"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?

No it's not a given. But it is incredibly hard when your neighbours are trying to sell you drugs. Hinting that a few criminal activities can earn you a bit of extra cash so you can get those things you can't afford. Peer pressure is incredibly hard to resist. Mum's busy working trying to keep a roof over the their heads and food on the table. Let's be real here how do you expect a woman to stop a male (full of teen angst and testosterone) from leaving the home to get involved in god knows what?

"The fullproof guide to totally pwning feminazis"

Hahaha gotta love an MRA
Man fucks off, woman stays and brings up children. Male child does something violent. Is this:
A) because he's angry at being abandoned by his father?
B) because of a complex interplay of factors like social class, the area he lives in and the fact he's male?
C) Because of some unspecified but common poor parenting on the part of the woman who has brought him up?
Yep. Definitely C. Male violence is womens fault.

Spot on

This inject is like a discussion on the economy when someone suggests cutting the international aid budget. Sure, we could cut it but it's a literal drop in the ocean compared to unpaid tax by corporations. It would make zero difference to anyone who lives here. We're all talking about the defence budget, schools and hospitals and someone in the corner thinks we will be fine if we stop sending a few quid to Kenya.
Women could make a difference in some cases, it's impossible to rule out. One violent man might have been less violent if his cruel mum hadn't left his dad, who is a lovely bloke. It happens. Lovely dad might have turned wayward son around and the violent crime the young man committed would never have happened. It's mum's fault. She ran off with the milkman.
Now how often do you suppose that exact scenario plays out, and how much agency does it give the non-females in the story?
How much change would be enough to prevent the rare scenario happening? Ban divorce? Make fathers the default residential parent? Stone adultresses to death?
There are countries that do all three and they're much more violent than here.

So you agree that mothers of male children should consider how (to the best of their ability) they can help their son to grow up as a non-violent man?

That's a long way from "sorry, men, we can't help you with male violence".

Hahaha thanks AngryAttackKittens. You've made my night. I'll stop playing now. Have you ever thought of running a women's retreat? You're very wise and zen. 🙌🏻

"Since I can't get them to say what I want them to say I will now simply write their statements for them."

So you agree that mothers of male children should consider how (to the best of their ability) they can help their son to grow up as a non-violent man?

I would say all parents should consider how (to the best of their ability) they can help their son to grow up as a non-violent man.

However, since quite a few fathers - but almost no mothers - run off and abandon their children, then it's obvious that many more men than women are shirking their responsibilities in this regard.

Any updates on the stats btw?

ScottCheggJnr
Did you have a dad at home? If yes, what did he do to dissuade you from being violent or criminal?
If no, do you have any friends' dads who influenced them?
Do you think the father figure is mainly about discipline? Are disciplined children more likely to be non-violent?
What do you think single women do to their sons that means they are more likely to become violent or criminal? I'm happy to discuss theories, even it it's an unsubstantiated opinion. It has to be logical though.

Many women here talk about Shady Pines as a place to retreat to, but I think I prefer the tropical island guarded by sharks with laser beams on their heads option.

So you agree that mothers of male children should consider how (to the best of their ability) they can help their son to grow up as a non-violent man?
That was never in doubt. Unless you are arguing that single mums are deliberately creating violent men, Ma Baker style

Tropical island sounds the go. Sharks freak me out though.

That was never in doubt.

I respectfully disagree.

The statement "sorry, men, we can't help you solve male violence" doesn't really set up the discussion as to how mothers can help.

They'll be specially trained guardsharks though!

Although I appreciate the sentiment, I think demanding that all men do something to tackle male violence is likely to fall on deaf ears.

It's akin to asking what the average Muslim in Luton is doing to tackle extremist behaviour carried out by isis.

A different approach needs to be taken and in my eyes it begins with education and nurturing from the earliest of ages. When society grows up knowing from birth all violence is to be deplored then perpetrators will be taken to task far more comprehensively, and given time, those masculine traits can be neutered. No amount of marches or strongly worded tweets will do anything worthwhile at present.

We could stop a lot of male perpetrators of violence through education, but that'll still leave some awful individuals unwilling to control their actions. I suppose we'd be forced into considering directly affecting genetics at that point, ie breeding out those terrible male attributes.

You know, there probably are stats that have attempted to control for socioeconomic factors out there somewhere. Shame Scott is too lazy to look for them.

Meanwhile in the master's common room. Sigismund arbuthnot the mad maths master musters his rhomboids.

Guardsharks? Excellent I can still snorkel then. Have a great night.

I've seen some of the memes about single mums, they're a perfect example of "correlation is not causation". Worse outcomes for children of single mums need to control for all those other factors, income, crime level of area, warrior gene, cultural emphasis on toughness, opportunities available, how the child feels about his father, why his father left, contact with father, is there a stepdad and if so is he a stabilising influence or is he antagonistic, there are so many different factors it's like saying women with long hair produce violent sons. They might well do, but it's not likely to be the main cause. It's also not likely to be enough of a cause to justify finger pointing at the mother.

It's also not likely to be enough of a cause to justify finger pointing at the mother.

It is if you're an MRA.

Women also cause war, famine, and pestilence by controlling men with our bums, you know.

The statement "sorry, men, we can't help you solve male violence" doesn't really set up the discussion as to how mothers can help.
One post on Mumsnet is indicative of women's unwillingness to accept their responsibility in tackling the causes of male violence?
Their responsibility as clearly explained by your figures, the ones that control for socioeconomic factors, that you found and posted?
That clear explanation why males are more violent when their father isn't present, and which explains precisely what the father does to prevent violent tendencies in his sons?
Right

I'll repost this for ScottCheggJnr because I don't think it came up on his screen. Must have been a glitch.

Did you have a dad at home? If yes, what did he do to dissuade you from being violent or criminal?
If no, do you have any friends' dads who influenced them?
Do you think the father figure is mainly about discipline? Are disciplined children more likely to be non-violent?
What do you think single women do to their sons that means they are more likely to become violent or criminal? I'm happy to discuss theories, even it it's an unsubstantiated opinion. It has to be logical though.

Although I appreciate the sentiment, I think demanding that all men do something to tackle male violence is likely to fall on deaf ears.

It's akin to asking what the average Muslim in Luton is doing to tackle extremist behaviour carried out by isis.

A different approach needs to be taken and in my eyes it begins with education and nurturing from the earliest of ages. When society grows up knowing from birth all violence is to be deplored then perpetrators will be taken to task far more comprehensively, and given time, those masculine traits can be neutered. No amount of marches or strongly worded tweets will do anything worthwhile at present.

We could stop a lot of male perpetrators of violence through education, but that'll still leave some awful individuals unwilling to control their actions. I suppose we'd be forced into considering directly affecting genetics at that point, ie breeding out those terrible male attributes.

Agreed!

Turph,

I can't answer all those questions off the top of my head without careful consideration, but I'd wager that at least part of it comes down to a lack of respect/fear of the mother figure - possibly further ingrained by the way society posits men as 'the ones in charge' (or certainly has a history of doing).

Many adolescent males seem to reach that rebellious stage of 'challenging' their father's authority and this may be something that some women are less able to deal with, or understand less than men who are more used to a competitive/aggressive hierarchy.

These are just thoughts and I may be talking complete rubbish.

Just catching up.

Women have been trying to stop male violence forever. We do not like being beaten, raped, having our children raped, murdered, all the awful stuff that goes on all over the world. We are generally less interested in war, and massively effected (although what happens to women and children in war is only just starting to be seen). We are used as chattels - literally - around the world still sometimes in the most horrifying ways.

Don't you think if we were able to stop it then we would?

On the OP:

There was this news report the other day on BBC
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45777787

He asserts that women are foolish to be scared because men are more at risk of violent attack.

Few points here.
Something doesn't have to involve physical injury for it to make the person on the receiving end fearful. Women and girls are subject to frequent harrassment and so on, which does not leave physical injiry but does leave us scared. It is not unreasonable for us to be scared.
Sexual crimes are generally not included in the violent stats. Things tend to be measured in terms of "things that are likely to happen to men" > so physical assault which causes injury is seen as being "worse" than say a 15yo girl being cornered by some men and felt up and they won't let her go and they're laughing.

Now I've been both sexually assaulted and had a random bit of the violence men get more (punched in the face by a stranger) and for ME, the sexual assault was much much worse. I had a suspected broken jaw from the punch, I wasn't injured from the sexual assault, but it still makes me feel upset, angry, powerless thinking about it today.

IN SHORT it's not a competition. The things that happen to us are different. Both need addressing. The fact of street harrassment and so on for girls and women is not trivial just because we dont' have some bruises to show.

Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of both types and to lay this at the door of women is crass. IF we could change it then we would, wouldn't we. Men have the POWER as they control (all?) societies around the world. They COULD change it. There is no appetite to. Most men dont' really care, I think.