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.

Not read it either MrG - I thought it was about RPatz's hair and him holding his knob in his hand, judging by the Victorian Coren article.

Isn't that what a psychopath is, someone who has these deep desires?

No, a psychopath would have those desires and not be horrified by them. A psychopath would not only have the desires but would carry them out without any moral qualms at all.

Also, there is a difference between 'desires' and intrusive thoughts

I x posted with others and so my post about getting rid of violence seems a bit niave in the light of others saying we will never be free of it. To an extent I agree and also agree that it would not be useful to society to be rid of violence, although I think Huxley's idea is as blinkered as any rape myth. I do think that we could do a lot to reduce the level of violence in the whole of society by lowering the kudos we give to people who use force to achieve what they want. Not just phyisicle force.

I see, plenty, ok.

I still found that post very hard to read.

I picked you up for linking to the description of animals' development of antlers to support a point about human aggression - that is a mistake few children would make

But biologists would, because Humans are animals too...you don't know what you're talking about LRD.

whatme, you tried to explain human behaviour, you messed up and linked to a description of animals' antlers.

I really don't think you can accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about.

Why not just accept you need better refs than wiki, and a tiny bit more understanding and knowledge? There's no shame in being ignorant or making a silly slip, only in refusing to acknowledge it when you've done it.

Lrd I think or maybe feel we are not talking about the same thing here, I do not disagree with what your saying it just was not what I was getting at, my fault or maybe lack of language to get to where I want to be. My intention was not to talk about the sexual excitement, It was more about some women being with violent men as a way to secure themselves in a community or society that is full of predators. Or as a means of achieving some status. None of this is desirable but does happen. Look at any crime ridden area, the gang bosses most if not all male, are not short of female company. Same with the Italian mobsters, they hardly live like monks. The children of these couples also get special treatment in schools. I saw one young lad beat another in front of a teacher and get away with it cos his dad was the local armed robber. His mother was also known to be pretty handy in a fight. Women's violence in general is on the increase... actually I am going to stop there. Probably still not on the same wavelength so better not to dig any further.

Does anyone have the actual figures for the percentage of domestic violence against men that goes unreported. I would be surprised if even one in 50 men reported domestic abuse by their female partners to the police.

leith put it perfectly, through my work and some social situations I have seen women practically fighting ( no, actually have seen women fighting) to be with the gang leader, the Mr.Big, and instigating, provoking and directing violence to others.

In counselling sessions with men, in certain conversations, we explored some terrible facets of deeper drives, and we understood the social norms and expectations that rein us in. But I know, in myself and others, men and women, that there is a capacity for violence and cruelty that is shockingly near to the surface .

There are the famous studies of prison warders, or students and volunteers acting the part, who when given permission or encouragement to inflict or allow pain to be applied did so, often happily and without question.

A question we used to discuss was ''If you knew you would never be caught, never be punished, or even applauded for it, what is the 'worst' thing you want to do?'' Once that ball got rolling, it was very very scary what people could be capable of.

Sorry, leith, I probably read your post too quickly.

novack - by definition, you surely couldn't have figures? But I would imagine it's high. It's thought figures of women not reporting it are pretty high, I believe, and it's still less taboo for women to admit.

From what little I konw, women in crime ridden areas can see the police more or less as incompetent,not up to the job,too small in numbers,biased,sometimes "bent",and unable or unwilling to protect them all.
Therefore they turn "for protection",to men that are handy with their fists.
They can also have low self esteem,and if their men say they love them once in a blue moon,they are desperate to believe them,and will put up with a lot of what goes on.They also do not have much family stability,and feel they have nowhere to go,and few options educationally as well.

Oh wow this thread. Look at the title. It wasn't enough to use it to fel sorry for the menz, now we also have to hear about how natural and great violence towards other humans is. I better go out punch some random people in the face on the street it will make me popular

Remember when we had some feminism on this board. Those were good times.

Does anyone have the actual figures for the percentage of domestic violence against men that goes unreported

Nope , but the number of women convicted of domestic abuse between 2005 and 2010 increased by 150%

"Domestic violence has traditionally been understood as a crime perpetrated by domineering men against defenceless women. Research spanning over 40 years has, however, consistently found that men and women self-report perpetrating domestic violence at similar rates. "

Guardian

amillion - yes, that's the sort of thing I was trying to say, that the reasons women end up with violent men aren't as simply as attraction of violence being 'sexy'.

It scares the fuck out of me, the idea of anyone being in a positon where they're choosing violent people as protectors. It's the same story with gangs.

"as civilisation grew, males began to use other ways of attracing females, sport, music, art, good conversation, financial success, all manner of differint things."

I think that the reason men, and not women, did those things (with exception of gc) is because women were either not allowed to do those things or were severely discouraged from doing them.

It's a bit like saying that Saudi Arabian men do sport in order to attract women when in reality they do it because they are the ones that are allowed and encouraged to.

Sorry, bit of a tangent, but I hate the "men-created-civilisation-to-impress-women" theory.

So, 7% of convictions for DV, are of women (after the 150% rise).

It's interesting women and men self-report at similar rates - does this mean men are under-reporting hugely?

messy - good point. Besides, what about all the sport, music, art, good conversation and financial success women do and historically did? Does that play no role in attracting men, or do we imagine women sitting passively by while men throw rocks at each other?

No, I don't think so.

whatme, you tried to explain human behaviour, you messed up and linked to a description of animals' antlers

(i) The article was about the far wider subject of male on male fighting for sexual selection than just deers with antlers - thatw as used as an example - which you either didn't read/understand or wilfully ignored

(ii) You don't seem to be able to grasp that core lessons are transferable between species as we humans are also animals.

Why not just accept you need better refs than wiki, and a tiny bit more understanding and knowledge? There's no shame in being ignorant or making a silly slip, only in refusing to acknowledge it when you've done it

Wikipedia is darn sight more reliable that nearly anything else on the Web except scientific papers, as the areas of contention are clearly noted and referenced.

'(ii) You don't seem to be able to grasp that core lessons are transferable between species as we humans are also animals.'

Science fail.

No, they're not.

Info about deer antlers is not transferable to humans.

Indeed, info about walking upright and opposable thumbs aren't transferable.

It's not a case of saying 'ooh ... animals are like this ... uh ... humans must be!' That is not science, that is drawing a specious parallel.

wiki is a very poor resource for many things. If you had scientific papers to cite, you should do so. Or maybe you don't?

re. the women being attracted to violent men, it isn't unsurprising that in a "dog eat dog" situation that women would seek to align themselves with the top dog. No one wants to be on the bottom rung of the ladder and women have to do it in an indirect way seeing as there will always be someone physically stronger than them.

What is sad is that women are separated from the power they could have collectively and are forced to be reliant on violent men to survive.

I'm grateful that I don't live in that kind of environment.

The point I was trying to make-probably being too categorical as is my wont- is that arguments which claim certain behaviour is "natural" in an evo psych kind of way, seem to suggest that there is little that can be done to reduce violence, because it is inevitable.

I am not naive enough to think that violence can be erraticated. The example I wanted to use in my previous post was that of a Rottweiler or pit bull. As far as I understand, these dogs have the potential to be extremely violent. However, whether they become violent depends on their training. A pit bull has potential to maul children, but not all do. Some live quite happily with them.

My quarrell with the "natural" argument is not that it can't never be a good enough explanation. The learnt aspect of socialisation is too important to be disregarded. I am pretty certain that those who dedicate themselves to evo psych are quite aware of this. I am not sure, however, that the way their research is used reflects this. I think rather that their arguments are coopted in order to deny that there may actually be structures in our society which encourage men to express their emotions/control situations via violence. I think this is a huge obstacle to reducing violence.

Sorry, major editing fail:

My quarrell with the "natural" argument is THAT IT IS TOO OFTEN USED AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE EXPLANATION. WHEH I THINK IT CAN never be a good enough explanation ON ITS OWN.

Sorry. And sorry for the capitals. I don't trust myself to use the bold function correctly.

violence being 'natural' is no excuse for violence, just a way to better understand it. nor does it mean that nothing can be done to reduce it.

i also dislike the 'men created civilisation to impress women' theory it suggests that women cannot be creative or accomplished, but i was talking about males attracting the opposite sex, that shouldnt mean that females cannot do that too, just wasnt my point at that time.

actually i havent said that women are attracted to violent men for protection, others on this thread have gone that far, not me , i said that women tend to be attracted to men higher up in the pecking order , closer to the alphas. and that males will then want those positions and there may well be male v male violence in getting there.

so i'm still waiting for MNHQ answer as to why my post was deleted, i sent it yesterday.

Info about deer antlers is not transferable to humans

Again - They used deers rutting as an example of male on male violence for sex selection, the point you seem unwilling to grasp was that the same behaviour is seen across many species.

It's not a case of saying 'ooh ... animals are like this ... uh ... humans must be!' That is not science, that is drawing a specious parallel

If you see a behaviour occurring across many species it's absolutely science to test what lessons can be derived for humans. That is exactly science. You sound like those Victorians who opposed Darwin, who couldn't grasp that humans are animals too.

wiki is a very poor resource for many things. If you had scientific papers to cite, you should do so. Or maybe you don't?

Wikipedia is a poor resource? Ah yes, of course - you prefer the biassed anti-evolution websites I suspect. RadFems, like Creationists, are not great fans of science Ive found.

If you are serious about wanting to know what sociobiology, evolution and evolutionary psychology are about I could point you to some good books on the subjects, which summarise the academic knowledge - but I suspect you'd rather have your biasses confirmed than your understanding improved.