"over 70% of unprovoked street attacks were men being violent to other men."

[golondrina]

I commented on a tweet saying that men too are afraid of walking alone at night because of violence from other men. I said that it may be true that some men fear violent attack from other men, most don't. That men sometimes are afraid walking alone but that women are usually afraid of walking alone at night and that it was an important difference.

He's come back saying "over 70% of unprovoked street attacks were men being violent to other men" I want to reply with something specific, help me?

I'm probably unable to answer all the questions posed without at least doing some serious research/consideration.

Right. So basically you just googled for a set of statistics which you think supports your anti-woman view and didn't bother to actually think it through?

I would never have guessed.

Why so many men (almost never women) are happy to abandon their young children?

Possibly it is down to something as singular as the action of oxytocin between men and women ?

Possibly it is down to something as singular as the action of oxytocin between men and women ?

No clue what you mean, sorry.

Oh and Scott, since you're banging on about how the sons of single mothers are more likely to become violent, what about their daughters? Oh yes - girls are much less likely than boys to turn into violent adults, no matter what their circumstances. Why is that do you think, Scott?

But you're not going to reply, are you?

This has been discussed many times already on these boards (I've lurked for a good while) but people seem to be selective with their memories.

I've seen members post many studies indicating, for instance, that testosterone plays an important role in fight/flight, violent behaviour and that it is more abundant in violent criminals and perpetrators of sexual crimes, but it is usually dismissed (typically along with reference to Testosterone Sex, which wasn't particularly well received outside of feminist circles and an award which was given by a non-scientifically focused panel).

So I’m confused, if the lack of a father is a causal factor in men growing up to be violent, but the women who raise them are statistically far far less likely to be violent, where are all these young men learning their violent ways?

It’s almost like there’s some destructive external influence at play, no?

Presumably the group of women who end up bringing their children up alone and in poverty an with no male role model includes those who had to do this to escape violent, abusive men. So that would also be a fairly significant influence on the male children tending towards violence themselves as adults- that by their mothers were able to get out, they had learned relationship behaviour from their violent, abusive fathers.

Male aggression and violence, and all the ways it manifests itself, is the single biggest problem humanity has. It is at the bottom of most human misery if you look carefully enough. I don’t think it’s any fairer to blame non-violent men for it than it is to blame women, but we’d all benefit from addressing it.

Testosterone Rex

You might equally say that statistics show that the most violent men were abandoned by their fathers (is there any data that differentiates between boys whose fathers have died and boys who have suffered paternal abandonment?).

I could easily believe that this could cause anger problems for boys, who are encouraged by our society to express all emotions as anger. A little boy whose father has quite clearly shown that he doesn't care about him is rather likely to be emotionally affected by this, I would think.

Male aggression and violence, and all the ways it manifests itself, is the single biggest problem humanity has. It is at the bottom of most human misery if you look carefully enough. I don’t think it’s any fairer to blame non-violent men for it than it is to blame women, but we’d all benefit from addressing it.

Amen.

"Testosterone Sex" is my favorite Freudian slip of the week so far.

Single parent families have only become prevalent within the last 30-40 years, yet male violence has been commonplace in societies much, much longer than that. Not to mention that there are still many cultures today were divorce is strongly frowned on, and yet many of them still have endemic male violence.
This.

maybe Scott thinks single mothers are r-selected?
Don't click on that if you have high blood pressure, btw.

testosterone plays an important role in fight/flight, violent behaviour and that it is more abundant in violent criminals and perpetrators of sexual crimes

So are you advocating castration as a solution?

I don’t think it’s any fairer to blame non-violent men for it than it is to blame women, but we’d all benefit from addressing it.

I agree that we shouldn't blame them as such, but it is a fact that men are generally in a better position to influence the behaviour and culture of other men than women are.

My views aren't really all that important.

The statistics speak for themselves.

The statistics speak for themselves.

So you don't need to do any more research now?

men are generally in a better position to influence the behaviour and culture of other men than women are.

But on the other hand, men in loving relationships and with families are less likely to be violent. Men who have 'something to lose' and a purpose in life.

So in summary

The fact that the vast majority of violence committed globally against children, women and men including murder, assault, rape, etc etc is committed by men

Is really the fault of women for ?not bringing their kids up properly

And furthermore women globally should be the ones to sort it out

Despite the fact that globally men demonstrably have most of the money and resources and run the govts and orgs like police and courts.

Sounds totes kosher to me.

Better fuck a man and wash his socks so he won't be tempted to go out and cause mayhem, ladies.

(Nods seriously)

The statistics speak for themselves.
I'd say!
Look at the countries where men become the sole guardians after divorce. They have enormous rates of male violence and completely sex-segregated societies. They're usually at war.

But on the other hand, men in loving relationships and with families are less likely to be violent. Men who have 'something to lose' and a purpose in life.

^Stand by your man, give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand by your man.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand by your man.^

Oh lol

"But on the other hand, men in loving relationships and with families are less likely to be violent"

And FURTERMORE if these bastard women would just love us, or pretend to, then there wouldn't be so much violence so again it's women's fault.

Like teh incels who think every man should be given a woman (well a girl > easier to control) who should pander to them and then they wouldn't need to be so ANGRY would they.

Poblem is. Women and girls are people, not passive sex dolls. No matter how much lots of men all over the world wish it.

Some brilliant person posted this on another thread but it seems to be relevant again here.

www.dafyddapgwilym.net/AnaServer?dafydd+253098+compareSimpleEng.anv+edEl=252861&localEl=253098&titleEl=252849

And in regions where girls ARE given to men, to be treated as sex dolls with cooking and housework skills, maybe as brood mares,

Many men are still violent and angry.

How does that work then?

Like teh incels who think every man should be given a woman (well a girl > easier to control) who should pander to them and then they wouldn't need to be so ANGRY would they.
Again, disproved completely by the societies where men are assigned a girl being violent societies, far more so than here. The incel theories only work if you subscribe to ethnic supremacist theory too. And then ignore the fact the continent with the worst wars is Europe.

NothingOnTellyAgain
You got there first!