Why do so many men turn bad...?

[Destinysdaughter]

Was just thinking about this, May be simplistic but was wondering why so many men end up being rapists, paedophiles, DV abusers, stalkers etc?

Is it something in their family background, being a victim of abuse themselves, conditioning, or something else?

Had quite a few pints in your men only bar, did you cadno?

Only 5 for goodness sake. I thought there was as a lot of support for single sex spaces. Genuinely think it would make for a better society

Venus - I wouldn't waste my energy if I were you :)

Haha! It's like Freud has come back from the grave for an online visit. Is it just me picturing Joey from Friends singing "All you want is a ding dong...."?!

i think its quite simple. Love.
Men dont get love from men that engages with who they are inside, more for who they project publically with all its caveats and protections against intimacy. Men without women..or in very male environments as the workplace has been become very transactional and men without either women or work can have no status or love or respect irrespective of ability, and some crack and act to take that power back. Lack of love is damaging because it also tends to cause people to hate you rather than love you more..and as men are often'supposed to hide vulnerability. . its not expressed and gets worse..

Also many things described here are where being 'bad' is tge behaviour that gets rewards. i even remember the 'bad' (violemt) men at school getting all the social rewards, which i dont know if it was an intentional game, but a lot of my female friends ..often the more intelligemt ones too..would sort of give 'points' to boys being bad, not doing homework or being rebellious. It might have been a way to keep.marks down i suppose like a soft power.. (i went to a school where stupidly teachers and pupils acted as if ranking within the school was important, rather than ranking in the country iyswim)

Weewee? Seriously? I might not have one, but at least I can say penis.

Feministsareuseles are you for real?

JosefK course it isn't for real. Just report and/or ignore.

Josefk being trolled is par for the course on a feminist thread.

Feministsareuseles are you for real?

I suggest you hang out a little in Feminism, particularly at night. Then you may understand why we get a little testy sometimes.

Anyway, back to the OP...

It's a really interesting question. I wonder whether there is a similar proportion of women who "turn bad" but it's expressed in different ways (as someone said upthread, self-harm rather than violence towards another).

But I find it striking that the women who are involved in the most heinous activities - going by the notorious cases that have gone to trial, at least - are often either on the periphery of the crime (Maxine Carr, for example) and / or are only involved through their partner's involvement (Myra Hindley, rose West, for example).

"For what reason do you think women would be any different in power? That's a strange idea."

Immediately before your post, I explained why I think women would be different. Because they are. This is why charities try and ensure that women hold the purse strings in the developing world, becuase when women control the resources, they are spread more evenly and fairly.

For the same reason the Labour government when it introduced family allowance (later child benefit), paid it to the mother, not the father; women spend family money on the family, men spend it on themselves.

Obviously not in all cases, but those are the broad patterns. Study after study across cultures bears this out.

Also the other thing I said which you found "strange" was:

" I think the biological aspect of carrying, birthing and nurturing other human beings, would probably have prevented women developing an ideology that de-humanised half the human race."

It's almost like you didn't read the arguments I made.

Women have probably spent more money on the family because that has been their role. Women have been socialised to believe that they are primary carers, just like men have been socialised to believe they are aggressors.

But that doesn't mean men and women are fundamentally, innately different.

If you gave a woman enormous power - if she commanded nations and armies - then she could behave just as awfully as a man.

I am completely against this idea that men and women are born with inherently diffetent psychological characteristics.

If you're saying there are broad cultural differences, then I agree.

But if the culture changed then so, theoretically, would the patterns of behaviour.

There are no female Hitler's and Stalin's because women have not had the opportunity or the cultural licence to do that kind of damage.

Then what you say is pure speculation, Josef.

No it's just obvious. And it's feminist. The alternative would be to belive that women are born nurturers and carers and men are born aggressors - which is totally anti-feminist isn't it not? Isn't that how patriarchy is justified? By the belief that men and women are different? That only men crave dominance while women are more suited by nature to demurely looking after children?

Women are just human beings. Some of them are really good human beings and others are really bad human beings.

All we have is history and now.

And what we learn from history and now, is that the more power women have in society, the more egalitarian those societies are and the less violent.

We don't know if it's socialisation or nature.

But this thread is about why so many men turn "bad".

"And what we learn from history and now, is that the more power women have in society, the more egalitarian those societies are and the less violent."

Which societies are you reffering to?

Oh go away eminismux

Well use it to say something worthwhile then. Of course not all women are attracted to money. That's moronic.