So many evil men...can't stand it

[SplitHeadGirl]

First of all, I know fully well that men will get upset at what I think and am about to say, so I would like to clarify that I am talking about EVIL men, not the good, wonderful dads and granddads and husbands and nice single blokes out there....the ones who I KNOW (my brain, not my gut, tells me so) are in a majority, but who seem to be few (is it their deafening silence?)

But any fool can see that the sheer amount of men, who are prepared to do unspeakable things to women and girls (and boys as well as other men, not to mention the vulnerable and the elderly...wow, the list goes on) is just overwhelming. I read today about Anene Booysen, and I was absolutely heartbroken, but yet not shocked. For men to be so diabolical to women is not shocking anymore, and that is men's greatest tragedy.

I have two little daughters, and a little son, and I fear for them at the hands of men. Not women...just men.

I feel like I am thinking out loud with this post, so no worries if no one feels they can respond. I just wish I didn't feel so helpless at the tsunami of male violence.

Well, which institutions needs violent men? Governments, for their armed forces. You can't breed violent people for thousands of years to do your conquering, then just expect to stamp it out within a couple of generations.

I think it is possible to have a society in which both men and women are less violent.

Yes, in some ways. No in others. Yes, because feminism has successfully wrecked the family unit. Fatherless feral kids thrive on violence, for a lot of them, it's all they have to give them some kind of status in society. Plus, for some, they model their parents own behaviour.

I think learning to defend yourself is bloody wise. Enough women take self-defence classes. Can only women defend themselves.

The humans who weren't violent and competitive did not breed successfully.

Don't forget all humans alive today are the offspring of the most aggressive self-promoting members of their species. Women have been socialised into being less violent, rather than men programmed to be more.

Yes, greenie. I agree. Do you think men and women are fundamentally, equally violent? Without the social conditioning men and women as a whole would be equally violent. Whatever that level of violence is.
Do you think women are conditioned to be less violent?

Look at how many people are descended from Ghengis Khan - an estimated 8 per cent of Asian men;

www.examiner.com/article/are-you-descended-from-genghis-khan

kim147 Wed 06-Nov-13 09:36:36
Everytime you hear about conflicts, it's the women and children who suffer.

Yes, because men emerge from war scot free.
Honestly...what a ridiculous thing to say!

I think one of the worst things society does to boys is tell them that it's OK to be violent if they are in the right, defending themselves,

I think to an extent there is some truth in the statement. However, I am female and as a child I was taught to stick up for myself, to hit people back if they hit me first, told not to come crying every time one of my brothers hit me. I am not violent as a result of that. I don't think the only reason I am not a violent person is due to my gender, but more the result of my own personality, my own ability to judge right from wrong, my own sense of not eating to inflict harm on others.
For what it's worth, my siblings were given the same message throughout childhood (part of our own chaotic big conflicting and constantly bickering family) and the boys and girls are all different as adults, some have displayed more aggressive tendencies than others and it doesn't seem to be gender specific.
What makes it different for some children?
BTW, I am not denying that stats show more male perpetrated violence, nor that the stats reflect the truth. I am merely trying to understand what makes certain people violent and not others and whether it is just gender, societal expectations or something else.

Which does not mean men don't suffer. But women who are not even taking part in the conflicts suffer one hell of a lot and are used by men

That is only partly true though, because in some countries men are forced to take part in the conflicts; they and their families will be executed if they refuse. So although taking part they might not be willing participants.

There have also been conflicts where innocent men and women suffer enormously - the atrocities that happened in Rwanda is an example of that. Although the women suffered an extra brutality by being raped, there was no differentiation made when it came to executing people. Whole families were killed, men, women and children. Both men and women had to witness their loved ones being killed before being killed themselves. That is true for many conflicts around the world. I don't see that those women have suffered a great deal more than the men because the ultimate suffering is seeing loved ones brutally killed and being powerless to prevent it and they both endured that.

Buffy Feminists!

Oh no, hang on a minute

'Who forces men to take part in conflicts, generally?'

The government/dictatorship.

Are women conditioned to be less violent?

Kim147
When you say it's the women and children who suffer, it comes across like men don't suffer.
A little factoid, at the end of ww2, only 2% of men in the Soviet union who were 18-22 years old in 1939 were still alive.

Who forces men to take part in conflicts, generally?

Is that a serious question?
I will answer it anyway:

Dictatorships, countries that still have national service, rebel gangs who use blackmail and threaten families......

Women and children are the innocent victims of man-made wars. Men have pretty much destroyed this planet.

Don't men and women vote for the government, and doesn't the government consist of men and women? Here, and in most (all?) western countries, at least.

Btw, it's not only women raped in war zones.

www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

do find it interesting though that Kim's point about women and children who aren't choosing to participate in conflict being harmed by men who are participating in it gets challenged, rather robustly, by someone who says that men don't always choose to participate in conflicts either, and that they get hurt in them too.

Where did I challenge the idea that women and children not participating in conflict are harmed by men?
The answer is that I didn't challenge that idea.
I said that women, children AND men were harmed in conflict.

Sigmund those men were raped by MEN!! So it seems that you prove the point that there are far too many horribly evil men around.