Just feeling really angry at all the murder, assault, rape of females that goes on

[BornStroppy]

I told my husband how horrible it is being part of a gender that is constantly attacked, murdered, etc. He had never thought about it. He doesn´t need to. So we have Tia Sharp, the lady who disappeard in London, an old lady in Scotland murdered by son´s friend, another one murdered in a taxi in Birmingham - this is just over two weeks.

I have one son, pregnant again and just hope its another boy to be honest.

Why is it OK? Apart from raising gentlemen, what the hell can we do? As a gender, we give birth, nurture, raise, care for them, and as a gender we are the ones who suffer at their hands.

its so depressing.

These discussions always seem to kick off. I think because people want to view evolution through a moral lens which just doesn't work. So for example when I said sexual selection by women played a part in promoting the "mr nice guy" gene (figuratively speaking) you say yay because that's a morally attractive story. But when meow says that sexual selection by females has played a role in promoting male aggression everyone says that is morally offensive

That is it on the nail. Evolution is Amoral.

Probably best. If you can't avoid being offensive, don't say it

Being Offended has never been a valid argument for discovering the truth, but its been a damn good one for preserving falsehood through the ages though.

LRD - I think evolution came up in answer to the question "why are men responsible for so much more violence than women?"

The answer of course is part nature, part nurture and I think we probably all agree on that.

Yeah, himalaya, I see that - I just think that if you're answering a question which is asking about the OP's anger, it's not really possible to claim your answer no longer has anything to do with the system her anger is part of.

I agree that evolution and morality are separate - but then, that's why I wouldn't try to answer what I see as a moral or at least an emotive question by citing evolutionary theories - but I think given what the question was, it's not really possible to bring in an evolutionary argument and then expect it to be understood in a separate context from everything else on the thread.

I'm not convinced men are, by nature, more violent than women, not at all.

niether am i, infact some studies show that women lash out, slap, kick and hit much more than men, but men tend to do more damage overall from when they do lash out.

do you (anyone) think that the world would be a more restful, less violent place if we had a matriachy?
serious question, and i'm not claiming to know the answer.

More than half of the top ten results for the proposition that women are more violent than men are links to male rights organisations, meow. And the Daily Mail.

The fight to recast the reality of who hurts whom is pervasive and despicable.

Men are more likely to be the victims of a violent assault. They are frequently also a participant in that same assault, which skews the figures. Men are also more likely to be robbed, an offense that is included in violent crime statistics.

Outside of the US, with its culture of guns and gangs, men are still more likely to be murdered, but are not the vast majority of homicide victims as claimed up thread, in most countries the difference is much smaller.

One thing that hasn't changed is that across countries, cultures and age groups, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violent crimes.

www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/fsw23/fsw23e01-eng.shtml

in reference to your first paragraf hester i hate the daily mail with a vengence.
studies on female violence are unreliable and probobly begun with an agenda, but.
i am 43 and i have never hit a partner, and i've had a few, however i have been hit, slapped a few times, not terrible beating just inpulsive Gf's who had run out of diction, but yeah, i probobly had it comming eh!
i was at the receiving end of a projectile remote controll once, that really hurt!

in reference to you last paragraf
i have no statistics to hand but arnt women are starting to fill prisons much more than they ever have?, maybe with equality come other pressures that may lead some to crime, even violent crime.

There has been a 12% increase in the female prison population in the UK over the past decade. There are now approximately 4,200 women in gaol. The male prison population increased by 30% over the same period and now stands at around 84,000.

www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN04334

Is that not more to do with the fact that woman generally get much shorter and more lenient sentencing.

How would that account for men making up around 95% of the prison population? I'd suggest that it has more to do with men committing a much greater number of crimes.

Yes SGM I've always understood that women's prisons are full of shoplifters and TV licence defaulters.

Clearly, wherever you look in the world, the vast majority of violence is being committed by men.

LRD - I agree the evolution stuff is out of place on this thread but it's a conversation I'd like to have some time. I wish there was a science section.

Yes, it'd be interesting to discuss it as science, I agree.

I think my issue is, I think a lot of this thread - unfortunately - has been more about bashing feminists and claiming science as a back up. I really like trying to understand the scientific theories behind things, but I think it's hard to discuss here because when we query or disagree with each other, it's hard to separate that from other agendas.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/other_subjects/267947-evolution-and-feminism?pg=3&order=

Interesting thread from five years ago (yikes!) - unfortunately the final non-OP post was about sentences for false rape allegations.

Plus ca change, plus la mème chôse..

POfPG

Re: who does the choosing in an arranged marriage type situation.

Yes you are right, it niggled me when I wrote it too.

I said 'parents' for simplicity -mothers and mother-in-laws do play a role. I don't think it implies equality though - more different pressures on males and females as potential parents and grandparents.

We all come from a long line of people who survived and who had grandchildren. Not one person in our direct lineage failed to do these two things.

So while in legal, property or status terms we might see things in terms of the "male line", in evolutionary terms we come from a long line of survivor females as well, who benefitted (in reproductive terms) both from the way their own genes were expressed but also those of the men who they had children with.

It doesn't matter who has the "final say from an evolutionary point of view -I.e. Survival has the last say.

But himalaya, evolution surely happens over a very long period of time - I don't see how you can still credit it as the motivating force beind social situations that may only have existed for a couple of thousand years? And indeed, where the motivating factors behind partner choice change from century to century?

Surely you don't mean that, because my great-great-great-great grandfather perhaps chose his daughter's husband on the basis of said husband having a field next to his, therefore ownership of fields has become an evolutionary trait over the last couple of hundred years. And if that is patently absurd, why is it not absurd to question whether arranged marriage can really be said to have perpetuated sexual selection on principles unchanged since we were primitive humans?

Surely the role of a rapidly changing society has to be taken into account?

If you look at human history, you find people who manage to reproduce despite really pretty rotten odds, because there was immense social benefit to be gained from forcing them to do so. Doesn't that skew the picture? Obviously there's a threshold below which unsuccessful matings don't produce offspring, but I think it's fairly low, isn't it, compared with the optimum?

yes LRD the nature v nurture debate will go on , endlessly
listen, LRD, i really dont want to offend you, and your clearly an inteligent woman, your posts are articulate and well written, but you dont understand the mechanics of evolution, your posts are evedence of this.

try not to take that the wrong way, i dont have a clue about cubism or reletivity, you cant know it all, it's ok to not get it.

your more clued up where it comes to social pressures on people.

i'm sorry if this post sounds incredibly patronising. it isnt ment that way.

I do understand the mechanics of evolution, perfectly well.

But thanks for accepting you know you sound patronizing. That at least is a start - when you learn to stop doing it, as well as to offer half-hearted apologies, we might get somewhere.

*your posts are articulate and well written, but you dont understand the mechanics of evolution, your posts are evedence of this.

try not to take that the wrong way, i dont have a clue about cubism or reletivity, you cant know it all, it's ok to not get it.

your more clued up where it comes to social pressures on people.

i'm sorry if this post sounds incredibly patronising. it isnt ment that way.*

is this performance art??????

Meow, what are the mechanics of evolution?

Thanks.

I suspect it is performance, if not art, chibi, let's put it that way!

doctrine - it's how we got the third-generation porsche boxter.

Ooh, is it how my smartphone has a 3G signal too?

sorry LRD but you dont get evolution, i was trying to tread carefully, but if you thought it was performance art i'm hartily flatterd .

I understand evolution.

You, unfortunately, have said very little that had to do with evolution.

Constantly repeating that you are talking about evolution, or claiming that himalaya or someone else has expressed what you were trying to say, but then seeming unable to remember what that was next time you post, is not quite cutting it.