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.

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.

...snip.....

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?

You're right, he's perpetuating the problem. The first line of self defence should be to avoid danger. The second line of defence is to escape/evade danger. Fighting back should only be ever be a very last resort. I say that not from a cuddly moral perspective but from a common-sense survival perspective. Your husband is teaching his sons that fighting back is the first tool in their toolbox. It's that mindset that gets people beaten to shit or stabbed. It's also a mindset that often leads to otherwise decent men/boys ending up on the wrong side of the law. Regardless of who started it, if you fight when the court believes you had other viable options you're just as much a thug as the other guy.

Queen I'm not in the police, I've worked in high and medium secure mental health placements. Most of the patients are sentenced for serious violent crimes.

No, there is nothing like equal violence between men and women. Women are equally likely to be mentally ill, but hugely much less likely to be violent when ill.

I suspect police face a lot more violence than we do, the liaison officer I work with is a bloody hero.

Was my vulnerability the reason why I was targeted? Almost certainly. Did I deserve it? Hell no. What am I doing about it? Making sure I can get away.
You're what they call low risk. I.e. you're at a low risk of crime (with the exception of domestic violence).
I have in the past lived a pretty high risk lifestyle.

The likelihood of you having to defend yourself from anyone other than your husband is low.
For me, it's higher. And no, I'm not a prostitute. It's just because of the lifestyle I live.

With sons who did encounter violence. Eldest was bottled whilst standing at the urinal at lunchtime, he never found out who, why.

Middle son was with the rugby team at a nightclub when the local ?lads decided to have a bit of fun and beat them up. Apparently son put his hand on aggressors forehead while the attacker tried to take a few swings at him. He thought it funny.

When DS was at uni. they played a local team, one local lad whilst DS was standing waiting for a ref. decision decided to clobber him, result smashed jaw, metal plate for life. The local club closed ranks, lost the list of players etc. so he was never apprehended.

So two out of three of my children have been seriously assaulted by male animals.

Young men can be feral, other young men are vulnerable to them because they do not understand the mindset.

So how do you understand the mindset of men who ply with drink, drug, and rape women. Personally I would like to cut their bits off with a blunt knife.

You very much come across OP as if you're in some ivory tower where nothing ever touches you and you look down with disdain on the masses milling around below you wondering why they can't just eat cake. You seem utterly incapable of thinking outside of your own tiny sphere as exemplified by a 2 thread obsession with your mother treating you and your sister differently.

Frankly? I dislike people like you. Why? Because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

So, if you don't have a male modelling good behaviour, you have to assume, that a male child, is drawing on nothing but his instinctive and innate nature when he grows up.
Agree?

No, of course not. They’re not in a vacuum and would use friends, media role models etc to emulate.

Who exactly are they emulating?
A mum probably wouldn't be allowing them to watch violent films or play violent video games.
So, in the absence of a father, they're operating on what is innate to them.

would that not mean we should expect that the most successful people in a population who choose STEM careers, are men?

I was in STEM.

It is male dominated because it is an old boys club and it isn’t compatible with family.

In my lab the sex ratio was slightly more women at phd level, then slowly the women dropped off so anyone above 25/30 was male. We had one woman over 30 and she was gay, no kids.

When you’re only in a 2 or 3 year contract take 6 months out for mat leave and the chances are someone else publishes the work in the meantime. So that will be 3 years post doc down the drain, and the even chance of you getting your grant renewed and remaining in employment will be slim, any chance of promotion will be long gone.

See also that Professor who stated women have no place in STEM because they get crushes on the men and cry when criticised.

A mum probably wouldn't be allowing them to watch violent films or play violent video games

^^You only have to search for threads about GTA or COD on here to see that that us absolute bullshit.

Not necessarily inherently more violent (if by that you mean innately predisposed to commit violence rather than socially conditioned to be so). But men indisputably are more violent - the statistics on violent offending are utterly unequivocal. 90% of those in prison for violence against the person, and 99% of those in prison for sexual offences in England and Wales are male.

The latest crime figures from the US, show that 96% of violent crimes are committed by males.

You are naive.

Men are currently more violent, but they're not necessarily more violent.

Just like women are currently more caring and nurturing of family members; we're not necessarily more nurturing. Fuck anyone who tells me I have to stay at home with the kids because "women are more nurturing".

To make an observation about how men and women are today is not to say that it's fundamental to their being men and women.

It isn't.

Testosterone makes people more angry and more impulsive doesn't it? That's why steroid users are nuts.

Men are definitely more naturally violent than women but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to control it.

Testosterone makes people more angry and more impulsive doesn't it? That's why steroid users are nuts.

Um, no, increasing your own natural level of testosterone can make you those things.

Having a naturally higher level of testosterone than someone else doesn't make you more likely to be angry or impulsive than them.

Science, people, science.

@RatRolyPoly that's why I phrased it as a question not a fact... no need to be salty, not everyone has the same career or education as you.

I was only teasing Prism, I didn't mean it to come across as salty. I didn't spot your question mark - sorry.

Just to add actually, I don't think it's wholly untrue that being violent doesn't have a natural association with being male, but not because of testosterone or genitals or "maleness" at all really; but because people tend to turn to violence when there's a good chance it will work. It's more likely to work if you're physically larger. Men as a group are typically larger (taller, heavier) than women. So I suppose in that regard it is "natural" in that it's associated with some naturally occurring trait (largeness). The fact that that association has been translated into a male/female divide is purely the work of damaging gender roles and expectations IMO.

Men as a group are typically larger (taller, heavier) than women. So I suppose in that regard it is "natural" in that it's associated with some naturally occurring trait (largeness). The fact that that association has been translated into a male/female divide is purely the work of damaging gender roles and expectations IMO.

Is the 'largeness' caused by substances naturally occurring in humans for example - hormones?

Or what do you think might cause 'largeness'?

Is 'largeness' responsible for a majority of violence and rapes?

In which case, do 'large' women also have more violent and rapey tendencies I wonder...are there stats on that?

You misunderstand sackrifice (I nearly followed up my own post with a clarification in fact), but what I'm saying is that it is society which imposes the damaging roles of gender, but what those roles are have their history in natural facts, such as large, violent males and smaller, nurturing, child-rearing females. Now men are "taught" to be violent because of this historic congruence between larger males and violence, and women are "supposed" to be nurturing (e.g.) because of, well, wombs.

But to state those things as innate or necessary just because they're currently observable is to perpetuate the damaging gender stereotypes that hurt men and women; and those are things I'm all about dismantling.

I really wouldn't engage, sackrifice, Rat is a gaslighter extraordinaire and well-known on FWR.

I don’t believe the idea that men are more violent than women because they are bigger. I think society influences men and gives some of them the entitlement to communicate or take what they want through violence.
If it was simply because men are bigger then surely most violent crime would be committed by the tallest biggest men and women.

Rat is a gaslighter extraordinaire and well-known on FWR.

Are you actually having a laugh?? I haven't been on FWR for nearly a year!! Haven't even been on MN for several months now, but lovely to know I'm remembered and suitably made my mark

I don’t believe the idea that men are more violent than women because they are bigger. I think society influences men and gives some of them the entitlement to communicate or take what they want through violence.

I completely agree with you Buttercup, it was poorly expressed in my first post on the matter. I didn't mean that currently bigger people are more violent (which isn't the case), but that differences in size distribution between the sexes may have contributed to the forming of those gender roles now imposed by society.

Hope that's clearer.

Testosterone plays a big part. They’re more aggressive and a lot stronger physically than most women. The majority of men aren’t violent but the majority of violent acts are carried out by males, it’s just a fact. They’re far more likely to rape, murder or carry out assaults than women are. It doesn’t mean they’re all rapists and murderers of course, just that they’re more likely to be than women are. Not very hard to understand and can’t see why you took it to heart.

Oooh, River, just noticed you called me a "gaslighter extraordinaire"; quite flattering really, because what you're saying is that I had the power to make you doubt your own opinions and wonder if perhaps what you believed to be true isn't so.... which, in a debate where my only tools were logically reasoned arguments, that's probably quite the compliment!

Anyway, not interested in a derail or harking back to the past. If I'd thought anyone would remember me I might have namechanged

So two out of three of my children have been seriously assaulted by male animals. Young men can be feral, other young men are vulnerable to them because they do not understand the mindset

Do you find yourself constantly worrying about them?

There have been a few gang related stabbing in my county lately and my friend, who has two sons aged 14 and 16 and she says she’s petrified to let them leave the house in case they become innocent victims of violent males. She said she knows she can’t keep them wrapped up but says she’s also petrified that one day one of them is going to get seriously hurt just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

and there you are, doing it again, Rat.