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.

Testosterone is linked to violence (although obviously it is more complicated than that!) It always seems weird to me that some men cite hormones as being a so-called reason for women not being suitable for certain high-powered jobs when they are also subject to hormonal behaviour.

I think it's worth pointing out you have to train humans to kill other humans. It's not as innate as we seem to think. They had no end of trouble training US soldiers prior to going out to Vietnam who would fire over the enemies head unconsciously. In short our innate biological preference is not to kill each other.

Agreed, men have and do perpetrate the vast majority of violent acts. Theyve also made the vast majority of academic, artistic and scientific discoveries and advances.

Would you say that they're biologically programmed to be more innovative and creative, or that this is a result of the way society is organised?

I'd suggest it might be both. Also, that that 'programming' that makes them more competitive and individualistic makes them more violent AND more innovative.

On the IQ bell-curve, there is far more variation amongst men than amongsy women; men are generally far more likely to occupy each extreme end of the spectrum, while women tend predominantly occupy the middle. This would support the contention that men are more likely to be exceptionally disfunctional or and exceptional achiever.

Does anyone know how women establish a hierarchy when there are no men present ? My bet would be that it would ultimately come down to who was the strongest, or who could wield the most power.

Would you say that they're biologically programmed to be more innovative and creative, or that this is a result of the way society is organised?

I think it's somewhat of a chicken and egg situation, it's all very well saying that men are violent or creative because of patriarchy and "the way our society is organised", but how did patriarchal societies emerge in the first place, and why did they flourish ? A cursory look at other mammalian species and especially primates would suggest that they tend to organise themselves along similar lines. I'm not suggesting that women should not have more of a stake in our society, but I think it's useful to see our society as having been shaped by evolution rather than controlled by patriarchal media moguls.

Well, competition for scarce resources has definitely shaped our ideas of what roles people should play in society.

Saying that women, were they the dominant sex, would use these scarce resources "collaboratively to benefit everyone" is in my opinion highly doubtful, I would suspect that resources would be acquired to be shared amongst the group, which is arguably what the dominant males of the species would also do once they fight off their rivals. How do women establish hierarchies in prisons etc ? What i I'm getting at is that men are more pre disposed to violence that women because a) they are better at it and can use it more effectively to get things, and b) evolution rewards violence in a world where things are scarce and there is competition. This has created a legacy, which we can probably agree is at least partially toxic, however i see no potential for a future in which male strength is not celebrated.

I don't think that women are less greedy, narcissistic or cunning than men are, which is what I think you are getting at - they just have one tool less than men to get what they want.

You ended your post with the (rhetorical?) question : But I don't think that's the whole story, do you? which i took it was being employed in defence of the position that women and men's behaviours are at least partially a result of socially constructed gendered roles rather than some innate thing. I agree with that, and was therefore stating that I did not think there was some innate badness that men have evolved to have, that is absent in women. That being a position that you refute is the "whole story".

There is lots of evidence from UNICEF/WHO that female carers both individually and collaboratively are much more likely to allocate resources to children, and that many children become seriously ill or die because males in households deny them adequate resources that are available.

On a separate note, how are we defining violence. I would speculate that all control ultimately does rely on the threat of violence or force (how are we distinguishing between the two). In the example of children, many parents no longer rely on hitting children, but they still use time out and grounding, which ultimately rely on the threat of the ability to physically force children into spaces. If done to an adult we would call that false imprisonment, an act of violence. In inner city schools the police are sometimes always onsite, and can physically force students from class rooms.

So I will speculate that society relies on having female carers involved in decision making to stop society from destroying its own young but still relies on some people, mostly men to be the ultimate threat of force - police, army, prison officers. What is bizarre is that some people then think the particular role of motherhood is then extended to all women all the time, despite the fact that we're all mostly not mothering young at any one time, or that all men are extended the role of enforcers of legitimate control, despite not actually being a prison officer etc.

And I find that bizarre. The idea that some men ultimately protect us through force and therefore men are violent for our own good. Well some men and women do legitimately use force, but that's not the role of most men!

So rather than look at a potential world with no violence/force, very difficult to achieve, I'd rather go for the more limited approach that factually, most men have no reason to be laying claim to force when society has not awarded them as individuals the right to wield it.

1. Are men biologically more disposed to violence than women?

This is a very misandrist, feminist and sexist comment.

Look at it this way- if you were to replace "men" with muslims and "women" with non-muslims everyone would be (rightly) be calling you racist.

Muslim isn't a biological category.

Just imagine the outrage from feminists if a guy asked "Are women biologically more disposed to nagging than men?"

This is a very misandrist, feminist and sexist comment.

In what way is it a "feminist" comment?
Do you know that the OP is a man?

Droide, why should I imagine it? I don't care if some group of feminists are outraged or if you deem the OP sexist. The thread isn't about whether or not the idea is sexist.

Me suspects that driode would only notice anything sexist if it disadvantages men .

If you'd bother to read the thread driode, you'd have seen that although the comment may be sexist it still advantages men. You'd also see that most feminists on the thread (I don't believe the OP is a feminist) are pretty much saying the opposite anyway.

1. Are men biologically more disposed to violence than women?

It isn't a comment, it is a question. And moreover, an open question. Not premised on any assumption or stereotype.

We know that men generally commit more violent acts than women, that is beyond sensible dispute. The OP is asking a question about why. The answers have been thoughtful. Outrage is misplaced.