AIBU in saying that males are not inherently violent?

[QueenofmyPrinces]

Today I was having a debate with a few female colleagues about men and violence after one of our colleagues (male) had been jumped last night by three other men who then stole from him and beat him up.

This including us talking about DV, general assaults, murders, violence in gangs, mass murderers, injuries caused to children (including causing them death), acts of terrorism, rapes, and petty (but serious) drunken brawls that occur on Friday/Saturday nights. One of my colleagues said it isn’t just coincidence that the perpetrators of the above crimes are more often than not carried out by a male.

She said that she often wonders what it is that makes men do these things whereas women generally don’t - well at least not to the degree that men do.

I just sort of shrugged my shoulders and she then said that it must be in their DNA because what else is the fundamental difference between men and women if not our genetic make up?

I told her I felt uncomfortable about that train of thought as I have two sons and I didn’t like to think of them having something present in their DNA that meant they had the potential to be seriously violent towards others.

I said that there are instances of women murderers, female gangs, females who caused DV, females who brawl when drunk, females who hurt children etc and so how could she say it was DNA related? I also said that if it were related to DNA then how come every man isn’t violent and capable of such awful crimes? She then just reiterated that the number of men who commit these crimes compared to women is staggering and that’s the only explanation she can think of.

I told her that surely it is society and other external factors that play a huge role in what causes a man to be a violent one but she was very non-committal about my suggestion.

I then left the conversation feeling slightly uncomfortable and as I walked away I heard her say to our colleagues that I was “so naive” and then she laughed

Was IBU to make my points or am I just being a soft touch by not wanting to believe that men (not all, obviously) will always be violent, that the potential is always within them and that’s just the way it is? It sounds so ridiculous that I still can’t quite believe that she said it or thinks it.

Yes- the narrative that women are responsible for men’s behaviour is a very insidious one.

Which is why I am always banging on about it being time for men to step up and take some reaponsibility

Hi OP

You're having a nature vs nurture debate. Is it inherent or is it the way some men are brought up (taught to fight to sort out arguments, boys will be boys, that kind of thing).

I think neither of you will win this one as it's a really difficult thing to study, as you need long term scientific experiments and it's very very hard to isolate the specific factors that contribute to the 'nurture' part, as it's all very subjective.

Given the number of men who aren't violent, I'd guess that maybe they have more natural propensity towards violence than women but the way they are brought up will have are greater impact eg for most men if you teach them from a young age it's OK to talk about your feelings, be sad, resolve conflicts through talking and compromise etc and don't show any violent behaviours in front of them then they will not be violent. This is a very simplistic view though as obviously there are lots more outside influences than just parents

Not sure I agree op. Have you ever seen a fight or scuffle between two men? Noticed how any other men in the vicinity generally start joining in, wanting in on the action almost? The chests puff out, jaws set.....That for me was a bit of a "hmm people who say men [as a collective] are inherently violent might be on to something" moment.

My oldest son is almost 5 and my DH has been teaching him boxing manoeuvres and he also does it with our 18 month old too.

He said it’s inportant they both know how to defend themselves. He says he would never tell them to hurt people and he would never tolerate them making the first move but he tells the 5 year old that if anyone hurts him then he must hit them back.

I asked him if he’d be teaching boxing manoeuvres to daughters if we had them and he said no.

He plays very rough with both boys including doing rugby skills where he gets them run at him and he grabs them and tackles them to the floor. The boys love it, it’s all done in play, but it isn’t exactly gentle.

I asked if he’d play the same game if we had daughters and he said no.

Maybe he has a point though about drilling into them from a young when that they must know how to defend themselves and be prepared to do it seeing as there is a high chance they could be involved in violence as they grow up.

I understand my DH thinks that by teaching him this it means he is keeping them safe but surely it still perpetuates the problem?

Have you ever seen a fight or scuffle between two men? Noticed how any other men in the vicinity generally start joining in.....

Absolutely!

I watched film once, based on a real story, about violence in football regarding fans of one team being enemies of the fans of another local team.

The violence in it was awful to the point I could barely watch it. It was the desire they had to hurt other people (to the point of killing them) and having absolutely no problem with doing it just made me feel frightened. They showed absolutely no emotion except anger and rage, wanting to attack and kill other men with no qualms about doing so and feeling proud when they did it was just hideous.

It scares me to think that in this day and age there are actually people who walk out street that have the ability to cause so much harm inside them and enjoy acting upon it.

The point you make about your husband is interesting.

My DH plays like that with our small children, very rough, rugby, wrestling etc. They all thoroughly enjoy it, but if it gets too rough the two girls lose interest and go do something else - usually dollies/kitchen.
The boys however, love it, rougher the better.

You couldn’t find a much less ‘gendered’ house than ours. It has really surprised me, as I thought it was all nurture over nature, but no, in our house the boys like to fight and the girls like to care.

I know it's hypothetical but it's interesting that your husband wouldn't teach girls to defend themselves, when they are physically more vulnerable so would need those skills more. Why is this? Because he thinks boys are more likely to be hit first? Or because 'fighting is for boys'?

Yes I'd agree with your last paragraph DpWm. I do think that as a society we give all the wrong messages to boys and men. We glorify male violence in movies, drunken promiscuous behaviour in reality TV and shouting down and behaving childishly rather than reasoning in parliament.

I'd love to aim for a world where everyone is treated with courtesy regardless of their standing, where socially desirable aims like bringing up children well, paying your taxes, being a conscientious employee and being a good member of your community are prized and prioritised and where resolving a disagreement with shouting or violence rather than reasoned discussion immediately acknowledges that the perpetrator has lost.

Sadly we are a very long way from that and I don't even get the impression that is something men want.

I very much think it's nature and not nurture. A little girl being rugby tackled (despite praise) will get annoyed at being hurt lol (have seen it with my own). Whereas boys seem to enjoy rough and tumble. I can't think of anything less appealing to my young dd. She would be utterly appalled. And toddle off, arms folded in a strop, saying that we're all being mean!

I think this song very much illustrates (in a childlike way) that gender biases exist strongly.

Apologies for the horrendous taste in music. But when it gets to the verses where he lays out various scenarios, you can see that no amount of social conditioning can change who we are inherently.

All that said, dd now plays a fairly rough and physically aggressive sport. She loves nothing more than tackling someone and getting as mucky as she possibly can.

In 'nature v nurture' discussions, the answer is almost invariably 'it's both'.

Men as a class do seem to be more inclined to violence than women, and moreover are more physically capable of it. Nurture can either exacerbate this or direct aggression into more productive channels. Individual men will have different inherent tendencies, and different nurture, so obviously there's a range of behaviours.

There's no excuse for men being violent - they have brains, they have the ability to think about ethics, they have the ability to be civilised.

I guess being a cunt is either in you or it's not. That's what I've seen with the men I know.

I also think this is where alcohol abuse can come into a lot of it. Whatever learned inhibitions a man might have, they go out the window when he's drunk.

No, I posted something like this a few weeks ago. It’s learned behaviour and men have always been deliberately socialised to make them violent. Video games, Comic Books, action movies, fighting as sport. All of these send a message that fighting others is good and violence is good and it makes you a winner, someone hard and in control.

It’s always for the same purpose too: because ‘they’ want men who will serve in their army and fight their wars, they want them to move on from ‘shoot ‘em up’ games to really shooting people.

I have zero tolerance for exposure to violence for my sons and very, very limited amounts of toys which could be perceived as weapon. It seems to be working and at school they’d walk away or try and defuse a situation rather than getting into a fight. They’re still small.

Bejam
Read this back to yourself.
very limited amounts of toys which could be perceived as weapon

You don't need to do that with girls as they don't instinctively want to be violent or make wooden spoons into guns. You could hide the wooden spoons on the girls to stop them playing house I guess.

I genuinely think that people are trying to stop the tide.

I am 100% sure that it's nature, not nurture. It's just in them.

Very interested to hear from preschool teachers on this. Or even the younger ages teachers.

I'd say yes they are, because that's what they had to do to survive in the early days to survive.

It doesn't mean they'll act on it though but certainly have a higher urge to.

Personally I think that yes, men are inherently violent (to varying degrees). Thousands of years of human history support this, and ultimately almost everything about how our society is structured is designed to minimise it, as it is so damaging. I think the last ten to hundred years have seen an exponential drop in violence, its easy to forget how common it was until very very recently.

Bingo. That's a massive statement. I have seen no drop in violence.

Interestingly Donald Trump is the only serving US president that I'm aware of who hasn't declared war on some country or another.

I don't think it's in male DNA to be violent, but like @DpWm I do think it's linked to Testosterone. When women get injected with testosterone, they report higher levels of aggression, grow faster and stronger, sometimes more sex drive etc.

It's the 'kill and win' hormone, and I'll bet it came in pretty handy when we were all fighting off sabre-tooth tigers. Less so now. I think it's about re-directing that energy to other things in today's modern society, otherwise it becomes a destructive force. Just look at the prison population for evidence.

At the end of the day, we're all just mammals, but what marks humans out from every other species on the planet is our ability to modify our behaviour, and change our very nature. I'm an optimist - I like to think that it's happening - just seems to be more of a generational thing rather than something that's going to be all sorted by the end of the year.

I think it's in-built. Just look at other mammals - male species are more violent than female species. I imagine there's a reason why men are built stronger and larger, on the whole, then women. Further, I imagine that testosterone plays a part.

Of course not all men are violent. But as a male class, they are more violent than women and I really can't see that it's down to nurture.

It is undoubtedly true that more aggressive behaviours are witnessed in men than women.

My take is that this is socialised behaviour from growing up in a patriarchal society - aggressive inclinations are squashed out of girls to a point they don't feel alright expressing anger and don't defend themselves. And men are given kudos for being dominant.

I don't think it is part of men's nature to be violent any more than it is part of women's nature to be submissive. I think the patriarchy is shafting all of us!

I think that both males and females are equally capable of violence and committing horrible things.

I think men have a easier time rationalizing the use of violence as a tool to achieve a goal.

I know it's hypothetical but it's interesting that your husband wouldn't teach girls to defend themselves, when they are physically more vulnerable so would need those skills more. Why is this? Because he thinks boys are more likely to be hit first? Or because 'fighting is for boys'?

Because girls are generally much less likely to be in violent situations in the same way boys are.

My DH is a secondary teacher and he says the violence he witnessed between the male pupils is horrendous, hence why he’d want our own sons to be able to defend themselves.

He said there is no violence between the female pupils so he doesnt see it as necessary to teach daughter self defence (if we had one) because it’s very unlikely she’d be in a situation where other girls are attacking her.

but what about if boys are attacking her? Assaulting her? He does know that a quarter of girls come out of school having experienced sexual harassment through to rape, from boys, doesn't he?