Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Violence as an Issue of Men

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Violence as an Issue of Men

    I read an article this morning that got me thinking about men and violence. So I started this thread with the opening thought that "Domestic violence and child abuse is an issue of men", and then realized that stated more correctly, it is really more of an issue of *people*. But from there my thoughts quickly shifted further to realize that one of the elephants in our MHRM room is that an awful lot of violence does come from men and we very rarely, if hardly ever, talk about male violence directly. Certainly we hear about it often enough in the Feminist-dominated mainstream media as they work to portray men as "bad" and "evil", and highlighting the violence that men commit is a time-honored way of slandering our inherent nature. Nor am I asking this to start any sort of a "He versus She" gender war, but simply to open the topic in an honest way and put it on the table for discussion. Furthermore, anybody who's been here any length of time knows full well that I am not at all shy about posting about the bad things that women do. But as a group-- as people in the MHRM-- we very rarely ever talk about the bad things that men do. It even sort of seems like it's almost a taboo topic around here-- and I certainly understand why-- seeing as how this is typically the place that we come to get away from the stereotypes foisted upon us by society. But I think if we're being serious about tackling and facing the issues that we honestly face as men, violence is one of them. Certainly men are indeed the victims of violence perpetrated by women. And I am not at all attempting to shift the goalposts away from notion that women can be perpetrators of violence, because I definitely do not think we hear anywhere near enough of that story in the mainstream media, or even here in our own spaces. But today, in this thread, the topic is about male-perpetrated violence.

    The mainstream media is awash with stories of violent men. And whether the underlying point is to slant public opinion or to subtly slander men, I think that the truth remains that a great deal of the violence in the world is effected by men. I say "effected" rather than "perpetrated" for a specific reason in that I do not think that all violence is *instigated* by men, but rather it is men who carry out the action. In many cases this may be a distinction without a difference, but specifically I mean it to point out that there are people-- specifically *women*, for example-- who use men to carry out their violent intiatives by proxy. But it's not just women, sometimes it's organizations or governments, which cannot rightfully be considered "male" or "female", that is "perpetrating" the violence, even if it is typically enacted and effected by men upon their intended recipients. In other cases it is other men who are instigating the violence and using "Men" to enforce their will. In each of these cases the point is that it is not the *specific* males committing the violence who are ultimately responsible for its commission-- though I suppose they certainly are at least indirectly-- but rather a third party, which can and often does include *women*, who are the ultimate instigators of the violent action. I have specifically emphasized the issue of "Women" as actors here to make certain that women are not left out or overlooked from their part and responsibility for the commission of violence. And that much more violence that which is typically reported should be ultimately attributed to *FEMALE* initiative, even if it is ultimately meted out by the application *MALE* muscle, if we are really being truthful about the subject of men and violence.

    However, whatever is the impetus, the outcome is generally the same, violence very often occurs through the actions of men, and in our society, we generally equate "violence" with "men". Again this could be partly due to the efforts of Feminists to color the public perception of men and masculinity through the media, but at the end of the day, whether slanted or no, we men have to stand up and own up to the fact that the vast majority of violence committed in the world is one way or another, at the hands of men.

    But the goal of my topic today is to throw open the question for discussion, "Why are men violent"? And I recognize that I am starting from that naive position to explore the various avenues of opinion that will hopefully follow its asking. This is not a leading or loaded question, and I am certainly not intending to further slander men by asking it-- rather that I simply do not know the answer and I am curious. I am also saddened by the notion that our society insists that only men are violent, and it seems to be the predominant perception of men, especially by women. Perhaps the real reason for this is simply that men tend to be "doers", and are both used to and expected (by society) to be the ones who perform actions-- particularly the dirty, dangerous, nasty and deadly actions that other people-- meaning women, "organizations" and "third parties" in general-- can't or won't do for themselves. This of course practically points up and implies that "Men" are the "Hard Power" in the world, and whether that is innate or conditioned by society-- or perhaps more correctly, evolved by society-- I don't know the answer to that. That is perhaps also a topic for exploration.

    While I personally believe that it is likely true that both sexes are approximately equally violent in their nature-- beginning in their minds-- the "mens rea"-- in the sense of thinking, "I'd like to (do something violent) to that other person", ultimately one way or another, it is simply a fact that it is men who end up committing the largest amount of violence in our society. And studies have shown repeatedly that men and women commit violence in their domestic relationships roughly equally, women tend to initiate violence more often, while men tend to cause greater damage when they are violent. This is not particularly surprising since males tend to be physically larger than females. But to make up for the difference, women tend to use weapons (force multipliers) more often which enables them to enact additional damage.

    Here is the report on "Family Violence" from the US Department of Justice from 2005. One of the subjects that I would like to put on the table right up front is the potential here for skewed results. There is a strong bias in the media, thanks to the efforts of Feminists, to portray men as the ultimate perpetrators of violence, along with a long history of "cooking" the numbers by way of cherry-picking (highlighting) some situations and downplaying or outright ignoring others, along with games in the ways that various categories are reported-- to ensure the result that men-- and only men-- are implicated as the "perpetrators of violence". I firmly believe that if our society ever gets truly serious about doing something about violence and stops imposing a Feminist-inspired gendered "lens" upon the issue, that a truer picture of the real causes and instigations of violence will emerge. Until then however, reports such as this one are what we have to work with-- and whether you believe the results are entirely accurate or have been doctored to promote an agenda-- either way, they still show that men do commit violence. Furthermore, the report I linked is only for domestic violence, when you look at other types of violence the evidence indicates that men commit the largest amount of violence in society-- irrespective of its impetus, meaning who is ultimately responsible for its action-- or stated differently, whether the men committing the violence were doing so upon their own volition or merely acting as agents for a third party initiator.

    Family Violence Statistics - Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

    It is not my goal in this post to formulate any conclusions about violence committed by males, nor to foreclose any discussion of violence committed by females either. In fact, I heartily solicit opinions on both. But I personally believe that much of the violence in the world, one way or another, is enacted at the hands of men-- regardless of who is ultimately responsible for its occurrence-- and that is really what I am seeking to discuss.

    Men, by our natures and roles in society, are typically the "doers", as I mentioned above. We are the ones who are routinely expected to accomplish the missions of various entities and organizations, and are expected to operate "under orders" and "without question" (or very little questioning) of those orders when directed to do so. We are conditioned to perform actions at the bequest of other agencies and to set aside and/or suppress our own thoughts, morals and attitudes regarding those actions. Similarly, men are expected-- perhaps evolved-- to naturally form hierarchical relationships such that the men higher in the graph of "authority" are expected to dominate and command the men who are lower in the hierarchy, and to direct them to act to fulfill the objectives of an entity within that hierarchy. But men are also expected to be able to act and react autonomously, and in the absence of outside direction, operate independently under their own volition. Such that there is often a bit of a "duality" in the mind of a man with respect to the aegis for which he performs his actions. Indeed, it is often the duty of the courts and the legal system to try and ferret out the onus of "responsibility" that a man has for his actions relative to his superiors that commanded the action. So this concept is certainly neither new nor unheard of, and thus begs the question is the male truly innately violent or rather is he simply fulfilling the role into which he is cast in the commission of that violence. And we can extend that thought and question a layer deeper when we ask whether or not the violence that a male does commit independently and of his own volition is truly an expression of his innate nature, or rather one to which he has become conditioned through his role in society?

    Then there are some reasonable follow-on questions, such as wondering whether females are as inherently violent as males-- take that question however you like, loaded or unloaded. Do females have the same propensity to violence but are in some way stifled with regard to its expression? Is it simply the case that men are able to commit violence more effectively and thus women are less often recruited for the purpose? I think this is also a perfectly legitimate avenue to explore-- why bother getting women to do it if men are so much better suited for the job?

    And finally, I have to wonder how often "perpetrated violence" is really a misplaced symptom stemming from individual deficiencies in the art of diplomacy and/or personal problem-solving skills. Would people-- men or women-- act less violently in the world if they are better trained in the arts of restraint, negotiation, cooperation, and other social skills dealing with interpersonal relationships. Personally, I think the answer would undoubtedly be "yes", but where are the large-scale efforts toward that end? Where are the programs to teach people better ways to deal with situations in their lives and avoid violence? Certainly we see the campaigns by organizations with agendas to push-- most notably the Feminists-- admonishing Men, and only ever Men to "stop acting violently"-- and only ever from acting violently towards *women*. The Feminists are not in the least bit concerned about MALE victims of violence or the women who perpetrate violence. Their agenda is quite clearly designed to slander the male and promote a pro-female / anti-male bias within society, rather than a true effort to examine the problem from all its facets and assign "blame" wherever and however it may lay-- and more pointedly, focusing only upon the *enactors* of violence, rather than the *instigators* of violence, who may not be-- and often are not-- the same party. Meaning, even more pointedly, they fraudulently ignore, overlook and sweep under the rug all evidence of the *FEMALE* initiated aspects of violence-- whether committed directly, or else by proxy through one or more Males-- such as boyfriends, husbands, Police or other institutional agencies, ironically often taking advantage of well-meaning programs and people which were put in place to aid and assist them from *being victims* of violence.

    If we are ever to truly get to the root cause and understanding of "violence" in our world and societies, we must stop looking at the problem through a "gendered lens" and with specific gender-driven agendas or with the intention of promoting specific gender-driven outcomes. We must look at the problem and all its varied aspects honestly, objectively, and without reservation or hesitation in asking the difficult questions and following up on the answers, no matter where they take us-- to understand how men come to be violent. And of course how women come to be violent as well. What factors promote violence in our society. How to men and women both wittingly or otherwise contribute to the violence in society. And if we do end up at the conclusion that most violence is, in the end, male-perpetrated-- why is that? Are men inherently violent? Or is violence simply a means to an end?

    And finally, one last question-- in a society which claims to abhor violence-- why are so many institutions devoted to the commission of it? Why are so many people and institutions so quick to resort to violence? Why do we live in a hair-trigger world? I cannot believe this is a "male" thing. Men would not be violent if women did not need or want them to be so. Certainly men have their own agency and abilities to act in their own interests and upon their own behalf-- but the fact that violence continues to benefit *WOMEN*, whether they want to admit this uncomfortable fact and truth or not-- is a large part of why violence continues to be a factor in our society. We cannot deal with violence as a "problem" in our society unless we truly seek to root out all the causes and avenues-- both direct and indirect-- and situations, both personally-realized and by-proxy-- which violence occurs, and then work to address the multiple sources for initiated violence which will undoubtedly be discovered.

    It is my belief that violence is a problem of *PEOPLE*, and it is as simple as that. And it is only through the cooperation of *PEOPLE* that it can finally be considered and addressed. I am hopeful that this post will spark a meaningful discussion along a variety of avenues regarding violence and how it is instigated and propagated throughout our society. I am hopeful that people will put aside their gendered-agendas and poisoned rhetoric to examine the problem as it truly occurs and not the way they wish it occurs. And where appropriate, own up to their own roles in the perpetuation of violence in society. It is only through true, real-- honest examination, that the answers can ever become known and a solution become possible.

    Let's be good to each other and make peace with each other.
    Last edited by mr_e; 07-26-2017, 08:38 PM.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  • #2
    That's a very long OP Mr. E, you are very eloquent, but not sure where your argument is going, the points feel a bit swallowed into this mind dump.

    First thing if you really want to explore this topic, don't do it off the back of that article. There is little or no possibility of getting into the right frame of mind when you got the brutal killing of a 5 year old child marked on your eyeballs. The fact is a killing like that all people don't want to explain, just condemn it, people couldn't stand the answer that explains it, an answer that explains it would have to make people think about their own nature, rather than just declare their distance from the murderer.

    On the basic idea that violence is a function of people, I'd agree.

    A long time ago I reached the view that everything people think about violence is wrong. They don't know what it is. People think they know what violence is, that the image that comes to mind of violence is it. Well it isn't, and if you try to ask your questions in reference to understanding the physical act you'll never get. And there is a simple reason why there are an endless number of violence situations, each one is contextual, some are acceptable some aren't. You could go through each one and then split hairs again and again to ask if it was acceptable or evil. What you need to do is look at the mentality of violence. You also need to get your head out of your arse and stop thinking of men as violent, because that is the biggest mind killer for understanding the problem.

    Violent spectra for humans should be looked at via a willingness to use violence. Violence itself is simply a tool, just as a knife, gun, rapier, poison and trojan horse virus. What drags the mind into an incorrect perspective is the level by which the physicality of violence is seen as violent. The physicality of male violence is apparent, it sticks out, therefore males get labelled as violent.

    Now I do like your notion that there should be no censored or self censored topics in MHRM discussions, and that we should be willing to talk about male perpetrated violence, and the discrepancy in the numbers. But I think really the discrepancy is more created by male on male violence than anything else, female on male violence is only lower because a far larger proportion of the incidents don't get recorded and are often considered not worth recording. If every slap was recorded, you'd soon see a shift in the totals.

    My folks are pretty ordinary and violent punishment rare but, in terms who slapped the most, it was my mum, who was most violent when 'snapped' that'd be my mum again, who was most dangerous that'd be my dad, who drew blood, that'd be my dad.

    I don't think my experience is that different from a lot of others. But it taught me to observe one thing, look for who is most willing to use violence, not for the level of violence or even the apparent frequency of violence.

    Many times I've observed, when you look at who is willing to use violence as expression, it's women, even in conversation talking about politics or shopping they'll be the first or even the only person to express a desire to commit violence or have violence happen to someone. Women's propensity for violence gets whitewashed by the way we observe and record violence.

    Furthermore to understand one of the drivers of why males are more violent, you can't keep ignoring that women are more violent towards males, especially their own children than they are towards females. And that message goes through to wider society, to females, to males and to institutions - it is more acceptable to use violence against males.

    So think that one through, everything in your society sends a simple message - it is more acceptable to be violent to you. A male isn't really given much of an option other than to accept violence into his nature, because it's an enforced part of his reality. However don't forget I said ignore violence as an act and look at the mentality of violence.

    Years ago I got to know a lot more about male violence, I was involved with young people, and got to know men convicted of DV. I also got to know ex-prisoners and violent offenders.

    And I can tell you one thing stood out. For the younger ones and the older ones, they had universally been subjected to lives where the threshold before they'd use violence had been brought down by actions carried out against them. Being violent towards someone, lowers their action threshold, lowers the amount of violence they will tolerate before using violence. It's not an unnatural response, people start to learn attack is the best form of defence.

    You do get people with a much greater willingness to use violence, males and female - and it can be a sociopathic trait of personality without much of nurture component. But lets just take my own mother, she had strict father not violent in terms of hitting, but you broke the rules and you'd be thrown out in the cold, left to sleep outside till she'd learned her lesson. He didn't hit her, but violence was a threat. My mum associated his treatment with excessively harsh, and reversed her use of punishment with her own kids. She'd rather lash out angrily, slap, hit and on rare occasion beat and have it done with, rather than reject and abandon. My mum would never throw out one of her own children, in what she'd learned she'd use the lesser of two evils. That changes the interpretation doesn't it? She may have more trivially flared up but she wouldn't do what she considered the greater evil, which was rejecting her children.

    I basically consider my folks to have been mentally fairly well balanced. Dad was raised very differently to my mother, my mother came from a background complicated by poverty, my dad's was more complicated by expectations and structures. I'll not go into details, but he displays a fairly typical reluctance towards violence, and basically he needs the stress to push him over a threshold where he can get angry enough to behave violently.

    So that's my first thought on this topic. We need to look at people's level of acceptability of violence, and what their thresholds are before it will be triggered. The incidence data is wholly insufficient, it removes all of the vital evidence that is needed to understand what is going on. Instead all it does is snapshot what should be looked at as problem areas and societal attitudes, but offers virtually nothing towards understanding what is going on.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Originally posted by menrppl2
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
      That's a very long OP Mr. E, you are very eloquent, but not sure where your argument is going, the points feel a bit swallowed into this mind dump.

      First thing if you really want to explore this topic, don't do it off the back of that article.
      Thanks for your advice, I've removed it from the original post, and I had already come to the same conclusion regarding the version up on Facebook and removed it there too.

      I appreciate your reply and I'm looking forward to saying more in response to it. But before I do, I would like to invite you to read through my post again and understand that it is really more of a question (or rather a set of questions) than any sort of conclusion. I am not starting with the assumption that men are violent, but rather the *assertion* (by others) that men are violent, and asking the question, *are* men actually violent or are we just drawn that way? The whole rest of the post is pretty much a mind dump-- trying to work out in my head exactly what I was trying to ask and how to frame it to avoid a lot of knee-jerk bullshit and "humma humma men's rights" responses. Neither of which is particularly productive nor adds anything of value to the discussion.

      But I do acknowledge that a lot of the reason why men are considered violent is because of the constant effort put forth by Feminists and the media to portray them as such, since it goes a long way in helping to undermine their credibility in discussions of Domestic Violence, marriage and child custody and other family related issues. Plus it's awfully hard to counter the Feminist assertion that men are inherently violent when in fact it is also true that men are the ones who are most often committing the acts of violence. But this is sort of the same kind of point that is being made if a man says a woman is a "baby-making machine"-- because literally, only women can have babies, and the baby-making factory, as it were, is contained within her body. So if men are inherently violent, then the same logic dictates that women are baby-making machines. In fact, I would argue that you would have an even tighter argument for the latter than the former. But that's taking the conversation into a different direction. The upshot of both statements is that they are intended to divorce people-- men and women-- from their humanity, which in the case of Feminists, we know that is precisely the intended effect.

      But after accounting for all of that-- the question still remains, are men inherently violent? Or are we simply pushed into that role in society? Is the reason that men are violent because we're the "doers" in society and we get called upon to do all the dangerous, dirty jobs that need to be done. Along with perhaps we're better suited for it than women given our physical differences. If men didn't exist, then women would have to be the ones called upon to do the violence. (An interesting side question here could be-- if men were to somehow disappear off the earth tomorrow, would women split into two camps, one geared toward performing the more "masculine" roles, now vacated by men, while the other continued to act in the "feminine" roles now enjoyed by the majority of women?)

      So my intent and goal here is to explore the questions regarding men and violence-- not from the Feminist perspective, but simply from a human perspective, without any particular agenda or bias, and without any intent to tar or feather anybody in our responses, but rather to just be frank in our assessments and say whatever we really think without pulling any punches one way or the other.

      I think a fair question could also be, if anybody wants to take it on, is could women ever be violent in the same ways that men are called upon to be violent. And if women were put into the same societal roles as men, would they feel the same pressures and potentially respond with the same sorts of violence that men do? It's my personal opinion that women aren't generally violent in the same manner or degree as men because society doesn't require them to be, so they are not conditioned and expected to act and behave in that manner from birth-- and possibly through evolution.

      Beyond that, all I have are personal opinions and so I'm throwing open the subject to talk about. I'm hoping people have interesting things to say.

      And here is another point to consider-- in the animal world, let's say lions-- are lions inherently violent? If you keep them fed and provide them with their various necessary requirements, then they tend not to be. While they are still "wild" in that sense, and thus unpredictable, you can point out that once the need to exploit is removed, the exploitative behavior is substantially reduced as well. But that doesn't always hold true-- just ask Sigfield and Roy (though to be fair, he was mauled by a tiger and not a lion-- and I'm sure that fact will provide him a modicum of comfort as he's busy being eaten... ;-)
      Last edited by mr_e; 07-26-2017, 09:17 PM.
      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
      It's time to call it out for what it is.



      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

      Comment


      • #4
        Hmm, I think you need to read my first response, I've addressed an amount of that. I hope others are considering responses, and will join in.

        I apply the same logic to most things, the positive assertions need to be tested.

        How is this assertion that men are inherently violent being pushed?

        I live a pretty normal life, men are not inherently violent at all, men like to drink beer, have chats, make jokes, play games, do stuff... and that pretty much never involves hitting each other or anyone else.

        If you want to look at the margin data that is the number of crimes or other records of acts of violence, you can try to address why are the numbers different to women. But we already know the bell curve for men is different to women, it's flatter meaning more men cluster in the extreme ends.

        But it's still margin data, a small margin of men can be considered violent, the vast majority are not violent, therefore the assertion men are inherently violent cannot be supported. So we need to frame better questions. As to why there are more violent incidents with men, I've already put forward some points.

        Women's incidents of violence tend to be lower level and directed at men who will not make complaints about it.
        A woman and a man can strike each other using the same level of force. The strength disparity will likely favour the man, leading to less damage received and more damage dealt. This combined with a tendency for males to massively under report violence against them, and the state's and other people's tendency to ignore such complaints, means we don't actually know the total incidents comparison - we only have data that covers the most severe forms of violence, and this is a small percentage of the human race, too small to make any inherent gender judgements other than violence is not a innate response in general for humans.

        To look at this, you need to unpack a lot of biases in observation and reporting.

        I'm not rejecting the claim that men are more violent out of hand, but it's a loaded judgemental phrase that needs to be unpacked properly. The more thoroughly and honestly DV is looked at the more the incidents of male and female violence start becoming equal. That points that we have real differences, in perception, reporting, attitudes toward, and reponses to male vs female violence. The only solidly recorded dramatic difference is in degree of violence, where males are recorded as doing more severe violence than females, but even with this we have two factors that need to be taken into account, the rather obvious one about difference in strength so that when a male or female loses control or intends to do severe violence the male is more likely to succeed in doing harm that evidences severe violence, and that when a female intends to do severe violence she will often use a male as a proxy (by seduction, provocation/manipulation or payment), and that lowers the recording of female violence whilst swelling the recording of incidents of male violence.

        Those may be rather standard MHRM arguments, but they've not been undermined by any arguments or data so far.
        Last edited by voidspawn; 07-26-2017, 09:48 PM.
        "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
        Originally posted by menrppl2
        Can't live with em, life is great without them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
          But it's still margin data, a small margin of men can be considered violent, the vast majority are not violent, therefore the assertion men are inherently violent cannot be supported. So we need to frame better questions. As to why there are more violent incidents with men, I've already put forward some points.
          Actually, that's a fair point. As we are considering men as a whole cohort versus *some* men as reported through crime statistics. So that even if the crime stats said it was 100% men and no women at all-- you still wouldn't be able to draw any conclusion regarding the inherent propensity to violence for men one way or the other. But you would have to approach the problem differently, as you point out-- and be asking what are the situations and conditions that encourage some men to engage in violence, and secondarily some men to engage in violence more than some women do.
          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
          It's time to call it out for what it is.



          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

          Comment


          • #6
            BTW, in case anybody's interested, here is the link to the thread / version which is posted up on Facebook in the Honey Badger's group page.

            https://www.facebook.com/groups/hone...c_location=ufi
            FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
            It's time to call it out for what it is.



            The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

            Comment


            • #7
              Violence is a PEOPLE problem,not a male one. In the vast majority of cases violence is a result of another person's behaviour, it's rare (though not unheard of) that people just go around hitting others, there is always provocation. Most domestic violence toward women is due to violence, be it verbal or physical, that the woman has used against the man. In recent years there has been a growth in domestic violence against men and about a year or two ago a scientific journal that covered DV reported that there had been more incidents of DV against men than women for that year.

              It is also very easy to skew results depending on what sample is used in the research. Look at violent offenders in prison and the majority would be male, but it doesn't follow that men are inherently violent. If you study people convicted of fraud and robbery, there are more women (http://www.vocativ.com/usa/justice-u...it-most-often/) but it doesn't follow that all women are fraudulent thieves. In fact, this site shows that the majority of females are in prison for violent crimes, so just studying women in prison would make it seem that women are the violent ones.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by unheard View Post
                Violence is a PEOPLE problem,not a male one. In the vast majority of cases violence is a result of another person's behaviour, it's rare (though not unheard of) that people just go around hitting others, there is always provocation. Most domestic violence toward women is due to violence, be it verbal or physical, that the woman has used against the man. In recent years there has been a growth in domestic violence against men and about a year or two ago a scientific journal that covered DV reported that there had been more incidents of DV against men than women for that year.

                It is also very easy to skew results depending on what sample is used in the research. Look at violent offenders in prison and the majority would be male, but it doesn't follow that men are inherently violent. If you study people convicted of fraud and robbery, there are more women (http://www.vocativ.com/usa/justice-u...it-most-often/) but it doesn't follow that all women are fraudulent thieves. In fact, this site shows that the majority of females are in prison for violent crimes, so just studying women in prison would make it seem that women are the violent ones.

                If you study fraud and *larceny*, there are more women-- and both of those are non-violent offenses. Robbery is defined as theft with either threatened assault or actual assault, in other words, it is a violent offence.

                I want to be *absolutely clear* in my motives here-- I am *NOT* attempting to portray men as "bad" or "criminal" or impugn their nature in any way. I am however, acknowledging the simple truth that-- how / why / for whatever reason-- most violence is committed by men. And I'm asking (A) *WHY* and (B) What can be done about it.

                And I'm looking for frank, no-holds-barred thoughts and opinions on the subject. I'm not looking for Feminist talking points. I'm not looking to shame men for being men.

                Cutting and pasting from some of my comments in the Facebook thread:

                Mr. E (aka Geheim Nisvoll)
                Among other things. That was one of the types of things I was musing about when I was talking about "diplomacy" and "social skills", though I didn't specifically mention literacy. I do think that children who are poorly socialized and given little to no education regarding how to handle interpersonal relationships / difficult social situations, are likely to be predestined to violence, if only because it is the only "solution" they have that seems to work-- in other words, to just "keep bashing until the problem goes away". And I don't think that specific type of thing is particularly a male problem, but rather our society treats men and women differently and women are provided more social "outs" and opportunities, as well as afforded a lot more leeway before branding them violent-- and even then looking for ways to let her off the hook for her behavior (acting out, mistreated as a child, sexual abuse, blah blah). We just don't tend to call out women on their anti-social and/or violent behavior while we tend to look at everything that men do with a magnifying glass and go out of our way to find ways to brand him as "violent". I think it is a real problem.


                Mr. E (aka Geheim Nisvoll)
                Certainly I believe (in earnest, actually) that a lot of what we perceive today about men and violence is due to the efforts of Feminists to paint us that way. No doubt about it in my mind.

                Someone on a different incarnation of this threa
                d pointed out a very astute fact-- that even if we take every crime statistic and claim made at face value, it still doesn't amount to a mere drop in the bucket compared to the total number of males on the planet, the vast majority of whom do not (or have not yet) committed acts of violence. So from that standpoint you cannot use that data to try and claim that men are inherently violent, all you can really say is that *for some reason* _some_ men commit more crimes than _some_ women. And that seems to me to be a fair point.

                But now the flip side, even in accepting that, there is still the fact that the greatest number of violent crimes-- are committed by men. Using only the US stats (from 2012) the difference is in the neighborhood of 3-to-1 (male to female) across the whole board, with some crimes tilted even more toward the male, such as homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson-- to name a few, with the stats ranging as high as 8-to-1 (ish) in the case of homicide.

                So even if we have to reform the question a bit-- why are men committing more acts of violence than women? I personally do not believe for a second that it is because Men are more inherently violent. I believe very strongly that both men and women formulate the mental state of being willing to commit violence on at least about the same rate. But for some reason, men are the ones who carry it out (or else get caught / fingered for doing it) more often.

                So what leads men to perform the act of violence more often than women? Are they more socially conditioned to do so? Have they been shaped and evolved by society over time to have a different mindset and mode with respect to being able to commit violence? Are women simply weak and docile creatures compared to men? Are men simply better conditioned by society to be the "actors" / "doers" and thus are more readily able to resort to *any action*, including violence, in the furtherance of their aims and objectives? In other words, do men simply have inherently greater agency and ability to act upon their own will and volition than women do? There could be any number of ways to think about this, to spin the results, and to consider the data from one sex relative to the other.

                Another thing we don't really talk about much, though I did bring it up in my original post, is what do women get out of male violence? Much of the violence meted out by males throughout the world is at the behest of some third-party entity-- and often times that third-party entity is a woman. So while women (Feminists) do their best to downplay and ignore that aspect and their role in the commission of violence, it is still a factor that if we're being honest, must be considered. That men are very often acting either at the behest of a woman, or at the very least with the tacit approval of a woman when he commits violence. As much as they like to claim that they have no role and violence is only a "male thing", the truth is that women have a very large impact on male behavior. If women were not getting something out of male violence then that all by itself would be a huge dampening factor on the overall rate of violence, IMO.

                So why do men resort to violence? Because they can? Because they are the ones more often tasked to gather resources and provide for their families (and their "employers") using whatever methods they must? The follow-on being that life is tough all over and they have to do what they need to do to survive and help the people they are beholden to survive. I can believe this a little bit for certain areas of the world and certain segments of the population. But I can't see this ramping up to include "all men" or even any substantial portion of "all men". Though affluence may have a factor in determining who is ultimately more prone to resort to violence. Which I suppose in turn would tend to support the notion that perhaps men are violent when they feel that they have the need to provide for themselves and/or someone else.

                And perhaps there's another whole way of examining this issue altogether. Is it really "violence" that is the issue here, or the propensity / requirement to *exploit* (something) in order to succeed, prosper or even just survive. Is violence really just an extension of the act of exploitation and what they cannot get / accomplish through cunning and deceit, they take through sheer dominant force. Would women therefore be just as apt to resort to violence if they had the same responsibilities and did not have to deal as much with the realities of gender dimorphism? Women do commit child abuse and elder abuse at a higher rate. So is it simply an issue of opportunity and they can get away with?

                https://ucr.fbi.gov/.../table_42_arrests_by_sex_2012.xls




                Mr. E (aka Geheim Nisvoll)
                Absolutely. It certainly goes both ways-- which, IMO, perhaps reinforces the general notion that men are just more the "doers" in society, in all capacities, good and bad. Which of course is good when it's good and bad when it's bad... At no point in my post, nor any of the subsequent conversation, am I trying to portray men as anything other than human beings. I am interested in what causes Female violence as well. And I am certain that there is a large overlap between the two circles.



                Mr. E (aka Geheim Nisvoll)
                I believe it is the invention of the Internet which is ultimately the thing which is turning the tide. The Internet has allowed men and the women who care about them to get together, compare stories and notes, and to document in readily accessible places for all, the abuses and absurdities foisted upon men and the world by hateful Feminists. It will take some time yet, but our salvation is here. We are simply working to help more and more people to see the light-- and the hatred inherent in Feminism.



                Mr. E (aka Geheim Nisvoll)
                Same here. I believe that Feminism can only exist in the shadows, whispering into the ears of the susceptible-- the weak-minded, the morally-challenged, the socially-ostracised and intellectually inferior. People who need hatred and bigotry to bolster their confidence and boost their egos. People whose nature it is to tear others down instead of working to build each other up. People who seek to empower themselves at the expense of others. As I often tell my sons, any idiot can blow things up-- but it takes a real somebody to build things. MEN build things. Men have always built things. We are the builders of human civilization. When you look around practically everything you see was built, discovered, explored, tamed, paved, and maintained by a MAN. And generally for the benefit of those we loved-- our women, our families, our friends, our communities, our countries, our God, and for our fellow man.

                THAT is the spirit of a MAN.


                Last edited by mr_e; 07-28-2017, 05:06 AM.
                FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                It's time to call it out for what it is.



                The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                  If you study fraud and *larceny*, there are more women-- and both of those are non-violent offenses. Robbery is defined as theft with either threatened assault or actual assault, in other words, it is a violent offence.

                  I want to be *absolutely clear* in my motives here-- I am *NOT* attempting to portray men as "bad" or "criminal" or impugn their nature in any way. I am however, acknowledging the simple truth that-- how / why / for whatever reason-- most violence is committed by men. And I'm asking (A) *WHY* and (B) What can be done about it.

                  And I'm looking for frank, no-holds-barred thoughts and opinions on the subject. I'm not looking for Feminist talking points. I'm not looking to shame men for being men.
                  All from right wing press

                  Violent crime by women on the increase - Violent crime committed by women has risen by 81 per cent in a decade, according to new figures.
                  Why are we shocked when women commit violent crimes?
                  Ladette Britain: Violence among women soars as record 250 are arrested every day

                  And what do you get from the left wing press and others:

                  This A* grade piece of Guardian lying... does the classic feminist lie - it leaves out the perpetrator gender when it's convenient for them. Violence against women is increasing because of the numbers of women violently attacking other women. Hidden rise in violent crime driven by growth in violence against women

                  Female offending: has there been an increase? Here in these Australian stats, they can't even say what the results are saying, they have to say "Despite the increase in females proceeded against by police, males continue to commit significantly more offences than their female counterparts." They can't even report something without saying men are worse.

                  Unfortunately Mr. E if you want to tackle this topic you are going to need to face the fact that male violence figures are overplayed and manipulated, with males getting the social blame for violence by women, and that any attempt to actually highlight violence by women, gets met with silence even in the right wing only places where it's published. It never gets mentioned in the left wing sources or mainstream news, that is dominating the cultural narrative.

                  I know you know all this, but you've gone and done the same classic biasing tactic in your question and opening "whatever reason-- most violence is committed by men."

                  You've chosen to ignore evidence and arguments that challenge that. You've failed to realise you need to separate things out, in order to reach a position you can discuss, and you've lumped things together.

                  Here's a simple fact: most of everything is done by men, good, bad, indifferent - men do more of everything than women. Men are out there doing things far more than women ever will. Why? Because men are more inclined to take risks.

                  And that takes us to the fundamental difference in male and female violent crimes e.g. larceny vs robbery. Let's just take male and female criminals motivated by greed. Here the simple effect shows, if we can possibly agree one logical basis. Their motivations are the same for this class of crime.

                  So how does this risk factor influence things?

                  Female criminals will look for lower risk strategies (risk averse) with maximum gain, such as deeper set ups, embezzlement, work on getting inside the target by getting a job in a target establishment or getting into a relationship with a target victim. They aim to take on less personal risk and less consequence risk. The preferred strategy is camouflage, aim to avoid detection and if caught aim to avoid consequences.

                  Male criminals will be more risk taking, willing to chance more dangerous immediate outcomes and consequences for higher gains. They assume they will likely face more violent resistance and are more mentally prepared for it. If you actually observe male behaviour during the act of carrying out a crime, it does actually aim to force the victim into submission with a very big display of willingness to do violence, gesturing, shouting, smashing inanimate objects. That is actually about reducing the amount of bodily violence needed, but regardless for victims, it builds up the experience of violence by victims, terror is real either way when you are convinced someone will harm you. Also criminals pumped up on adrenaline are in immediate risk of losing control, which should be compared the actual numbers who don't, nor those who when challenged, even though they have clear advantage, such as being armed, will run away rather than escalate the violence.

                  Mr. E if you really want to understand the question you are going to need to go into some dark places of human psyche, and if you even mistakenly start looking at it through a gender identity lens you will fail to understand anything about it.

                  There are distinct gender differences in how things play out, there are massive gender differences between exposure to violence and expectations to use violence (don't forget boys who don't hit back against bullies - are the ones slated and insulted by society for being cowards, that isn't done to girls.)

                  But the birth of a violent mindset itself IS NOT gendered, no more than the birth of criminal mindset.

                  Females have a lot more safe options than males for dealing with poverty, if males could sell sex to females as a way to make money, how many would rather do that than other forms of 'wrong' ways. Society decriminalises or never even criminalises female options for using their own basic assets for gain. A male's basic physical asset is his strength, if he can't shift to desk based or information sector work, or there is none around and the ability to sell his labour is gone, he's really low on options. It's a driver of crime, and as the pickings get more scarce it favours escalation and that favours the greater risk takers.

                  Most men alive will never ever see a man's world. You know what a man's world is? A raw world where natural resources are taken by work and effort, where taking a risk leads to bigger reward, but hard work can lead to a consistent and increasing reward. Where each day the food on the table and the stuff for life are themselves evidence of a man's own engagement with the world. Stepping into the challenge of building against the rigours of nature, forged the masculine identity, and that mentality and skill set made a modern world possible. Even now the challenges to get into space, build a higher skyscraper, explore the oceans, or even solve every last nagging complaint from women, drives male endeavours.

                  Do you think that mindset comes for free?

                  We want men to be soldiers, miners, steeplejacks, riggers etc... a massive range risk taking work. Stuff that women only like to do, once the technology has rendered it safe but the kudos and uniform as a badge of honour can remain.

                  None of what our species has demanded of it's males comes for free. As much as it excels and has put the human race on top of all species, it has put a man in a box on a crowded street, and make his life about begging for a welfare check, whilst the world around him makes it abundantly clear he ain't wanted but he has no where else he can go. Seriously what do you expect will happen with his instincts. You know what is amazing, that so many men only ever consider peaceful options, that they adapt and keep on seeking to adapt.

                  But this world aims to turn everything tame, even the world of business is being refashioned to be a political correct safe space, you can't even indulge in free speech without being slammed. Simple male assertiveness and masculine competitive aggressiveness is being treated as a violent crime, aspects of inner male psyche that all of us as a species have used and abused for own benefit, and will do so again at the drop of a hat. All of this talk about what is wrong with masculine, risk taking, his willing to take a knock and deal out a knock (i.e. propensity for violence, as it's fashion called now), will disappear when a calamity comes along so that once again we need to use men to take on monstrous challenges that will kill a good proportion of those we throw at it.

                  Men are not more violent, men are expected to change themselves to be more violent when their society demands it of them. When that society isn't making inhuman demands of men, instead of letting them be themselves, giving them opportunity to use their drive and strength for their own benefit - and to the benefit of what they choose - society then wants to define them as flawed, put them in cages and let them quietly die off. People who want to swan around in the comforts of a modern world, whilst condemning where it comes from, quite frankly make me disgusted - but I still wouldn't be violent to them.
                  Last edited by voidspawn; 07-28-2017, 04:45 PM.
                  "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                  Originally posted by menrppl2
                  Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                    I know you know all this, but you've gone and done the same classic biasing tactic in your question and opening "whatever reason-- most violence is committed by men."
                    I'm going to reply to this one item for now, and then consider the rest for a bit (also which I haven't finished reading yet as I write this)--

                    (I don't mean this confrontationally, so please don't read that into anything I'm saying...)

                    I originally started out with just "violence"-- and the subsequent conversation seems to have narrowed a bit to center more around the "crime" and "criminal" aspect. When you start from that (larger) point, there is simply no comparison between the violence meted out at the hands of males versus violence meted out at the hands of females. The numbers in any era are simply staggeringly different.

                    (I have to amend this a little-- as my original thoughts were in reaction to the article I had just read about the man who had killed the little girl. So in complete honestly, I was at first mulling over domestic violence, and then extending the scope of my thoughts and questions from there)

                    I think one obvious reason, working from this context, is that if you're going to impose your will upon somebody (some target), it's better to use a battle-axe than a fly-swatter. Men are bigger and stronger and capable of inflicting more harm / damage upon their opponents than women are. I think also that historically women have had other uses (roles) in society which, when coupled to their generally smaller physical stature, has led them down a different path with respect to being required to be violent. Because the rulers of society, and the employers of men, have multiple goals of expanding their holdings, protecting what they already have, and meting out "justice" (whatever that means) upon their foes, they have sent forth their legions of Men-- males, who are bigger, badder, bolder and more physically capable of causing harm-- to do their bidding.

                    IMO, *THAT* is the starting point for this conversation-- though I'm not requiring it, other points of view are welcome. That's just where I was (am) starting.

                    But I don't think the answer is that simple-- men commit violent acts on their own volition too, for their own reasons and purposes. And they commit violence for hybrid reasons, partially their "employer's" (for want of a better term) and partly their own.

                    And then there are those who are mentally ill / mentally deficient in some way. The psychopaths, the sadists, the haters, the men with hidden agendas, and men who are just plain "evil" and no other word could adequately describe them. For the record, I assume that all of these character types exist among the women as well. But being women, they are hobbled somewhat by their smaller physical size and strength. Though, also for the record, there have been plenty of women throughout the ages who have used their size, strength and womanhood to their advantage to very effective purposes in the commission of violence and deadly criminal activity.

                    And while I am interested in women-- and I certainly am not wanting to shut down any conversation or inclusion of women particularly in this discussion-- I was wanting to talk about violence and MEN because I think / feel that we (men) never really get a fair shake on this subject, or a fair hearing. But rather it is used time and time again as a club by hateful Feminists, and people with other anti-male agendas, to slander us, impugn and malign our characters, and to paint / portray us all as being ape-like savages barely able to walk upright without raping or destroying something.

                    Men *are* more violent than women. That is simply a fact. But the question you and I and everyone are quibbling over is whether they are *inherently* more violent or rather if it is just various circumstances and situations that require men to commit violence more often than women, or to do it preferentially over women.

                    I think those are perfectly legitimate observations and valid questions that are ripe for honest exploration. And in asking the questions, it is not my intention to malign men in the process, but merely to start a conversation and see where it goes.
                    Last edited by mr_e; 07-28-2017, 04:46 PM.
                    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                    It's time to call it out for what it is.



                    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How are we defining violence? If it is limited to the physical use of force, then the answer is obvious. Men are more violent because we are the ones who acquire resources. First for the family, then for the tribe and then for the nation. It is how we evolved.

                      On an individual level it can come out in unacceptable ways, especially today since traditional masculine roles have been demonized. A poorly socialized male is going to have the same internal drives as any other male, but will for various reasons lack the skills to deal with those drives.

                      Let me posit this scenario however. We are all familiar with the type of woman who will try to get her boyfriend in a fight at a bar just to see if he will defend her. Is instigating a fight a violent act? I would say yes. As soon as we start including soft violence like this, I suggest that women are at least as violent as men, possible more. I say possibly more because women are the ones demanding the resources that males are acquiring. I think we would all agree that the demand is seemingly limitless.

                      A man will mug a guy to get some money to buy his baby food but there is a woman at home saying, "I don't care what you do, but this baby needs food", yet only one of these individuals is viewed as violent.

                      A man will also mug a guy to get money for drugs. A woman is more likely to use sexual persuasion to get those same drugs. Is one better or more noble than the other?

                      For better or worse, men have and always will own the most in your face forms of violence. We are a literal punch to the face. Women own poison and the knife in the back. They are more subtle and use more cunning than men, but they inspire most of the demand for violence.
                      I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

                      It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        You've chosen to ignore evidence and arguments that challenge that. You've failed to realise you need to separate things out, in order to reach a position you can discuss, and you've lumped things together.
                        This might be true, though if so, it hasn't been purposely or with any agenda or intent to slant the topic.


                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        Here's a simple fact: most of everything is done by men, good, bad, indifferent - men do more of everything than women. Men are out there doing things far more than women ever will. Why? Because men are more inclined to take risks.
                        Certainly they do, and I have stated as much and allowed as much repeatedly both in this thread and in others. Men are the "doers" in society, and the "builders". We're the ones who have been called upon to "find it", "figure it out", and "bash it into submission' all throughout the history of humankind.


                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        And that takes us to the fundamental difference in male and female violent crimes e.g. larceny vs robbery. Let's just take male and female criminals motivated by greed. Here the simple effect shows, if we can possibly agree one logical basis. Their motivations are the same for this class of crime.
                        Earlier I observed / wondered whether or not "violence" is even the right word. And then I expanded upon it in a later post:

                        "And perhaps there's another whole way of examining this issue altogether. Is it really "violence" that is the issue here, or the propensity / requirement to *exploit* (something) in order to succeed, prosper or even just survive. Is violence really just an extension of the act of exploitation and what they cannot get / accomplish through cunning and guile*, they take through sheer dominant force. Would women therefore be just as apt to resort to violence if they had the same responsibilities and did not have to deal as much with the realities of gender dimorphism? Women do commit child abuse and elder abuse at a higher rate. So is it simply an issue of opportunity and they can get away with?"

                        *I changed it from 'deceit' to 'guile' which I think is the more appropriate word.

                        But I'll also note that these are also only concerning issues of "crime" and declared (codified) "anti-social" / aberrant behaviors. And are only relevant to one aspect of the overall subject and question of "violence". "War" is another class of violence, and even if it *somewhat* mitigates the individual responsibility for violent actions, we still cannot ignore that these actions are still overwhelmingly meted out at the hands of Men, most often initiated by men-- though certainly not always-- and several studies have shown that female rulers have tended to be every bit as ruthless and war-happy as their male counterparts. Some studies suggest that the women have even been more ruthless. Perhaps because they themselves have never had to face the violence they send forth directly, nor to commit it directly with their own hands.

                        But, by way of reflection, wars cannot happen if the men charged with prosecuting it just say "No". So why don't they? We all understand the obvious first answer, and maybe the second-- because the ones that say "No" will be punished and/or replaced until the boss finds one that says "Yes". But at the same time, if the ones who say "No" simply turn on and capture / punish / kill the one who says "Yes", then that particular avenue is shut down. But then don't generally. Perhaps a few do-- but the majority of Men do not. They go along with it and follow the orders. They suit up and go out and commit the acts of violence which correspond to their directives. And not only that-- sometimes in the commission of those acts, they add a little "something something" for themselves. Why do they do that? Are they petty? Are they getting revenge? Are they caught up in the moment? Are they allowing themselves a little bit of peevish evil? Whatever the answer-- it is yet Men being violent again. And moreover, adding their own additional level of violence on top of the amount of violence they've been sanctioned to commit. This fact is a perennial issue among armed forces-- how to deal with the bad actors and "atrocities" committed alongside of the sanctioned violence?


                        Certainly it goes without saying that Men (as a whole group) have learned how to kill things in order to defend themselves, and to provide meat for their families and tribes and such. And in the inimitable manner of men, they have taken these haphazard actions of violence and turned them into entire institutions of violence-- albeit generally abstracted and understood to be for the "common good" of the society in general, and thus sanctioned and approved-- but nonetheless, still violent actions which are generally performed by men. Such that they are conditioned by their daily work to be violent in this manner without reflection. How far away from that mindset do they have to travel before they can be violent in other ways and in other situations? (Just a question. And I certainly think women are capable of the same type of mundane violence, they just aren't as often called upon to do it. I know my grandmother used to wring the neck of chickens, for instance. Certainly a violent act, but one she performed mundanely and without further thought or consideration.)

                        And men have created enormous industries devoted to the commission of violence. Everything from hunting knives to small arms to assault rifles to tanks and mortars and artillery pieces to bunker-busters and atomic bombs. The breadth and range of industries devoted to violence is staggering-- as is the amount of money they take in annually. To say nothing of the business of sending "contractors" and "mercenaries" (hired guns) to out-of-the-way places in unheard of countries to do unspeakable things to people without voices. The people who carry out those businesses and operations are also nearly entirely staffed and operated by men.


                        Are sports violent? Stylized violence? Is competition violent? Or is violence a form of competition? Are the two related? Or is it simply accidental that one sometimes includes the other? Or is competition a form of "abstracted violence"? Violence which hasn't been fully rendered / realized into actual harmful action...?? Is "competition" a precursor element to violence? Is the action which occurs during competition simply "abstracted violence" on the very low-end of the overall continuum of violence? One can consider games of Tiddly-Winks and Monopoly all the way up to Football, Rugby, Hockey, and Soccer-- to games played with human heads wrapped in leather, where the losing teams are summarily executed.


                        Or is violence about exploitation? A means to an end?



                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        So how does this risk factor influence things?

                        Female criminals will look for lower risk strategies (risk averse) with maximum gain, such as deeper set ups, embezzlement, work on getting inside the target by getting a job in a target establishment or getting into a relationship with a target victim. They aim to take on less personal risk and less consequence risk. The preferred strategy is camouflage, aim to avoid detection and if caught aim to avoid consequences.

                        Male criminals will be more risk taking, willing to chance more dangerous immediate outcomes and consequences for higher gains. They assume they will likely face more violent resistance and are more mentally prepared for it. If you actually observe male behaviour during the act of carrying out a crime, it does actually aim to force the victim into submission with a very big display of willingness to do violence, gesturing, shouting, smashing inanimate objects.
                        Okay, but you are sort of inadvertently making my points here-- why are men "more risk taking" and more "willing to chance more dangerous outcomes" than women? Why are women content to not take the "big risks" or go for the "big score"?? Is it because men have historically done it and are socially "evolved" for it? (Conditioned by women who "reward" them for their risky / violent behavior) And is it then because women historically haven't had to do it-- because they can use their "cunning" and "guile" to convince their men to do it for them. Women have a role / function / place in the pantheon of violence. They are not without blame. Even if their primary contribution to it is in "egging it on" and rewarding their men for the spoils of their violence, women are still very much complicit in the commission of the violence-- if we're being totally honest here.



                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        That is actually about reducing the amount of bodily violence needed, but regardless for victims, it builds up the experience of violence by victims, terror is real either way when you are convinced someone will harm you. Also criminals pumped up on adrenaline are in immediate risk of losing control, which should be compared the actual numbers who don't, nor those who when challenged, even though they have clear advantage, such as being armed, will run away rather than escalate the violence.

                        Mr. E if you really want to understand the question you are going to need to go into some dark places of human psyche, and if you even mistakenly start looking at it through a gender identity lens you will fail to understand anything about it.
                        Sure, let's go. But realize that the bulk of what you just said you unconsciously and with inherently bias, cast the men into the role of being the "more violent" ones, all the while excusing / disguising their behavior for various reasons.


                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        There are distinct gender differences in how things play out, there are massive gender differences between exposure to violence and expectations to use violence (don't forget boys who don't hit back against bullies - are the ones slated and insulted by society for being cowards, that isn't done to girls.)
                        Again, you're making my points for me. Thanks! ;-)



                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        But the birth of a violent mindset itself IS NOT gendered, no more than the birth of criminal mindset.
                        So then why don't we see more aggressive females? Why are there not large roving gangs of female drug lords and street gangs warring over turf with the boys? Yes, I understand that female crime and aggression is on the rise, but still it is nowhere near the level-- in either rate or severity-- as that committed by males. Moreover, female crimes tend to be crimes of opportunity rather than out-and-out strong-armed robbery, for instance. Petty larcenies for example, where violence is not needed or required. In fact, females are often used as "mules" or decoys by males committing crimes simply because females are *NOT* as associated with crime or violence.


                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        Females have a lot more safe options than males for dealing with poverty, if males could sell sex to females as a way to make money, how many would rather do that than other forms of 'wrong' ways. Society decriminalises or never even criminalises female options for using their own basic assets for gain. A male's basic physical asset is his strength, if he can't shift to desk based or information sector work, or there is none around and the ability to sell his labour is gone, he's really low on options. It's a driver of crime, and as the pickings get more scarce it favours escalation and that favours the greater risk takers.
                        Yes, I have pointed that out in several of my posts. Moreover, society generally *looks* for reasons and ways to brand a Man as violent, while they generally go out of their way to find reasons to *avoid* having to say the same about a woman. And if they are pushed into it, they then do their damnedest to find a way to let her off the hook for it-- such as blaming it on some previous interaction with a "bad" man.


                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        Most men alive will never ever see a man's world.
                        I assume you meant that to say "Most *women* alive..."


                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        You know what a man's world is? A raw world where natural resources are taken by work and effort, where taking a risk leads to bigger reward, but hard work can lead to a consistent and increasing reward. Where each day the food on the table and the stuff for life are themselves evidence of a man's own engagement with the world. Stepping into the challenge of building against the rigours of nature, forged the masculine identity, and that mentality and skill set made a modern world possible. Even now the challenges to get into space, build a higher skyscraper, explore the oceans, or even solve every last nagging complaint from women, drives male endeavours.
                        In other words, necessity and exploitation. Yup, got it. Said it. ;-)


                        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                        Do you think that mindset comes for free?

                        We want men to be soldiers, miners, steeplejacks, riggers etc... a massive range risk taking work. Stuff that women only like to do, once the technology has rendered it safe but the kudos and uniform as a badge of honour can remain.

                        None of what our species has demanded of it's males comes for free. As much as it excels and has put the human race on top of all species, it has put a man in a box on a crowded street, and make his life about begging for a welfare check, whilst the world around him makes it abundantly clear he ain't wanted but he has no where else he can go. Seriously what do you expect will happen with his instincts. You know what is amazing, that so many men only ever consider peaceful options, that they adapt and keep on seeking to adapt.

                        But this world aims to turn everything tame, even the world of business is being refashioned to be a political correct safe space, you can't even indulge in free speech without being slammed. Simple male assertiveness and masculine competitive aggressiveness is being treated as a violent crime, aspects of inner male psyche that all of us as a species have used and abused for own benefit, and will do so again at the drop of a hat. All of this talk about what is wrong with masculine, risk taking, his willing to take a knock and deal out a knock (i.e. propensity for violence, as it's fashion called now), will disappear when a calamity comes along so that once again we need to use men to take on monstrous challenges that will kill a good proportion of those we throw at it.

                        Men are not more violent, men are expected to change themselves to be more violent when their society demands it of them. When that society isn't making inhuman demands of men, instead of letting them be themselves, giving them opportunity to use their drive and strength for their own benefit - and to the benefit of what they choose - society then wants to define them as flawed, put them in cages and let them quietly die off. People who want to swan around in the comforts of a modern world, whilst condemning where it comes from, quite frankly make me disgusted - but I still wouldn't be violent to them.

                        I agree with much / most of what you said. But I think you made a very good argument for the observation that Men are violent and Women tend not to be. You've planted some bushes around it-- society expects this and that-- to dress it up a bit. But when you pull all that away, it's still the Men who are being violent. And Women, even when faced with many of the same need factors-- tend not to be. But then, at the same time, they don't have to be-- because typically society finds ways to extend aid and assistance to women to forestall that outcome.

                        Perhaps part of the answer to the question is that Men are violent because society-- and *WOMEN*-- need for them to be. But does that makes us inherently prone to violence or not? If we were not prone to violence, don't you think we would be more often saying "No" ??
                        FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                        It's time to call it out for what it is.



                        The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                        http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pbisque View Post
                          How are we defining violence? If it is limited to the physical use of force, then the answer is obvious. Men are more violent because we are the ones who acquire resources. First for the family, then for the tribe and then for the nation. It is how we evolved.

                          On an individual level it can come out in unacceptable ways, especially today since traditional masculine roles have been demonized. A poorly socialized male is going to have the same internal drives as any other male, but will for various reasons lack the skills to deal with those drives.

                          Let me posit this scenario however. We are all familiar with the type of woman who will try to get her boyfriend in a fight at a bar just to see if he will defend her. Is instigating a fight a violent act? I would say yes. As soon as we start including soft violence like this, I suggest that women are at least as violent as men, possible more. I say possibly more because women are the ones demanding the resources that males are acquiring. I think we would all agree that the demand is seemingly limitless.

                          A man will mug a guy to get some money to buy his baby food but there is a woman at home saying, "I don't care what you do, but this baby needs food", yet only one of these individuals is viewed as violent.

                          A man will also mug a guy to get money for drugs. A woman is more likely to use sexual persuasion to get those same drugs. Is one better or more noble than the other?

                          For better or worse, men have and always will own the most in your face forms of violence. We are a literal punch to the face. Women own poison and the knife in the back. They are more subtle and use more cunning than men, but they inspire most of the demand for violence.

                          I would like to point you to my two previous posts as replies to your post as well. I think what I said in those very much applies to the situations you posit here. But while it addresses some of the questions as to the reasons behind men are violent, it still doesn't really address the question of why men are more violent in the first place. Why doesn't a guy shit test a girl to find out if she will fight for him?
                          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                          It's time to call it out for what it is.



                          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think it answers it just fine. Men are the providers of resources. The nature of human reproduction requires this to be true.
                            I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

                            It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              This might be true, though if so, it hasn't been purposely or with any agenda or intent to slant the topic.

                              Certainly they do, and I have stated as much and allowed as much repeatedly both in this thread and in others. Men are the "doers" in society, and the "builders". We're the ones who have been called upon to "find it", "figure it out", and "bash it into submission' all throughout the history of humankind.

                              Earlier I observed / wondered whether or not "violence" is even the right word. And then I expanded upon it in a later post:

                              "And perhaps there's another whole way of examining this issue altogether. Is it really "violence" that is the issue here, or the propensity / requirement to *exploit* (something) in order to succeed, prosper or even just survive. Is violence really just an extension of the act of exploitation and what they cannot get / accomplish through cunning and guile*, they take through sheer dominant force. Would women therefore be just as apt to resort to violence if they had the same responsibilities and did not have to deal as much with the realities of gender dimorphism? Women do commit child abuse and elder abuse at a higher rate. So is it simply an issue of opportunity and they can get away with?"

                              *I changed it from 'deceit' to 'guile' which I think is the more appropriate word.

                              But I'll also note that these are also only concerning issues of "crime" and declared (codified) "anti-social" / aberrant behaviors. And are only relevant to one aspect of the overall subject and question of "violence". "War" is another class of violence, and even if it *somewhat* mitigates the individual responsibility for violent actions, we still cannot ignore that these actions are still overwhelmingly meted out at the hands of Men, most often initiated by men-- though certainly not always-- and several studies have shown that female rulers have tended to be every bit as ruthless and war-happy as their male counterparts. Some studies suggest that the women have even been more ruthless. Perhaps because they themselves have never had to face the violence they send forth directly, nor to commit it directly with their own hands.

                              But, by way of reflection, wars cannot happen if the men charged with prosecuting it just say "No". So why don't they? We all understand the obvious first answer, and maybe the second-- because the ones that say "No" will be punished and/or replaced until the boss finds one that says "Yes". But at the same time, if the ones who say "No" simply turn on and capture / punish / kill the one who says "Yes", then that particular avenue is shut down. But then don't generally. Perhaps a few do-- but the majority of Men do not. They go along with it and follow the orders. They suit up and go out and commit the acts of violence which correspond to their directives. And not only that-- sometimes in the commission of those acts, they add a little "something something" for themselves. Why do they do that? Are they petty? Are they getting revenge? Are they caught up in the moment? Are they allowing themselves a little bit of peevish evil? Whatever the answer-- it is yet Men being violent again. And moreover, adding their own additional level of violence on top of the amount of violence they've been sanctioned to commit. This fact is a perennial issue among armed forces-- how to deal with the bad actors and "atrocities" committed alongside of the sanctioned violence?

                              Certainly it goes without saying that Men (as a whole group) have learned how to kill things in order to defend themselves, and to provide meat for their families and tribes and such. And in the inimitable manner of men, they have taken these haphazard actions of violence and turned them into entire institutions of violence-- albeit generally abstracted and understood to be for the "common good" of the society in general, and thus sanctioned and approved-- but nonetheless, still violent actions which are generally performed by men. Such that they are conditioned by their daily work to be violent in this manner without reflection. How far away from that mindset do they have to travel before they can be violent in other ways and in other situations? (Just a question. And I certainly think women are capable of the same type of mundane violence, they just aren't as often called upon to do it. I know my grandmother used to wring the neck of chickens, for instance. Certainly a violent act, but one she performed mundanely and without further thought or consideration.)

                              And men have created enormous industries devoted to the commission of violence. Everything from hunting knives to small arms to assault rifles to tanks and mortars and artillery pieces to bunker-busters and atomic bombs. The breadth and range of industries devoted to violence is staggering-- as is the amount of money they take in annually. To say nothing of the business of sending "contractors" and "mercenaries" (hired guns) to out-of-the-way places in unheard of countries to do unspeakable things to people without voices. The people who carry out those businesses and operations are also nearly entirely staffed and operated by men.

                              Are sports violent? Stylized violence? Is competition violent? Or is violence a form of competition? Are the two related? Or is it simply accidental that one sometimes includes the other? Or is competition a form of "abstracted violence"? Violence which hasn't been fully rendered / realized into actual harmful action...?? Is "competition" a precursor element to violence? Is the action which occurs during competition simply "abstracted violence" on the very low-end of the overall continuum of violence? One can consider games of Tiddly-Winks and Monopoly all the way up to Football, Rugby, Hockey, and Soccer-- to games played with human heads wrapped in leather, where the losing teams are summarily executed.

                              Or is violence about exploitation? A means to an end?
                              So now you are going on about war... and arms manufacture. Conflating even more together. You apparently want to have this discussion with yourself. You've got some blinkered notion in your head, which ain't going no where. So you might as well just say it, instead of being such a contrary waffler.

                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              Again, you're making my points for me. Thanks! ;-)
                              Somebody has to offer some points, because you clearly don't have thing to say about this, just waffle on without saying anything. Do you even know what you are talking about?

                              If you have a point to make, just say it.

                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              So then why don't we see more aggressive females? Why are there not large roving gangs of female drug lords and street gangs warring over turf with the boys?
                              Seriously it's like your brain sees every dumb movie as reality. If you want to discuss fantasy go right ahead, but say so.

                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              Yes, I understand that female crime and aggression is on the rise, but still it is nowhere near the level-- in either rate or severity-- as that committed by males. Moreover, female crimes tend to be crimes of opportunity rather than out-and-out strong-armed robbery, for instance. Petty larcenies for example, where violence is not needed or required. In fact, females are often used as "mules" or decoys by males committing crimes simply because females are *NOT* as associated with crime or violence.
                              Don't ask questions Mr.E, just state your answers as points to start with. You ignore what others say anyway.

                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              Yes, I have pointed that out in several of my posts. Moreover, society generally *looks* for reasons and ways to brand a Man as violent, while they generally go out of their way to find reasons to *avoid* having to say the same about a woman. And if they are pushed into it, they then do their damnedest to find a way to let her off the hook for it-- such as blaming it on some previous interaction with a "bad" man.
                              Finally you've made a point about something. So what does that mean?

                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              I assume you meant that to say "Most *women* alive..."
                              Nope, I meant men. Most men alive are going to have to conform and will do so to a world that has decided to throw away valuing what they are. Boys are being born to be socialised to resent their own manhood. Because some small minded type choose to brand maleness as violent and dangerous when they don't understand a thing about it, and then impose constraints on males, using ritalin and other drugs. Are you going join the chorus condemning boys for liking rough and tumble play? Is that going to join the huge conflation of all the violence in the world?

                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              In other words, necessity and exploitation. Yup, got it. Said it. ;-)

                              I agree with much / most of what you said. But I think you made a very good argument for the observation that Men are violent and Women tend not to be. You've planted some bushes around it-- society expects this and that-- to dress it up a bit. But when you pull all that away, it's still the Men who are being violent. And Women, even when faced with many of the same need factors-- tend not to be. But then, at the same time, they don't have to be-- because typically society finds ways to extend aid and assistance to women to forestall that outcome.

                              Perhaps part of the answer to the question is that Men are violent because society-- and *WOMEN*-- need for them to be. But does that makes us inherently prone to violence or not? If we were not prone to violence, don't you think we would be more often saying "No" ??
                              You've lost me, I don't what you are trying to argue or point you are trying to make. You seem committed to arguing with yourself. You want to say one thing, then say another. You want to make a huge deal about males do most of the acts of violence as if its some shocking mystery, then ignore sensible suggestions as to why that is apparently what happens, then say aha it's what was said...

                              In a prior job, three times I've had to step in, as a teacher to stop young males either fighting, attacking, or just plain out killing another. Each of those situations was very different, each young guy was facing different challenges, about parts of their nature where they needed help and guidance. The one thing that was consistent, was they weren't going to get any assistance. They had no decent role models or guidance. At the institutions I worked in, they just wanted them out asap, just shove them away with all their problems. They were pre ordained as broken.

                              That closed minded attitude runs large, and it sees young lads killing each other, and then uses that as the reason they don't deserve help. Those lads don't need a big conversation that compares them with females. Females don't face the same problems, they don't need the same assistance and in general the help they need they can access.

                              One young man that I stopped throwing another down some stairs, was a solid young man, fresh out of prison and wanting to get some skills for an honest life. He saw a guy who had knifed him in a street attack, and he lost it, he went for him. I was interviewing him for a place on a course, and was walking him out. He sees this guy and bang, a rage takes over. I don't think people have a clue what lives these young guys are living.

                              That there are guys who do their best to drag themselves out and away from what has been done to them. Yeah that guy was going to kill another, but he was not violent. He was going to beat him, throw him down some stairs and kill him. But he wasn't violent. You know why? He didn't do it. All I had to do was stand between him and his target, and tell his target to run away. Which he did, he called out insults, but he ran. The young man in a rage, wasn't going to turn on me, he wasn't going to hurt me to get through to his target. Despite what he went through, despite the goading, despite 3 years in prison for a street fight that saw the three guys who attacked get away with it, he was not going to do as much as push me. And I was weaker than him, he could have easily pushed me out of the way. He was angry, and had right to be, he was in rage and understandably so, he was more than capable of violence, but he wasn't a violent person. Yet because of that little show, which was witnessed by students and other staff his chance of going to college was tainted. Other staff ignored that he brought himself under control, they weren't interested in what he'd been through, just judged because they were scared of him. He never came back to college, something I regret. But reality is whilst this dominant narrative is being imposed on these young men, who are going through utter confusion about their place in this world, there is no patience for them, just fear of them. And they see it, they see how they are regarded and those who are ready to leave it behind, retreat from the opportunity. They internalize society's hatred of them, these guys have the potential to become the bulwark against the social rot in their communities, to become mentors and role models to kids who've been without proper role models, guidance or opportunity all their lives. The more these attitudes build barriers around the more deeply trapped they get, and instead of being able to do something to turn the problem around they will become part of it perpetuating.

                              There are layers of darkness that are damning on all of us, in the real exploration to this issue. And one of those layers are all the so called decent non violent people, who in order to live their own happy illusion of their moral superiority, would rather see young male people damned. Who form a large cowardly wall to condemn and blame kids, and push them away, so they can keep their safe place to themselves.

                              Who is more violent Mr.E? A person who recognises and attempts to control the rage inside them and is attempting to become a better human being, or a bunch of people who will call for police and have anyone excluded who doesn't immediately meet their standards for safety, whom they tag outsider because he isn't as cowardly as they are.

                              If you want to worry about violence, worry about the sort that lets someone dehumanize others and sanctions acts of violence against them. If you want to do something about the issue, you are going to have to take an honest look around you, and who is trying to challenge that narrative imposed as reality, and who is just blatantly and short sightedly imposing it. In that young man's life, which one was fighting against violence defining their nature, the young man who got excluded, or all those people who just knee-jerked to wanting him gone, without even thinking or caring about his reality, because they felt safer.

                              Do you see what I'm getting at? Which is using violence as a tool when it's nice, tidy and done by hired help, and which is trying to defy it?
                              Last edited by voidspawn; 07-29-2017, 01:56 AM.
                              "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                              Originally posted by menrppl2
                              Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X