Male violence and terrorism

[Grimarse]

The vast majority of violent acts, including terrorist attacks, are planned and carried out by men. If you want an indiscriminate attack on innocent people, spreading fear, injury and death, there is usually a man or group of men who can be found to carry it out with relatively little effort.

My understanding of male violence as discussed on this board is that it is underplayed by our society because frequently the victims are female, and female lives are less valued than male. But looking at terrorist attacks, men are as vulnerable as women. What is more, terrorists are able to attack not only Joe Public, but also those at the top of the tree - politicians, business leaders etc.

It has raised a couple of questions in my head;

1. Are men biologically more disposed to violence than women?
2. Are feminist explanations that male violence can somehow be socially engineered out of the male psyche therefore doomed to failure?

My own point of view is that men’s biology makes violence inevitable at a higher rate than it will occur in women, and that short of biological engineering, we are stuck with it. I think that this viewpoint is at odds with feminist thinking, because it is somehow seen as letting men off the hook - ‘poor things, they can’t help it’ etc. I’d be very interested to know what others think.

I think socialisation only gets you so far, ultimately "law and order" have to maintained. How is it maintained ? By a monopoly on organised violence.

Direction of male violence and harnessing male violence is why many MN'ers are typing on an shiny iDevice with a 4x4 parked in the drive way, it's why our country is rich. I think you would need to somehow do away with all of this, otherwise there will always be a reward for some kinds of violence, suitably directed of course.

I am a man, and I never initiate aggression. I'm raising my son without any violence, and as he gets older I will encourage him to find non-violent ways to resolve conflicts.

Of course men have the capacity to not be violent. However respective murder rates place male victims as more numerous, so we are both the class that perpetrates it, and yet also its biggest victims.

It's very useful to zero in on the gendered element when we're discussing 2 women a week being murdered by partners and men they know.

Widening our view to violence in general I believe is less helpful, as I believe we are all complicit in creating the society where initiation of aggression is nurtured.

The answer is as our children grow up they do so feeling as safe as possible, nurtured and guided to handle frustration and anger without lashing out at those around them.

I'm almost not really bothered re: male biological predispositions to violence. Even if that is the case we can clearly do better with what we have.

FWIW, and although there would be no way of knowing this, i suspect that if women were the biologically stronger sex, we would still organise socially at a macro level by the ability to direct violence.

Itllallbefine: probably a bit picky of me. but actually biologically women are the stronger sex. Men are the stronger sex physiologically though, which gives them the edge to control society via violence and the threat of violence.

It's not violence and aggression per se that I find objectionable, it is the initiation of force that is. We have evolved from nature, and nature is violent.

Now we have this capacity to reason we can use negotiation and look for the Pareto efficiency ie as close to win/win for all parties.

The problem lies in where the ethical line is drawn which is a subjective value. Nobody would bat an eyelid if a rapist or suicide bomber were to be injured or killed before they could complete their crime. Not hold the person responsible.

Recalling my own childhood my peer group would all broadly agree that if someone thumped someone for insulting their mother the victim of my thump was asking for it. That would still be initiating aggression and in my view therefore wrong.

I was physically bullied very briefly early on at a boarding school. I resolved it by lining up my bullies one night and instructing them to hit me as hard as they can and get it out their systems. The first few hit really hard, but after the third or fourth seeing me keep getting up the punches got progressively weaker until they were barely taps. I was rarely if ever hit following that night.

I think it's well worth going over Ghandi's principle of Ahimsa in a modern context. It really is the gold standard in non-violence.

It's very useful to zero in on the gendered element when we're discussing 2 women a week being murdered by partners and men they know. Widening our view to violence in general I believe is less helpful, as I believe we are all complicit in creating the society where initiation of aggression is nurtured.

So you believe it is possible to fix one without the other? These seem to be contradictory points.

Not exactly I think the pathology is different. People who are violent to those weaker than them (ie bullies) are sub category within violence itself. Hence generalising all violence as the same is unhelpful.

I think violence (an action), can have multiple causes.

I can only think of proactive and reactive violence. Is that what you mean? The difference between being aggressive and defending yourself?

My own point of view is that men’s biology makes violence inevitable at a higher rate than it will occur in women, and that short of biological engineering, we are stuck with it.

I don't believe there is any aspect of human, or specifically male biology that makes violence inevitable. Biology may give you an increased propensity to violence. It is culture, religion or society or a combination of them that gives you license to do it.

The increased propensity may in reality be fairly small, I don't know. It may mean that in ideal circumstances you would not be very violent at all. Most people could probably channel the propensity into other actions, like sports.

Not really the motivations of a sadist are entirely different to someone who punches you out of garden variety frustration and anger. Note a sadist can perform violence in a self defense capacity.

Recall shootings in America where whilst in self defense there have been racial components.

I'm no expert of the literature, but my guess is a lot domestic violence and violence towards children is committed by sadists.

The threat of physical force is so pervasive in our society that it's not clear to me that any other workable model has ever been suggested. Trying to influence or control behaviour, especially when it's known that some people actually desire to harm others, i mean - how would you do that ? Guilt them into by fear of what will happen to them in the after life ? Evolution has rewarded violence, so it's wrong to say that it is purely cultural, and that women generally seem to like men who are bigger than them (see threads on here re "would you date a man shorter than you?"). What desirable attributes does a large broad shouldered man exhibit ?

I can't begin really begin to comprehend how you can socially engineer this out of existence.

That didn't entirely make sense, i was attempting to draw a parallel between what appears to be women's preference for tall men with evolutionary reward for violence.

I think you are over egging the issue re: women's preferences in partners. I'm 6ft tall broad of shoulder, and yeah maybe some women would be comforted by that but by no means all, and my stance on non-violence has never gotten in the way of dating.

Conversely I've known men with 2-3 feet on me fail to get anywhere with women because they are so meek and unassuming.

Attraction is a complex area and it's a bit reductive to blame women's dating preferences for male violence.

I'd say we are all attracted to successful and powerful people, but you can be both in this day and age without being violent.

I agree re parents and children, but it is also the case that not only is it socially unacceptable to beat your kids, it's against the law. Perhaps in the future, as it becomes less likely that people will get away with violence, maybe through new technology, then it'll become a thing of the past. I do think that the likely hood of another global conflict between major world powers has largely gone thanks to technology. However that doesn't seem to mean that those nations spend any less on weapons. I dunno....

Attraction is a complex area and it's a bit reductive to blame women's dating preferences for male violence.

I think that's a bit much ? I'm not blaming anyone, i'm just suggesting that since other mammals tend to live in groups with an "alpha" male, it's not unreasonable to see many parallels with human behaviour. Look at the way teenage girls worship pop stars etc, i rather think it is "reductive" to dismiss any evolutionary context to our behaviour and say "oh it's just cos of marketing". Also surprised to hear you know men that are 9 feet tall Dervel :)

Matilda - I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think you can base what is or is not natural by looking at the outcome, you need to look at the context in which a car came to exist, is the desire to move quickly and safely from one place to another natural ? Surely you don't think that because early humans didn't drive cars, cars are not "natural" ?

Op your point is more about socialisation encompassing biology. Most of the violent crimes men commit are about dominance, power, protection and ego. I would assume this applies to rape, domestic violence, terrorism, and fights among fellow men.

Socialisation plays a role because we as a society bring up men to be the protector, provider and rescuer. Biology has helped in the shaping of this ideology. Reason being, women having children and young girls being brought up to be ladies who should respects themselves.

Being macho or masculine comes with the characteristics of being violent and aggressive. It's almost animalistic in sense that they have to act in that way to protect, scare and insert dominance on the weaker party.

When terrorist bomb and terrorise a group of people they want to gain power and offer protection to their helpless women and children. I would assume they feel like it's their duty the same way a father or brother who has been brought up in the same way to be a strong masculine man. "Checking out a burglary in the dark and those who don't are defined as a inferior men with lack of masculinity". We expect them to be able to attack and scare off the intruder.

Play-fighting is considered a male game to help them grow up as strong masculine men who would protect themselves and family in the future. We as a society encourage violence in ways that we shouldn't.

We cannot say that we have changed as society and don't socialise our male children to be violent when lots of movies, TVs shows , books and lots of medium for entertainment consistent of violence and atrocities committed by men. Almost all of these are men being portrayed with perception on what we see as masculine.

aeon.co/opinions/what-every-dictator-knows-young-men-are-natural-fanatics

This is an interesting read.

Interesting fact - when this was posted on a FB group I am in it was called transphobic.

i'm just suggesting that since other mammals tend to live in groups with an "alpha" male, it's not unreasonable to see many parallels with human behaviour

As far as I was aware the whole 'alpha male' theory has been debunked. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that the original research at least was thoroughly
misunderstood.

I thought (think) that in other primate species, being a dominant male, or near the top of the dominance hierarchy is hugely advantageous to your rates of sexual success. Are you disputing this ?

itllallbefine

Well I was talking about mammals which is what you said originally. From what I understand the alpha male theory comes from wolves.

Anyway as for primates from what I understand it can vary quite radically across species.

I am not an expert on this but I do think that it is interesting that we (as a society) tend to focus on animal behaviour that justifies patriarchy.

I know the thread has moved on a bit but I thought this was an interesting comment "So maybe the question about socialisation is that women tend to express these feelings that in men lead to violence against others, in different ways?"

Women often focus their anger inwards (wine of the reasons why mor women than men self-harm) whereas men focus their anger outwards. I found the example of being cut up and wanting to be violent quite astute. I'm sure everyone feels anger when something unfair that you did nothing to encourage, happens to you. I know my instinct is to lash outwards (but I don't). So why do men think it's OK to do that?

I think with all violence there is a sense of entitlement - you are entitled or justified to do lash out because of x, y, z. You certainly see it with abusive men. And it is at the root of parents being violent towards their children. And this crosses over into girlinacoma's observation about terrorists. They are able to justify to themselves, why they are incredibly violent about lots of things.

Sorry that was a bit ramble and jumping about!

Oh, I'm no expert either btw, so i could well be talking bollocks. However, it is my opinion that our species has evolved and that violence was rewarded by that processes. i don't think it possible to say that we exist in some "post evolutionary" state no matter what adaptations homo sapiens might need to make in order to survive in the future.

Part of terrorism I think is the reminder that "the state" cannot ever completely suppress violence, i.e. as a last resort you can still take action that is self determined. Terrorists sometimes see themselves as resisting state violence, i.e. rejecting the state of affairs whereby the govt. are the only ones allowed to use violence.