Men responsible for more crime and violent crime than women, anyone researching why and what to do about it, please?

[Italiangreyhound]

Is anyone doing research into why commit more crime and more violent crime than women, and in stopping them doing it?

I am gob smacked after millennium no one is working out what the problem is and solving it.

Read this and apart from the utterly ludicrous comment "It may turn out that there are some acts that men are more likely to commit than women, and vice versa. More men than women commit crimes like homicide and aggravated assault. But women are more likely to commit crimes like prostitution. Whether that's because of human nature or that there's a far more complex explanation is still a mystery."

It just left me wondering why no one is doing anything.
science.howstuffworks.com/life/men-more-violent.htm

Actually a female writer in the Times on Sat 18 Ma or Sunday Times Sun 19 May was asking the same thing but I can't find the link!

Googling around just got me depressed!

www.salon.com/2013/02/20/house_goper_men_can_handle_violence_better_than_women/

www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-poignant-facts-about-women-around-world

So I've stopped looking for now!

Crap isn't it!

Good good, I like strawberry flavour lollipops best myself.

But I am ignorant, darling.

Strawberry flavour?

I thought you were a steak favourer?

That's true, doctrine, what a filthy hypocrite I am.

LRD is not ignorant - fact

returning to Italian's op, the study of masculinity is obv a good place to start. All oppressive gender stereotyping is of interest to feminists

Steak lolly, is that like a kebab? Yum.

My sons have a feminist mother AND a feminist-ally father. My poor fucked up offspring.

I am enjoying the irony that when I defer to the opinion of a man for whom I have great respect (ie., Patrick Stewart), I get harried by the 'poor menz' brigade who insist that I should femsplain his words.

Hmm.

feminists support all genuine attempts to undermine stereotyping by virtue of sex

Thanks namechangeguy and LRDfeminstdragon no time to read at moment but will get back to it.

I'm not a Feminist as such, but if you need advice on the (mathematical side) of the research methods I'd be happy to help. :)

Lrdfeministdragon mahoosive hmm indeed for the Study of why men ?exhibit warrior tendencies?!!

Thanks for all the links.

Surely generally most men do have an advantage in physical strength over women?

If they didn't, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Maybe it would be the other way around.

I have been aware for most of my life that the vast majority of men could overpower me if they wanted.

I am not sure why this has been raised as incorrect?

If women were bigger and stronger than men then there would be a shit-ton less trouble for us, surely.

Also wanted to say that I don't cry.

Many women have been brought up in the UK not to be too emotional. Stiff upper lip and all that. Sure I'm not the only one! The post from earlier has been deleted though so not sure what the point he made was.

I read somewhere/heard in a documentary that women who commit crime (and get caught - I suppose!) are more likely to have done so at a certain point in their menstral cycle. I don't know if this is good science or complete claptrap. But if true, it does suggest that that hormones can be one of the factors which influences behaviour, which doesn't sound implausible, hormones can affect our feelings, and therefore influence our actions.

That's not to say that hormones make women or men commit crime, but perhaps criminals exert less self-control than others when they are hormonal? I don't know. I'm certainly not saying that it ought to be an excuse.

I also remember hearing that some criminals (psychopaths?) don't have a normal biological response to oxytocin (the empathy/love chemical). Which is why they don't feel bad about hurting people. (Though obviously they should still have obeyed the law even if they didn't feel it was wrong). Again I'm not making excuses, but wonder if crime prevention could be improved by understanding the role our physiology has.

Even if those things are the case, until there are tried and tested treatments, it's all moot. If someone is dangerous - whether it is at a certain time of some cycle or whatever - then the public needs to be protected from them.

This is what bothers me about that rape defence of saying you were asleep. Well that's all well and good but fundamentally a woman was raped, more might be raped in the future, and in any other situation there'd be something put in place to prevent it happening again. Well, in theory anyway.

There is a big gap in the law there I think.

nice - I have sometimes raised the issue that I think our understanding of what constitutes 'strength' is socially constructed. Men do not, for example, have strong uterine muscles that are needed for birthing babies! Nor do they have as good endurance as women. If we lived in a different kind of society, maybe these things would be equally valued. But we live in our society, where strength is understood as 'the things a man is strongest at'.

It is a bit of a nice point, because obviously we do live in this world where we understand strength as male, and we can't get out if it, so we have to live with that. But all the same I think it matters to acknowledge that the things women are strong at are important too, and crucial for us as a species.

The fact that most men are stronger than most women isn't I think (in my humble opinion) the crucial thing. Of course it is true. But then most adults in their 20s and 30s are probably stronger than most children or old people. But not all men nor all people in their 20s and 30s commit crimes.

I am just trying to work out what are the factors that do influence crime and violence and why we as a society are not doing more to stop it.

Whether the victims are mostly female or mostly male might influence why we as a society are not doing more to stop it, in as much as men might be more worried about crime against men, could this be a factor in a reluctance to getting to the root of the issue? Just a question really.

Here's an interesting link about the demographics of crimes: www.sociology.org.uk/pblsdca.pdf

This is a link to homicide stats worldwide;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The bottom table breaks it down by country, and is re-orderable by region and by rate per 100,000 of population. I cannot see any pattern by region, wealth, culture, religion or anything obvious - Monaco is top of the list with zero murders, but the UAE is also in the top ten, along with Singapore and Brunei. All different regions, systems of government and religions.

Perhaps someone else can see a common thread amongst the least- or most violent countries?

There is a pretty strong regional effect. Most violence is occurring in Africa and the Americas. The least in Europe (more violence in Eastern Europe). Initally I would say this is due to wealth/poverty divide, but that can't be the whole story as Asia is generally pretty unviolent. Then there are countries that are war-torn - violence begets violence as FemDrag said about P Stewart. Europe is rich but also peaceful. And I would also bet that a lot of the violence in the Caribbean and Central America is drug-related.

I've always wondered what it is in men that attracts them to violence. In protests that turn violent, it's ALWAYS men getting in with their fists, lobbing stuff etc.

Testosterone is why men are more violence than women.
Is why women with high testosterone for women are more violent.

Testosterone will affect behaviour but intelligence controls the aggression.

The tendency for violence must have had an evolutionary use. As with many human traits, they remain a part of our make-up long after society makes their usefulness redundant.

Why 'must' it?