do not. Again Scott: What do you think should be done to deal with the problem of men who abandon their young families?

Fascinating stats, Scott.

But I repeat my previous question:

What do you think should be done to deal with the problem of men who abandon their young families, Scott?

So, Scott, what are you doing to persuade your fellow men to stop abandoning their children in such large numbers?

I'm not sure that's the answer tbh. Dysfunctional couples are probably safer apart, and it's not something an outsider can likely influence a great deal.

I don't profess to have all the answers, but a good start is asking the right questions. I do think that a lot of men feel undervalued and disposable and this manifests as aberrant, destructive behaviour - this is arguably supported by the stats I posted above.

Male violence isn't just assault and murder. 'Male violence' as a term does include sexual violence because it's still, you know, violence.

Of course, but the figures I posted above indicate that general violence occurs about 10x as much. Not that it's a contest.

So, Scott, what are you doing to persuade your fellow men to stop abandoning their children in such large numbers?

• 85 per cent of youth in prison have an absent father; fatherless children are more likely to offend and go to jail as adults.

• Fatherless children are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, being five times more likely to have experienced physical abuse and emotional maltreatment, with a one hundred times higher risk of fatal abuse; a recent study reported that preschoolers not living with both of their biological parents are 40 times more likely to be sexually abused.

• Fatherless children are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, and abuse drugs in childhood and adulthood.

• 71 per cent of high school dropouts are fatherless and are more likely to be excluded from school.

• Fatherless children are more likely to experience problems with sexual health, including becoming teenage parents.

• 90 per cent of runaway children have an absent father.

• Father absent children are consistently overrepresented on a wide range of mental health problems, particularly anxiety, depression and suicide.

• As adults, fatherless children are more likely to experience unemployment, have low incomes, remain on social assistance, and experience homelessness.

• Fatherless children are more likely to die as children, and live an average of four years less over the life span.

• Father absent children tend to enter partnerships earlier, are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions, and are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/co-parenting-after-divorce/201205/father-absence-father-deficit-father-hunger%3famp

male violence is 'the biggest human rights crisis the world has ever seen' as is often stated on here, and it affects men disproportionately more than women, then maybe men don't actually have it so easy.

Male violence isn't just assault and murder. 'Male violence' as a term does include sexual violence because it's still, you know, violence.

Nobody argues that only the Muslim community should try and prevent radicalisation/terror attacks. Likewise, nobody says that black on black homicide (biggest cause of death of young black Americans) is something solely to be tackled by the black community.

No, they argue that it is still men perpetrating the vast majority of those crimes. Ultimately it doesn't matter what religion, race, nationality the perpetrator is, because the common denominator is that they are male.

violent men are also disproportionately likely to be those who were raised by a female parent with an absent father. This is something which seems never to be discussed and I think it's an interesting point to consider

Yes. What do you think should be done to deal with the problem of men who abandon their young families, Scott?

ScottCheggJnr
Any discussion about single parents is usually in the context of women not being forced to raise their children in utter poverty by the men who father children then abandon them.

Ah right. So ultimately, it really is women who are to blame for men choosing to be violent. Thanks.

Another point I was going to mention earlier in regard to the "sorry, men, we can't help you with this" argument is that violent men are also disproportionately likely to be those who were raised by a female parent with an absent father. This is something which seems never to be discussed and I think it's an interesting point to consider.

Well of course men experience violence too, we all know that (and of course we wish men would stop being so violent). But the actual point he was trying so hard to avoid admitting, was that not only do women truly "have it worse but also that men keep denying that women have it worse."

I'm not well enough researched on the topic to claim my opinion as definitive (not that it stops other people from trying) but if male violence is 'the biggest human rights crisis the world has ever seen' as is often stated on here, and it affects men disproportionately more than women, then maybe men don't actually have it so easy.

Luckily my son, who is currently a teen, is likely to be very tall himself when he matures

I'm afraid to say I don't think that will help him much.
I think as women we tend to look at men and see strength/size equals power, but tall, or even muscular men can be quiet and even timid and small men can be violent psychopaths.
DH is tall but got randomly beaten up (by someone shorter I imagine) - it's about their nature as much as their size.

My sentence was supposed to read “That doesn’t mean they AREN’T just as dangerous toward women”...

I haven’t read the thread but doesn’t this just point to the fact that men are very dangerous and violent, even to each other? I am sure there are more fights and assaults between men, especially when drink and drugs are involved. That doesn’t mean they are just as dangerous toward women but of course it can take a sexual focus and the average men is still likely to be taller and stronger than the average women.

I have always understood that young men are most at risk of assault. I have warned by son as much as my daughters to stay out of the way of hot tempered men and watch out for men who try to escalate disputes. Luckily my son, who is currently a teen, is likely to be very tall himself when he matures but I know he has to be aware of dangerous men as much as my girls.

I commented on a tweet saying that men too are afraid of walking alone at night because of violence from other men.

If I'm understanding the OP, the guy to whom she replied was pulling the "but men also experience violence, it's not just women" routine.

Well of course men experience violence too, we all know that (and of course we wish men would stop being so violent). But the actual point he was trying so hard to avoid admitting, was that not only do women truly "have it worse but also that men keep denying that women have it worse. It's gaslighting.

i would be just as worried if I had a teenage boy walking home at night than if I had a teenage girl. I think the girls tend to be less likely to walk home alone because they perceive it more as a risk, whereas for the boys its perceived as more acceptable.
We've had a couple of nasty attacks by groups of boys/men on teenage boys in my very nice local town,.
However the violence is nearly always male violence.

Not read the whole thread, but there are some very smart responses.

But the original point does show up how statistics are poorly understood. I recall, many years ago, a philosophy lecturer pointing out that he didn't understand why so many old people were afraid of going out at night, given that very few old people were attacked at night.

I did point out the flaw in his argument, but he really couldn't get it.

I call it women saying, 'Men, we can't fix this for you. You are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence and it's you - decent, non violent men - who need to own it and sort it out.'

I see things differently.

Aside from the fact that there are already loads of women in law enforcement, the court system, charities, etc, who are helping tackle violence, there's also the odd fact that your argument seems only ever to be applied against men.

Nobody argues that only the Muslim community should try and prevent radicalisation/terror attacks. Likewise, nobody says that black on black homicide (biggest cause of death of young black Americans) is something solely to be tackled by the black community. There are loads of examples of things which are arguably the responsibility of the society which they affect.

Do you take responsibility for tackling the racist attitudes of certain political groups run by your fellow white folk? It's you (decent, non-racist Caucasians) who need to own it and sort it out.

Not really what we were discussing...

Sorry, you're right. I was a bit distracted and not paying attention

Is there any sorting out to be done? We can't kill all snakes. Some are poisonous, some are not. If we were able/willing to destroy them all there would be environmental repercussions.
We obviously can't ban men, on the basis that some of them, even if it was half of them, are violent.
We can avoid them, like snakes, have phobias about them, like snakes, and still be sensitive to their needs and their right to exist. Some snakes are kept as pets, even dangerous ones are kept. In some cases the snakes' natural environment is under threat. So they are driven to areas where they interact more with humans (obviously more abroad than here!)
I don't dislike men, being able to opt out of relationships with them makes me much more likely so see them in a sympathetic light (the facilitated men thread, I read all 40 pages, a real eye opener!) So I'm not really calling them snakes.
My point is perhaps we just need to know and name and talk about the fact they exist and as a class are dangerous. We can't make snakes into kittens, but we can warn people to watch out for them.