NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's not beat around the bush anymore. The fact that men are more violent (and we are talking about levels of violence, not pretending that every violent act is equal) than women is backed up by pretty much any stat you can find. That doesn't mean women aren't violent. But we seem to want to gloss over the fact that men commit more violent crimes than women do, and are involved in more violence overall.

Men are on average stronger than women, and more capable of causing harm when becoming violent. They have traditionally filled roles that require violence, such as being soldiers, hunters, protectors...and so on. This violence and strength has filled certain biological needs, and still do, though perhaps not to the same extent.

But men's violence can also be damaging, to themselves, to other men, to women, to children, to society. Men are more likely to complete a suicide, because they use more violent (and successful) means. Men are more likely to be attacked physically by other men than women are. Men face enormous, conflicting social pressures, but very little is done to address the root causes and the effects of male violence. Most of what we deal with is very surface...jail time, punishment, not rehabilitation, not reexamining gender roles.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?

There's a Swedish town I heard of where the men banded together and took care of harassment. The feminists didn't know whether to laugh or cry, because while it was getting things done, it wasn't because they had been calling for it.

There was a good article at MSN.com yesterday concerning a genetic difference between men and women based on research done in Sydney,Australia. It went through some of the hormonal differences which causes more brain growth and activity in certain parts of the brain and body. If i can find it again, I will post it. For example, it linked the average size differences to a hormone which leads to more aggresive tendiencies. Which, by the way, I would have referred to in the title instead of violent. Then again I'm a man :rolleyes:

There's a Swedish town I heard of where the men banded together and took care of harassment. The feminists didn't know whether to laugh or cry, because while it was getting things done, it wasn't because they had been calling for it.
I would think they wouldn't care, as long as the issues were being dealth with.

In this case...what was being done? And what kind of harassment was targeted? Men on men violence, or men on everyone violence...or women on men, or just ALL violence?

Yay. Man Violent. *Clubs women* Very true, no arguement.

Guys need a outsource to vent anger and daily life stresses. Last time we used to do that by the HUNT! Now, everythings provided in the supermarket. Hence I always believe men should go out and do some sports. Really relieves stress tremendously. Better than taking it to the bottle.

Yay. Man Violent. *Clubs women* Very true, no arguement.

Guys need a outsource to vent anger and daily life stresses. Last time we used to do that by the HUNT! Now, everythings provided in the supermarket. Hence I always believe men should go out and do some sports. Really relieves stress tremendously. Better than taking it to the bottle.
Yeah finding a safe outlet for anger and frustration is key … I did years of karate that was my outlet

It really helps

There was a good article at MSN.com yesterday concerning a genetic difference between men and women based on research done in Sydney,Australia. It went through some of the hormonal differences which causes more brain growth and activity in certain parts of the brain and body. If i can find it again, I will post it. For example, it linked the average size differences to a hormone which leads to more aggresive tendiencies. Which, by the way, I would have referred to in the title instead of violent. Then again I'm a man :rolleyes:
The title sucks people in...they get ready for a fight...and "Men have a hormone which leads to more aggressive tenencies" wouldn't have gotten much interest:).

There are clearly profound biological differences between men and women. And yet, biology is not everything. We are able to suppress certain urges, or focus those urges on other targets. I am particularly worried about the fact that many men simply take it for granted that they will encounter violence in their lives. I don't think women do. We don't expect that at some point we're going to have to get into a fight. I feel that this acceptance of violence (directed outward AND inward) is part of the reason men have difficulty (speaking about generalities here) forming more intimate bonds with women, children, and other men.

Yay. Man Violent. *Clubs women* Very true, no arguement.

Guys need a outsource to vent anger and daily life stresses. Last time we used to do that by the HUNT! Now, everythings provided in the supermarket. Hence I always believe men should go out and do some sports. Really relieves stress tremendously. Better than taking it to the bottle.

Sports? Meh, that takes effort. There's other outlets.

*Goes back to playing computer games while blaring death metal*

:p

I would think they wouldn't care, as long as the issues were being dealth with.

In this case...what was being done? And what kind of harassment was targeted? Men on men violence, or men on everyone violence...or women on men, or just ALL violence?I saw a report on it a while ago. The local feminists were very pleased about it, but they didn't like the fact that it was due to men saying they were ashamed of an act of violence that occured and not because they'd been voicing that this happened for years.
I think it was wife beating, actually. I can't remember the details though and I haven't found anything on it with the random words I typed into google.

Sports? Meh, that takes effort. There's other outlets.

*Goes back to playing computer games while blaring death metal*

:p
And that has become my collage outlet after I quit karate :)

Yay. Man Violent. *Clubs women* Very true, no arguement.

Guys need a outsource to vent anger and daily life stresses. Last time we used to do that by the HUNT! Now, everythings provided in the supermarket. Hence I always believe men should go out and do some sports. Really relieves stress tremendously. Better than taking it to the bottle.
The stress is enormous, and you're right, there is little outlet now. Men often work long hours, and take more dangerous jobs (for higher pay). They are still expected to be (or expect themselves to be) the main breadwinners. But where do you let off steam? Everything in the West seems focused on work, and entertainment. Is that 'entertainment' sufficient for venting the buildup caused by the stresses of work? On one had, we need to tone down the violence, but on the other hand, the more we try to repress, the more buildup there is, and the more violence ensues...so how can men (and women, and kids) more safely 'get it out of their systems'?

Sports is a good suggestion. It's physical, and it allows you to be 'violent' without actually hurting anyone:). Usually.

Wait...I haven't been called a radical, man hating feminist yet? Where's Bozzy when you don't need him?

And that has become my collage outlet after I quit karate :)

:D

I used to do karate as well. I found it less an outlet and more like punishment, though..."THATS WRONG! 50 PUSHUPS!" "NO! *WHACK* DO IT CORRECTLY!", etc.

Well...I guess I can see how it would be an outlet if I were the teacher.

Wait...I haven't been called a radical, man hating feminist yet? Where's Bozzy when you don't need him?

Maybe he's sleeping... Don't worry, though. He'll log on soon enough.

Wait...I haven't been called a radical, man hating feminist yet? Where's Bozzy when you don't need him?You radical, man-hating feminist! Get back to the Sex thread where you belong! ( :p )

What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?
Education. Educated people are less violent than uneducated.

Wait...I haven't been called a radical, man hating feminist yet? Where's Bozzy when you don't need him?

Nahhhh, we all love you. :fluffle:

Just you wait for the "Women are more spiteful" thread, though. Or something to that effect. :D

Wait...I haven't been called a radical, man hating feminist yet? Where's Bozzy when you don't need him?
It will come … Even I had to step back for a min before I shot off a “how do you dare” and violence is not the only destructive attitude in today’s society


Though I would like to point out while violence in of itself is a bad thing ,in society aggressiveness (a contributing factor to violence) is often a much sought after trait in any sort of management or control environment and is encouraged

While men have to work on taking the violence down what is the rest of society doing to help considering they make this aggressiveness such a beneficial trait in some ways they encourage aggressive behavior (don’t get me wrong I am not saying they are advocating violence but by making aggressiveness a beneficial trait it tends to encourage certain types of thinking)

I love you Sinuhue. (You know this ;) )

Ah, but the important thing to make note of is that no matter how many stats you bring up, not all females are passive, and not all males are aggressive. I think Id like your topics a lot more if you occasionally made one dealing with the problems associated with women to compliment the ones dedicated to the problems plauging men.

Still, Its not that I have any disagreement with the generalization. Men, for sociological and evolutionary reasons as listed, can't be expected not to have this predisposition, but it is evolution - and in my opinion it is slowly being grown out of. Men are not the savages we once were, nor are women... we are all changing and evolving at some natural pace.

It is healthy to promote this change in a positive direction... so Ill give you that... but we cant force it too much, or it will never happen. Societal change is a slow and relatively unknown process.

It will happen, just dont get to zealous... it might not have the effect you want it to! :)

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?
measures trying to cut down on binge drinking (at least in the UK). its drunk blokes out at clubs and stuff that make up a very large part of violent crime, attacks, fights, etc in this country.
i won't pretend that is the extent of male violence, but it certainly is a large element


i would suggest music as an alternative to sports. as a bloke, if i'm feeling particularly (or potentially) violent, heavy music helps get it out of my system. going to gigs and getting in the mosh pit is, depending on the band, pure violence. i've been in a pit with the band Exodus and Testament... and it was old school violence with punching, kicking, fights breaking out - none of this 'jumping up and down' shite.
i mean Exodus have a live album called Another Lesson In Violence, and their slogan is Good Friendly Violent Fun! :p people have been killed in their pits :eek:

in the words of vocalist Paul Baylof (RIP) "I wanna see some blood!"
so, there's another vent at least

:D

I used to do karate as well. I found it less an outlet and more like punishment, though..."THATS WRONG! 50 PUSHUPS!" "NO! *WHACK* DO IT CORRECTLY!", etc.

Well...I guess I can see how it would be an outlet if I were the teacher.
Hmmm what discipline?

We had a very quiet instructor … running through the khata was so relaxing (though when we started tourney training every year it got a bit more stressfull)

Education. Educated people are less violent than uneducated.
Why do you think that is? Is it education alone? Or a higher living standard? Perhaps living in places where one need not assert themselves, or defend themselves with violence?

Why do you think that is? Is it education alone? Or a higher living standard? Perhaps living in places where one need not assert themselves, or defend themselves with violence?
Maybe … or like most things it could be a conglomerate of factors I know plenty of educated people that are dirt poor right now but they have learned to work through things rather then getting overly frustrated with them

Hmmm what discipline?

We had a very quiet instructor … running through the khata was so relaxing (though when we started tourney training every year it got a bit more stressfull)

Kyokushinkai. Our Kata was more like military drill than anything. (complete with broomstick to the back of the knees if you screwed up)

Let's not beat around the bush anymore. The fact that men are more violent (and we are talking about levels of violence, not pretending that every violent act is equal) than women is backed up by pretty much any stat you can find. That doesn't mean women aren't violent. But we seem to want to gloss over the fact that men commit more violent crimes than women do, and are involved in more violence overall.

Men are on average stronger than women, and more capable of causing harm when becoming violent. They have traditionally filled roles that require violence, such as being soldiers, hunters, protectors...and so on. This violence and strength has filled certain biological needs, and still do, though perhaps not to the same extent.

But men's violence can also be damaging, to themselves, to other men, to women, to children, to society. Men are more likely to complete a suicide, because they use more violent (and successful) means. Men are more likely to be attacked physically by other men than women are. Men face enormous, conflicting social pressures, but very little is done to address the root causes and the effects of male violence. Most of what we deal with is very surface...jail time, punishment, not rehabilitation, not reexamining gender roles.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?

We're violent because society conditions us to be violent, and men are rated in many situations by how tough we are. We're still looked upon to be soldiers, hunters, and protectors. We're still expected to challenge others and rise when we're challenged, in so many words, and as long as we're expected to carry that alpha role then we're gonna continue to create some monsters.

There's no way that is gonna change unless there is a complete restructuring of society and the definition of gender roles as a whole, and that ain't gonna happen. We can make surface changes but that isn't gonna change the underlying conditioning. You (meaning society) want us to be soldiers, drive big pickups and show how hard we are? Women, do you want rough, tough, 'men who are men'? Well, you all got your wish... accept the side effects. Best we can do in the meantime is try and punish the guys who cross the line when they do violence that isn't socially acceptable (i.e., not when their government tells them to).

Though I would like to point out while violence in of itself is a bad thing ,in society aggressiveness (a contributing factor to violence) is often a much sought after trait in any sort of management or control environment and is encouraged

While men have to work on taking the violence down what is the rest of society doing to help considering they make this aggressiveness such a beneficial trait in some ways they encourage aggressive behavior (don’t get me wrong I am not saying they are advocating violence but by making aggressiveness a beneficial trait it tends to encourage certain types of thinking)
I agree. For example, aggressive business practices can be just as damaging if not MORE damaging to people than outright physical violence. For example...one company takes over another, and ruthlessly fires the old staff. Now we have people without jobs, who still have all the responsibilities they had before, without the means of meeting them.

And you're right. This ruthlessness is admired. In fact, many women feel that in order to 'get ahead' they must adopt these 'male' tactics and be just as ruthless. Physical violence alone is not the biggest problem. Societal attitudes are. Be tough! Don't back down! Keep it to yourself! And if it gets too hard...end it!

Kyokushinkai. Our Kata was more like military drill than anything. (complete with broomstick to the back of the knees if you screwed up)

If my instructor did that to me, you know where I'd shove that broomstick...

Kyokushinkai. Our Kata was more like military drill than anything. (complete with broomstick to the back of the knees if you screwed up)
Eeek I can see how that would be stressful

If my instructor did that to me, you know where I'd shove that broomstick...
Most instructors are at least a 4th degree black belt … I would not recommend trying that lol

If my instructor did that to me, you know where I'd shove that broomstick...

Yes, that would be a clever move to pull on a 4th-dan black belt twice my size. Yes. >.>

Eeek I can see how that would be stressful

On the other hand, I went there to learn self defence. And I did. So I quit once I was confident. :p

Most instructors are at least a 4th degree black belt … I would not recommend trying that lolYou people are drifting off topic... :p

:D

I used to do karate as well. I found it less an outlet and more like punishment, though..."THATS WRONG! 50 PUSHUPS!" "NO! *WHACK* DO IT CORRECTLY!", etc.

Well...I guess I can see how it would be an outlet if I were the teacher.

Your teachers an ass. Not surprised you quit. Go to a good dojo or gym where they are nice. :) Alot are, though most tend to be assholes because their trying to be competetive and weed out the norm (like you and me :p)

I do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (Grappling). Since it's wrestling, you'll use really alot of thinking and technique rather than pure strength. But it's all good fun. I'm not likely to club someone, though if necessary I can defend myself.

And I usually go to the gym and take it out on the boxing bag.

Yes, that would be a clever move to pull on a 4th-dan black belt twice my size. Yes. >.>

At least it would be funny!

And that, friends, is really all that matters.

I agree. For example, aggressive business practices can be just as damaging if not MORE damaging to people than outright physical violence. For example...one company takes over another, and ruthlessly fires the old staff. Now we have people without jobs, who still have all the responsibilities they had before, without the means of meeting them.

And you're right. This ruthlessness is admired. In fact, many women feel that in order to 'get ahead' they must adopt these 'male' tactics and be just as ruthless. Physical violence alone is not the biggest problem. Societal attitudes are. Be tough! Don't back down! Keep it to yourself! And if it gets too hard...end it!
Exactly … while they are harsh though they are effective and in a free market society it is hard to get buy without having this to at least some degree. Hence everyone including women adapting the point of view… it may be a bad thing but it is hella effective

And you're right. This ruthlessness is admired. In fact, many women feel that in order to 'get ahead' they must adopt these 'male' tactics and be just as ruthless. Physical violence alone is not the biggest problem. Societal attitudes are. Be tough! Don't back down! Keep it to yourself! And if it gets too hard...end it!
I don't know if I would call them 'male' tactics... nothing about the way business is carried out in this fashion is specifically male at all. The women bosses I have had over the years have been just as ruthless as the men... I would say that in this example, societal (or perhaps economical) violence is not a uniquely male trait at all, but one developed from the greed of human nature in general, and dispersed on a situaltionaly and personally dependant basis.

Your teachers an ass. Not surprised you quit. Go to a good dojo or gym where they are nice. :) Alot are, though most tend to be assholes because their trying to be competetive and weed out the norm (like you and me :p)

I do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (Grappling). Since it's wrestling, you'll use really alot of thinking and technique rather than pure strength. But it's all good fun. I'm not likely to club someone, though if necessary I can defend myself.

And I usually go to the gym and take it out on the boxing bag.

I've thought about getting back into it...meh. Maybe one day. :)

Why do you think that is? Is it education alone? Or a higher living standard? Perhaps living in places where one need not assert themselves, or defend themselves with violence?

I do not really have an opinion about WHY that is. But I have observed that it IS. Maybe it is a mixture of
1. More intelligent people are often more educated and more intelligent people see other ways than violence (and that violence does not offer a decent solution to problems).
2. Among educated people the peer-group pressure not to use violence is much higher.
3. Better eduction -> better job -> mostly living in areas with less problems + less violence.

I love you Sinuhue. (You know this ;) )

Ah, but the important thing to make note of is that no matter how many stats you bring up, not all females are passive, and not all males are aggressive. I think Id like your topics a lot more if you occasionally made one dealing with the problems associated with women to compliment the ones dedicated to the problems plauging men.
Oh, don't worry. I'm getting this started before I deal with the "women are whacko's thread":). The way we deal with stress is not necessarily healthy either. But it's a little difficult to run two threads like this simultaneously...it might have to come after.

But when you discuss these sorts of things, you have to deal with generalities. On the whole, you can not deny that men are OVERALL more agressive. If you start pointint out every exception (and there are many) it defeats the purpose of the discussion. And that's what I constantly see...rather than saying, "hey, how do we deal with that" we say, "well, there are exceptions, so saying this is biased, let's drop it".

Still, Its not that I have any disagreement with the generalization. Men, for sociological and evolutionary reasons as listed, can't be expected not to have this predisposition, but it is evolution - and in my opinion it is slowly being grown out of. Men are not the savages we once were, nor are women... we are all changing and evolving at some natural pace. I don't think the biology has changed all that much (can anyone confirm or deny this? My knowledge of biology is weak), and I don't think we humans are any less capable of violence than the cavemen days. I attribute societal restraints with this change.

It is healthy to promote this change in a positive direction... so Ill give you that... but we cant force it too much, or it will never happen. Societal change is a slow and relatively unknown process.

It will happen, just dont get to zealous... it might not have the effect you want it to! :)Zealous? I haven't even made any suggestions yet...you can't get much less zealous than that!

If the biology hasn't really changed in all these years...I don't think it's reasonable to expect it to now. If all that has worked to curb violence has been a social contract, then perhaps we need to expand that social contract. What do men need to feel safe, safe physically and emotionally? What can we do to deal with the higher rates of suicide? The attitudes that cause men to visit the doctor less frequently? The issues that would cause one man to murder another?

Frankly, I don't see how addressing these issues is in any way radical. It seems pretty common sense.

Why do you think that is? Is it education alone? Or a higher living standard? Perhaps living in places where one need not assert themselves, or defend themselves with violence?


Education does play a part, but more likely the lifestyle that often goes along with people who pursue education.

Although, I'm sorry to say I caught part of an episode of "Growing up Gotti" last eve.
The boys have everything they could ever want or need provided as if they deserve it-there is nothing they want for. Except some discipline.

but even with this :high standard of living", they appear to be among the most ignorant and agressive borderline retards I have ever seen.
I like to think they are doing it for the cameram but I do know better.

There's no way that is gonna change unless there is a complete restructuring of society and the definition of gender roles as a whole, and that ain't gonna happen. Strange you'd say that, considering how much has been done to change the definition of female gender roles in a scant hundred years or so. Surely we are capable of doing the same for men? And in many ways, we have. Men are becoming more comfortable with sharing the financial responsibilities with women (if they weren't, the double income household would not be the norm). I think you underestimate the power of people to make changes. It can seem overwhelming, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Yeh, for me sports is the key. Rugby is great, i mean you can actually hit people really hard and you get commended for it! Its great!

When not playing, death/heavy metal and killing people works...on the computer of course!

Stress relief now that is much harder than it used to be i am told of a generation ago!

Men are more violent because we have to deal with women.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?

I don't have a violent bone in my body. I don't even yell. I don't think I need any program or policy, thanks. I also don't need feminists telling me how to be a man, especially when feminists are telling me I'm supposed to be violent.

So .... shrug ....

We're violent because society conditions us to be violent, and men are rated in many situations by how tough we are. We're still looked upon to be soldiers, hunters, and protectors. We're still expected to challenge others and rise when we're challenged, in so many words, and as long as we're expected to carry that alpha role then we're gonna continue to create some monsters.

There's no way that is gonna change unless there is a complete restructuring of society and the definition of gender roles as a whole, and that ain't gonna happen. We can make surface changes but that isn't gonna change the underlying conditioning. You (meaning society) want us to be soldiers, drive big pickups and show how hard we are? Women, do you want rough, tough, 'men who are men'? Well, you all got your wish... accept the side effects. Best we can do in the meantime is try and punish the guys who cross the line when they do violence that isn't socially acceptable (i.e., not when their government tells them to).


I can't believe the word Testosterone has not shown up yet in this thread.

Aggression existed before society did. There is a direct correlation between testosterone and aggression, both in men and in women (yes, women have testosterone, too).

Society has rewarded aggressive/violent men because we have not evolved our behavior to fit the current world circumstances. A man no longer needs to fend off wooly mammoths to protect his family, but yet we are still being fed horror stories about other 'threats' and told that violence is the only solution. As long as violence is seen as a viable option for dealing with problems, we will continue to encourage violent behavior. When being aggressive doesn't get you a good outcome, when society finds there are more productive ways of dealing with problems than with aggression, they will stop reinforcing the aggressive behavior.

But that still won't take out the aggressive tendencies that arise due to high testosterone levels. Unfortunately, biology does not keep up with the evolution of society.

And don't kid yourself, not all women want 'rough, tough' men. The last couple decades have shown that women prefer the quiet, sensitive types, generally speaking.

The boys have everything they could ever want or need provided as if they deserve it-there is nothing they want for. Except some discipline.

but even with this :high standard of living", they appear to be among the most ignorant and agressive borderline retards I have ever seen.
I like to think they are doing it for the cameram but I do know better.I bet the screaming teenage girls help them see what they're doing is wrong...:rolleyes:

Exactly … while they are harsh though they are effective and in a free market society it is hard to get buy without having this to at least some degree. Hence everyone including women adapting the point of view… it may be a bad thing but it is hella effective
Effective in what way? Stealing what I want is more effective than working long hours in order to afford it. Effective isn't necessarily the best way to go.

Men are more violent because we have to deal with women.Not true... I've lost more blood to my little sister than any other events put together, and my dad is mainly responsible for me learning how to contain her without hitting her...

Men are more violent because we have to deal with women.
*becomes violent, then realises that would look bad on this particular thread...*

So...homosexual men are non-violent?

Effective in what way? Stealing what I want is more effective than working long hours in order to afford it. Effective isn't necessarily the best way to go.Only if you get caught. But isn't it funny how so many really rich people are the ones that can't get enough? It's sanctions against immoral behavior that keep it from being effective. Stealing is effective, but stealing bread isn't nearly as effective if you get caught as embezzling company funds and getting caught.

*becomes violent, then realises that would look bad on this particular thread...*

So...homosexual men are non-violent?Fass can get pretty aggressive... (but you can't tell violence over a computer screen...)

I also don't need feminists telling me how to be a man, especially when feminists are telling me I'm supposed to be violent.

So .... shrug ....


Please cite one feminist source that recommmends that men be violent?

But when you discuss these sorts of things, you have to deal with generalities. On the whole, you can not deny that men are OVERALL more agressive. If you start pointint out every exception (and there are many) it defeats the purpose of the discussion. And that's what I constantly see...rather than saying, "hey, how do we deal with that" we say, "well, there are exceptions, so saying this is biased, let's drop it".
no argument there whatsoever. But you know my role is a balancing one. :)

I don't think the biology has changed all that much (can anyone confirm or deny this? My knowledge of biology is weak), and I don't think we humans are any less capable of violence than the cavemen days. I attribute societal restraints with this change.
Thats kind of what I was trying to say, evolutionary change is not restricted to physical attributes or capability... societal change is a form of evolution just like anything else.

Zealous? I haven't even made any suggestions yet...you can't get much less zealous than that!

That comment wasn't directed at you in a hostile way, moreso it was directed at the nature in which some people try and force change. Change is inevitable, and though looking at possible ways to influence and direct change are good, sometimes the methodology used to implement ideals has very negative and contrasting effects on the desired result. No need to get defensive, I wasnt taking pot shots, just making a suggestion of sorts as to the way I feel it might be best to adress the issue of male violence if one were to really be commited to changing it.
If the biology hasn't really changed in all these years...I don't think it's reasonable to expect it to now. If all that has worked to curb violence has been a social contract, then perhaps we need to expand that social contract. What do men need to feel safe, safe physically and emotionally? What can we do to deal with the higher rates of suicide? The attitudes that cause men to visit the doctor less frequently? The issues that would cause one man to murder another?

Frankly, I don't see how addressing these issues is in any way radical. It seems pretty common sense. Again, no arguments here - I think all in all we're on a similar page... its just that we are reading the same book a little differently... thats all.

Yeah, I still love you! :)

Only if you get caught. But isn't it funny how so many really rich people are the ones that can't get enough? It's sanctions against immoral behavior that keep it from being effective. Stealing is effective, but stealing bread isn't nearly as effective if you get caught as embezzling company funds and getting caught.
Too true. Being truly brazen, and getting away with it is greatly admired. So someone who uses semi-legal means to be as underhanded and sneaky as possible in order to steal is higher up the ladder than a less capable thief. Kind of screwed up, isn't it?

Sheesh. What the hell is wrong with us humans??

I'd amend the statement slightly, to 'men have a greater capacity for violence'. Really, I'm a fluffy kitten of a man, but I've been in the position where my blood has boiled and I've wanted nothing more than to lash out. I haven't, fortunately. Thing is, the reasoning behind my rage has been witnessing others threatened. I'm a puny guy, really, but I catch alight when the people I love are attacked. Luckily, people have either stopped me and/or, in most cases, the situation has simmered down.

Am I violent? Not yet. How do I prevent this rage? Why should I?

*becomes violent, then realises that would look bad on this particular thread...*

So...homosexual men are non-violent?


I was kidding- "go huff some gas" ?!? :D


I couldnt speculate at to wether homosexual men are violent or not. I havent met a violent one yet.

Fass can get pretty aggressive... (but you can't tell violence over a computer screen...)
Fass is a good example...he can be extremely aggressive. No, I'm just trying to mock Carn's assertation :p

Please cite one feminist source that recommmends that men be violent?

I didn't say recommends. It's one thing to misquote someone when they speak, but when they type? Come on ...

Maybe I'm just agro because no one is commenting in a thread that I thought would be a nice little break from serious or overtly 'fluffy' discussion...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436814

[/blatantthreadwhoring]

:D

I don't have a violent bone in my body. I don't even yell. I don't think I need any program or policy, thanks. I also don't need feminists telling me how to be a man, especially when feminists are telling me I'm supposed to be violent.
So .... shrug ....
Uh....huh.... :rolleyes:

No, you're right. You should just let men tell you how to 'be a man'. Heaven's forbid that men be allowed to just be themselves, instead of being targeted as 'sissies' by belligerant fools.

Too true. Being truly brazen, and getting away with it is greatly admired. So someone who uses semi-legal means to be as underhanded and sneaky as possible in order to steal is higher up the ladder than a less capable thief. Kind of screwed up, isn't it?

Sheesh. What the hell is wrong with us humans??It's evolution. In this case, behavioral evolution. If you can survive better by being underhanded and sneaky, you will. It's up to society to put sanctions on such behavior and to properly enforce those. In the end, corruption is just a version of "survival of the fittest".

Uh....huh.... :rolleyes:

No, you're right. You should just let men tell you how to 'be a man'. Heaven's forbid that men be allowed to just be themselves, instead of being targeted as 'sissies' by belligerant fools.
Or being targeted as "cave men" by other belligerant fools :p

Strange you'd say that, considering how much has been done to change the definition of female gender roles in a scant hundred years or so. Surely we are capable of doing the same for men? And in many ways, we have. Men are becoming more comfortable with sharing the financial responsibilities with women (if they weren't, the double income household would not be the norm). I think you underestimate the power of people to make changes. It can seem overwhelming, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

The thing is, we have a double standard here... old societal values that screw efforts like this up. Yes, men are more comfortable with sharing the financial burden with women. But many women won't accept a relationship where the man makes less than she does.

Before we 'straighten out' men, women need to figure out what the hell they want. Do women want full equality, or do they want the door held open for them? Do women want non-violent, non-competitive men or do they want to be taken care of by an alpha male? It's unreasonable to expect men to conform to values that haven't been established.

The double income household isn't a good thing, when you think about it, if it's being done out of necessity and not acceptance. Before a family could survive on one income. Now its almost unheard of... but I'm getting off topic, thats more of an economic than a gender issue.

I can't believe the word Testosterone has not shown up yet in this thread. I stayed away from it because despite some rudimentary knowledge of the different effects of testosterone and estrogen, I can't really dicuss it further than that.

Aggression existed before society did. There is a direct correlation between testosterone and aggression, both in men and in women (yes, women have testosterone, too).

Society has rewarded aggressive/violent men because we have not evolved our behavior to fit the current world circumstances. A man no longer needs to fend off wooly mammoths to protect his family, but yet we are still being fed horror stories about other 'threats' and told that violence is the only solution. As long as violence is seen as a viable option for dealing with problems, we will continue to encourage violent behavior. When being aggressive doesn't get you a good outcome, when society finds there are more productive ways of dealing with problems than with aggression, they will stop reinforcing the aggressive behavior.
I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, aggression in life, in business, in politics, is seen as the most inevitable, and desireable method.

But that still won't take out the aggressive tendencies that arise due to high testosterone levels. Unfortunately, biology does not keep up with the evolution of society.
Again, true. Even if society were to miraculously banish all violent acts, we could not banish the violence inherent within us. We'd have to deal with it, one way or another. Though it seems unlikely a world free of violence could happen WITHOUT dealing with it first...

No, you're right. You should just let men tell you how to 'be a man'. Heaven's forbid that men be allowed to just be themselves, instead of being targeted as 'sissies' by belligerant fools.

I tend to think it is the father's job to teach a boy how to be a man. So, yes, I suppose it is a man's job to teach such things.

Fass is a good example...he can be extremely aggressive. No, I'm just trying to mock Carn's assertation :p


you're such a fucking mocky feminist.


Speaking for myself- all of my bones are violent. But with me, violence is a seperate beast from anger.

I can be violent without being angry, and angry without being violent.

It takes a lot to get me angry. It takes very little to make me violent. Good thing the majority of my violence has been defensive in nature.
Someone threatening to me or mine, or in my face for whatever reason and I react immediately with violence. I dont have to be angry.

Dont say "beat around the bush" when your talking about violence!
That sounds like what porn stars do at the end of a scene actually... hmm... I wonder... is that a contributing factor?

Or being targeted as "cave men" by other belligerant fools :p
That too.

Same goes for women.

If one of my daughters is a tomboy (like me) and the other is a 'girly girl'...so what? I don't need my kids to be just like me. They're happy the way they are.

It's people like my sister-in-law who say stupid things like, "No son, that toy is for girls". I can't help myself. I have to pipe up and say, "No nephew, that toy is for whoever wants to play with it." You should SEE the dirty looks my sister-in-law gives me...

Dont say "beat around the bush" when your talking about violence!

HA!! very good!! I love this...

It's people like my sister-in-law who say stupid things like, "No son, that toy is for girls".

Sounds like your sister-in-law has gender issues. Maybe she needs a program or policy.

That too.

Same goes for women.

If one of my daughters is a tomboy (like me) and the other is a 'girly girl'...so what? I don't need my kids to be just like me. They're happy the way they are.

It's people like my sister-in-law who say stupid things like, "No son, that toy is for girls". I can't help myself. I have to pipe up and say, "No nephew, that toy is for whoever wants to play with it." You should SEE the dirty looks my sister-in-law gives me...

You just butt in everywhere, huh? God example of where violence would come in handy.
You countermand something I say to MY child, I take you outside and duct tape you to a tree.

That comment wasn't directed at you in a hostile way, moreso it was directed at the nature in which some people try and force change. Change is inevitable, and though looking at possible ways to influence and direct change are good, sometimes the methodology used to implement ideals has very negative and contrasting effects on the desired result. No need to get defensive, I wasnt taking pot shots, just making a suggestion of sorts as to the way I feel it might be best to adress the issue of male violence if one were to really be commited to changing it.

Well, some more concrete suggestions would be even better....I think people might have different ideas of what is zealous and what is not...

...and don't worry, I'm not getting defensive against you, it's just that sometimes, people read what others write, and take it as truth...I didn't want someone down the line saying, "Oh Sinuhue was getting all zelous with her man-changing programs" :D

Sounds like your sister-in-law has gender issues. Maybe she needs a program or policy.


No-thats between her and her child. And its hardly an issue. Certainly nothing worth interfereing over.

What the sister in law needs is to drop her civil facade and tell people to mind their own fucking buisiness- in blunt terms everyone can understand.

Well, some more concrete suggestions would be even better....I think people might have different ideas of what is zealous and what is not...
Haha, probably... oh well, as far as concrete solutions... I think that goes hand in hand with my argument. There isnt any particular things that can be done to curb any sort of pattern behavioural traits that have developed out of thousands upon thousands of years of societal evolution...

sometimes a gentle push will move a stone farther than a hurried shove.

I think its all about aiming the little things in the right direction; modifed education, advertising, marketing, societal acceptance... really any factor you can think of, changed in gradual doses...

Do you think maybe this could be a case of form following function?

I mean ...

The going thing lately is how so many women try so hard to be so thin - to the detrement of their health - and perfect and all that and the automatic, knee-jerk reaction is to blame the media. Magazines, television, etc all showing what a woman is "supposed" to be like.

Pretty much everyone accepts that.

Thirty years of study after study saying men are more prone to violence or aggressive behavior, the continual downplaying of fathers on television and in movies as being little more than well-meaning oafs or drunken Irish child beaters, corporate America (as well as other places) reminding men to push the envelope, think outside the box, be aggressive in the work place, push push push, make that sale, tote that bail, so on and so on ... could that have not had a profound affect on the male psyche or does that excuse only work for women?

To all those who've suggested outlets, I'd have to agree, not that there's much the government can do about that. On the other side of the coin, eliminating the problem (Through genetic or cerebral modification) would just create more issues as many of you have already figured out.

In another matter, everyone has anger. I think women tend to use verbal violence instead of physical which can sometimes be just as damaging. But that all depends on your personal ethics.

You just butt in everywhere, huh? God example of where violence would come in handy.
You countermand something I say to MY child, I take you outside and duct tape you to a tree.
Hey, I wouldn't mind it if she weren't in MY house, and the toy wasn't a BOOK, and if the boy didn't look like he was about to burst into tears...

...and I butt in because she did the same thing to my girls..."That's a BOY'S toy" (ripping it out of their hands). If she wants to try duck taping me to a tree, she can go ahead.

But then again, I have a much different relationship with my sister-in-law than I do with other people. I wouldn't make a peep if it were someone else and their kid. With family, you can butt in more. With my family...you can butt in WAY more:).

No-thats between her and her child. And its hardly an issue. Certainly nothing worth interfereing over.

I know. I was being facetious - and perhaps a little rude - based on the nature of the original post.

What the sister in law needs is to drop her civil facade and tell people to mind their own fucking business- in blunt terms everyone can understand.

Agreed.

I'd amend the statement slightly, to 'men have a greater capacity for violence'. Really, I'm a fluffy kitten of a man, but I've been in the position where my blood has boiled and I've wanted nothing more than to lash out. I haven't, fortunately. Thing is, the reasoning behind my rage has been witnessing others threatened. I'm a puny guy, really, but I catch alight when the people I love are attacked. Luckily, people have either stopped me and/or, in most cases, the situation has simmered down.

Am I violent? Not yet. How do I prevent this rage? Why should I?
Not "how do you prevent this rage in others"...how do you prevent it in yourself? How did you let things simmer down instead of striking out? We could ALL use conscious strategies to deal with things better.

I was kidding- "go huff some gas" ?!? :D People might not understand the context you're saying this in. Some jerk in another thread was on a racist rant about Natives getting drunk and huffing gas. Carn is just making reference to that particular idiocy.

No-thats between her and her child. And its hardly an issue. Certainly nothing worth interfereing over.

What the sister in law needs is to drop her civil facade and tell people to mind their own fucking business- in blunt terms everyone can understand.

So no one else should be concerned when a parent is doing something that could likely harm their child?

On the topic at hand: I have seen several "Men against violence" groups. Problem is, these groups seem to only address violence against women, while making it seem like violence against each other is perfectly alright. I don't really see how that makes sense, but that seems to be the way of it. In the end, if we condone violence at all, it is going to happen across all spectrums.

On the question of gay males being violent: From what I have seen, the statistics for domestic abuse in homosexual male relationships isn't that different from straight relationships. Thus, it doesn't seem that homosexual men are any less violent, on average, than straight men.

Hey, I wouldn't mind it if she weren't in MY house, and the toy wasn't a BOOK, and if the boy didn't look like he was about to burst into tears...

...and I butt in because she did the same thing to my girls..."That's a BOY'S toy" (ripping it out of their hands). If she wants to try duck taping me to a tree, she can go ahead.

But then again, I have a much different relationship with my sister-in-law than I do with other people. I wouldn't make a peep if it were someone else and their kid. With family, you can butt in more. With my family...you can butt in WAY more:).


It would be fine with me if she were talking to one of your children-but not hers. You dont assume total command simply because they are at your house.

I didn't say recommends. It's one thing to misquote someone when they speak, but when they type? Come on ...

Ah. You hide behind semantics again. Let's quote you, to avoid further misunderstandings.

I don't have a violent bone in my body. I don't even yell. I don't think I need any program or policy, thanks. I also don't need feminists telling me how to be a man, especially when feminists are telling me I'm supposed to be violent.


So they are not recommending...they are telling. So either you are bringing in anecdotes of some feminists who said, "Hey Keruvalia, be violent", which serve no purpose, and should be identified as anecdotal, or you have some compelling evidence to say that feminists TELL men they are supposed to be violent. Which is it?

It's evolution. In this case, behavioral evolution. If you can survive better by being underhanded and sneaky, you will. It's up to society to put sanctions on such behavior and to properly enforce those. In the end, corruption is just a version of "survival of the fittest".
I depends on society deciding whether they think this kind of survival of the fittest is acceptable, or not. Clearly the majority believe it to be acceptable :(

I tend to think it is the father's job to teach a boy how to be a man. So, yes, I suppose it is a man's job to teach such things.


Yes, and the mom teaches the girl how to be a woman. :rolleyes: OR men AND women teach children how to behave as adults. If you think your wife has nothing to do with how your son turns out as a man....well...

Not "how do you prevent this rage in others"...how do you prevent it in yourself? How did you let things simmer down instead of striking out? We could ALL use conscious strategies to deal with things better.
I can scarcely believe that I of all people am making this point (if you knew me this would make a lot more sense), but why should I curb this rage or violence in the circumstances I described? There's an element of devil's advocacy here but even so...

Do you think maybe this could be a case of form following function?

I mean ...

The going thing lately is how so many women try so hard to be so thin - to the detrement of their health - and perfect and all that and the automatic, knee-jerk reaction is to blame the media. Magazines, television, etc all showing what a woman is "supposed" to be like.

Pretty much everyone accepts that.

Thirty years of study after study saying men are more prone to violence or aggressive behavior, the continual downplaying of fathers on television and in movies as being little more than well-meaning oafs or drunken Irish child beaters, corporate America (as well as other places) reminding men to push the envelope, think outside the box, be aggressive in the work place, push push push, make that sale, tote that bail, so on and so on ... could that have not had a profound affect on the male psyche or does that excuse only work for women?
Excellent commentary.

you're such a fucking mocky feminist.


Speaking for myself- all of my bones are violent. But with me, violence is a seperate beast from anger.

I can be violent without being angry, and angry without being violent.

It takes a lot to get me angry. It takes very little to make me violent. Good thing the majority of my violence has been defensive in nature.
Someone threatening to me or mine, or in my face for whatever reason and I react immediately with violence. I dont have to be angry.
So what do you do to keep yourself from becoming violent when you're angry? Clearly you know the difference between the two, and can keep them separate. Clearly others are unable. So how do you manage your anger? Aside from watching the Gottis... :eek: [/jk]

Sounds like your sister-in-law has gender issues. Maybe she needs a program or policy.
Yes, because of course that is what I'm suggesting.

Quit baiting Keru. You're not that good at it.

It would be fine with me if she were talking to one of your children-but not hers. You dont assume total command simply because they are at your house.

And people don't own their children, regardless of their surroundings. If someone is doing something that could be harmful to their children, I don't think, "Well, it's their kid, so it's ok," cuts it.

Would you be up in arms if the woman had been beating the hell out of the kid and Sin had stepped in?

Do you think maybe this could be a case of form following function?

I mean ...

The going thing lately is how so many women try so hard to be so thin - to the detrement of their health - and perfect and all that and the automatic, knee-jerk reaction is to blame the media. Magazines, television, etc all showing what a woman is "supposed" to be like.

Pretty much everyone accepts that.

Thirty years of study after study saying men are more prone to violence or aggressive behavior, the continual downplaying of fathers on television and in movies as being little more than well-meaning oafs or drunken Irish child beaters, corporate America (as well as other places) reminding men to push the envelope, think outside the box, be aggressive in the work place, push push push, make that sale, tote that bail, so on and so on ... could that have not had a profound affect on the male psyche or does that excuse only work for women?
Other than this lame snipe at the end, I agree with the rest of this. Of course media is a powerful tool. It doesn't just reflect, it moulds.

So they are not recommending...they are telling. So either you are bringing in anecdotes of some feminists who said, "Hey Keruvalia, be violent", which serve no purpose, and should be identified as anecdotal, or you have some compelling evidence to say that feminists TELL men they are supposed to be violent. Which is it?

You said it yourself.

You are a feminist.
You state, in the topic of this thread "Men are more violent."

Hence, you are a feminist source telling me that as a man I am supposed to be (or supposedly) more violent. I am not, but suit yourself.

Xite']To all those who've suggested outlets, I'd have to agree, not that there's much the government can do about that. On the other side of the coin, eliminating the problem (Through genetic or cerebral modification) would just create more issues as many of you have already figured out.

In another matter, everyone has anger. I think women tend to use verbal violence instead of physical which can sometimes be just as damaging. But that all depends on your personal ethics.
I haven't seen a single person suggest government intervention, so don't worry:)

You're right about anger. So how do you teach people to deal with it, if they didn't learn it from their parents?

I know. I was being facetious - and perhaps a little rude - based on the nature of the original post.


Na, that's just your style.

Yes, because of course that is what I'm suggesting.

Quit baiting Keru. You're not that good at it.

I don't bait. Your perception is based on some bent you have against me which I can neither explain, nor give a rat's ass about. No matter what I say, you will take it as me baiting.

So, either stop posting public threads on a forum I frequent or just ignore me.

Na, that's just your style.

Let me guess ... this will end in you whining again to the mods and me getting the day off. Sorry, kid, but you started this thread knowing full well I would stand up to defend the Y chromosome - I've done it enough in the past for that to be true - so don't bother.

Either carry on civilised or end the topic.

It would be fine with me if she were talking to one of your children-but not hers. You dont assume total command simply because they are at your house.
I can absolutely step in, when she is saying something in front of my children that I absolutley do not believe in. If someone is swearing themselves blue at their child, in my home, in front of my kids, I'd step in. If she said, "Playing with dolls will make you gay", I'd step in. If my kids weren't present, *shrug*, being as this is my family, and I'm more familiar with our boundaries than you, then I just may step in anyway.

I could care less what you tell YOUR kids, as long as you don't do it as a kind of lesson in front of mine.

I can scarcely believe that I of all people am making this point (if you knew me this would make a lot more sense), but why should I curb this rage or violence in the circumstances I described? There's an element of devil's advocacy here but even so...

Why should you? I suppose that depends on whether you want to. Clearly you do, and you curb YOUR rage. Those that don't care to curb it, don't. But some people WANT to curb it, but don't have the strategies to do so.

Yes, and the mom teaches the girl how to be a woman. :rolleyes: OR men AND women teach children how to behave as adults. If you think your wife has nothing to do with how your son turns out as a man....well...

I am no more qualified to teach my daughters how to be women than my wife is qualified to teach my son how to be a man. I have never been a woman and she has never been a man.

The influence is in the converse, as in the method by which you perceive the opposite gender to be. My daughters should grow to see me as the "ideal" (for lack of a better word) and will look to me to see how men are supposed to treat women by my interraction with their mother.

That's about all I got. I can talk about many things, but true understanding of the nature of reality and inviting the person to see it for themselves is how you teach. Words are meaningless. I can guide, but I cannot teach any girl how to be a woman. Nor can you teach any boy truely how to be a man.

You said it yourself.

You are a feminist.
You state, in the topic of this thread "Men are more violent."

Hence, you are a feminist source telling me that as a man I am supposed to be (or supposedly) more violent. I am not, but suit yourself.
Nice try. Feel like a bit of trolling today? That's clear.

So, you're saying that feminists (actually, just one, ME) said you are supposed to be more violent. You change supposed from its indirect command function as in 'should be' in your original post to its passive modifier (supposedly) so you can imply that I directly called you violent.


But thanks for calling me a 'feminist source'. I didn't realise I impressed you so much :rolleyes:

I agree with some of the prior posts, suggesting that for evolutionary reasons, men are to some extent programmed with a capacity for violence, through genetics, hormones, etc. For a very long period in human history, especially that of early humans, violence was an important, even essential part of life. The relatively recent emergence of complex societies in which violence is unnecessary, is a change to which it is difficult for a mechanism millions of years in the making, to adjust.

Some adjust better than others. Some are simply incapable of making the adjustment.

The provision of outlets for these, let's face it, primal urges, such as team sports, especially spectator sports, computer games, fishing/hunting/shooting, is an important part of harm reduction. Every time a gang of youths on some sink estate is interviewed, and they are asked why they vandalise everything in sight, the response is invariably "We're bored, there's nothing to do here." I suspect that what they feel, but cannot articulate, is the absence of a harmless outlet for their natural aggression.

I believe that the simplest and most useful step is to acknowledge the useful role that sports, outdoor pursuits and computer games play in the satisfaction of these instincts.

The second step is one perhaps for women to make, to recognise that it is not male capacity for violence which is unnatural, but the environment, the complex society in which they now have to live. Thus there will always be a limit to what can be achieved. ;)

And people don't own their children, regardless of their surroundings. If someone is doing something that could be harmful to their children, I don't think, "Well, it's their kid, so it's ok," cuts it.

Would you be up in arms if the woman had been beating the hell out of the kid and Sin had stepped in?
Beating her kids is clear harm to the kid … influencing a toy decision is hardly as clear cut as that and falls more under freedom to raise your children how you see fit.

The same reason sin had every reason to be mad when her sis in law took toys away from sins kids.

I don't bait. Your perception is based on some bent you have against me which I can neither explain, nor give a rat's ass about. No matter what I say, you will take it as me baiting.

So, either stop posting public threads on a forum I frequent or just ignore me.
So far Keru, you're the only one who has taken it upon himself to 'defend the Y chromosome" from assertations that were not made...though if you simply want to go by the title instead of the original post, that's fine. I made it very clear that all men are not violent, nor are all women non-violent. In any case, build your strawman, and have fun with it. And I find it amusing you would tell me to stay out of my thread in order to avoid you. It's even funnier that you think I designed this thread just for you. Stay within forum rules, and the mods could care less how much I 'whine'.

So, you're saying that feminists (actually, just one, ME) said you are supposed to be more violent. You change supposed from its indirect command function as in 'should be' in your original post to its passive modifier (supposedly) so you can imply that I directly called you violent.


I was asked for "a" feminist source, I gave one.

Would you like 300 more? How about every feminist group like NOW which has sponsored just about every study you can name calling men more prone to violence.

You did directly call me violent. Just read the title of the thread. And you call me a troll ....

People might not understand the context you're saying this in. Some jerk in another thread was on a racist rant about Natives getting drunk and huffing gas. Carn is just making reference to that particular idiocy.


Yes- sorry about that. Huffing what gas, by the way? Are Canadians known to huff? Did he go off the deep end inside of two pages?

So far Keru, you're the only one who has taken it upon himself to 'defend the Y chromosome" from assertations that were not made...though if you simply want to go by the title instead of the original post, that's fine. I made it very clear that all men are not violent, nor are all women non-violent.

Ah ... so you want to shake the devil's hand then say you're only kidding. Why not just ask the mods to place a less offensive title on the thread?

I am no more qualified to teach my daughters how to be women than my wife is qualified to teach my son how to be a man. I have never been a woman and she has never been a man.

The influence is in the converse, as in the method by which you perceive the opposite gender to be. My daughters should grow to see me as the "ideal" (for lack of a better word) and will look to me to see how men are supposed to treat women by my interraction with their mother.

That's about all I got. I can talk about many things, but true understanding of the nature of reality and inviting the person to see it for themselves is how you teach. Words are meaningless. I can guide, but I cannot teach any girl how to be a woman. Nor can you teach any boy truely how to be a man.
I see where you're coming from on this one, but I don't quite agree. I don't think we're just talking about issues that only men or women can comprehend. I don't have a penis, but I could teach a boy how to go to the bathroom properly. As I'm sure you'd be capable of potty training your daughter.

My brothers credit my mother very much with the way that they are as men. My husband was very much influenced by his mother. As with all things, the influence can be positive, or negative. My dad's an alcoholic. That teaches me to avoid falling into the same trap. That's not a gender issue, but it still affects how I am as a woman.

My brothers, and my husband, treat women with respect, and are not violent towards them. My father and my mother taught them that, with words, and with examples. My brothers are not violent towards men. My mother and my father taught them that, with words and examples. My husband used to be very violent towards other men. His parents helped shape that attitude. His father, through actions, his mother through approval of such actions.

It's not about teaching a boy to be a man, or a girl to be a woman...it's about teaching kids how to be responsible adults. There are different factors we need to face because of gender...a girl may not have to learn how to avoid physical fights (though that's not necessarily true, it's just an example), while a boy might have to. But in the end, the goal is the same.

So no one else should be concerned when a parent is doing something that could likely harm their child?



In this specific instance, with the scene presented, I dont feel the aunt should have interfered.
And I dont see this as being harmful to their child. Taking a doll away from a boy isnt going to harm him. Teasing him about it might be, but there is so much more out their to worry about.

This is trivial at best.

I was kidding- "go huff some gas" ?!? :D


I couldnt speculate at to wether homosexual men are violent or not. I havent met a violent one yet.

I did meet i gay man once how used to like to rape straight men, he was pretty fucked up. But I think it is safe to say that his behaviour cannot be applied to all homosexual men.

I believe that the simplest and most useful step is to acknowledge the useful role that sports, outdoor pursuits and computer games play in the satisfaction of these instincts.

Oh, I don't know, TG. It's been my experience that the most aggressive and abusive people are the sports jocks. Remeber Columbine? People were blaming a video game as a primary reason.

I'm not too sure organised sports and/or video games are a healthy outlet for aggressive behavior in teens. Adults, well, different story. Apples and Oranges.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?

Oh, easy. Communist Revolution, baby! Yeah, we just kill all the corporate overlords and their simple minded capitalist supporters. Then we install a worldwide... protection force, to protect people from embracing the ideals of violence which result primarily from capitalism. This protection force will of course be governed only by purely democratic idealism. Then after sufficient time, all government can be dismantled, because now no one will even desire, let alone be truly capable, of committing violent acts against one another. Hey, ditto for racism, greed, hatred, and all those other bad things. It will be a perfect utopia, just as mankind was always meant to be, classless, divisionless, in harmony and unity.

No, seriously. I mean it. Don't laugh.

Sin and Keru, you're merely the most recent example I've seen of two intelligent, decent people taking exception at the slightest lack of subtlety in a written comment. The arguments that you're both building are absurd and making this thread a hell of a lot less interesting than it might be.

I truly don't understand how things have gotten this bad between you. It's ridiculous.

Yes, I'm ridiculing the both of you. If you'd like to make me a common cause to unite against, please be my guest. I'll have done us all a service.

hey sinhue

The second step is one perhaps for women to make, to recognise that it is not male capacity for violence which is unnatural, but the environment, the complex society in which they now have to live. Thus there will always be a limit to what can be achieved. ;)
That's an important distinction to make...not that violence is somehow an aberration, but rather it exists as a potential within all of us. That isn't going to go away. In the absence of laws and punishments to deal with violent acts, violence would still have to be contained somehow by social contract. We can't tackle this with attempts to 'breed' violence out. We just need to learn how to deal with anger, and violence, more effectively.

And amen to the lack of outlets being a major problem. Especially on reserves or in isolated communities...if the kids have nothing else to occupy them, of course the turn to less desirable activities. I'd like to see less money thrown at the councils of these areas, and instead focused on activity centres and programs.

Oh, I don't know, TG. It's been my experience that the most aggressive and abusive people are the sports jocks. Remeber Columbine? People were blaming a video game as a primary reason.

I'm not too sure organised sports and/or video games are a healthy outlet for aggressive behavior in teens. Adults, well, different story. Apples and Oranges.
I think they can be if people enjoy them … specially sports

But when they are doing it because mommy and daddy say so or because they really need that collage scholarship it is just like another job … one encouraging the same sort of aggressive behavior (they are allowed to “show” it more then lets say a business man but that does not mean the drive is not there)

And people don't own their children, regardless of their surroundings. If someone is doing something that could be harmful to their children, I don't think, "Well, it's their kid, so it's ok," cuts it.

Would you be up in arms if the woman had been beating the hell out of the kid and Sin had stepped in?


Please-dont put words in my mouth. That particular instance wasnt harmful.

I wouldnt be up in arms if Sin intervened in a parent physically abusing their child. I HAVE INTERVENED before and had to deal with the police afterwards.

In no way do I condone complacence in the face of a child being abused-but this toy story is no where near that.

Yes- sorry about that. Huffing what gas, by the way? Are Canadians known to huff? Did he go off the deep end inside of two pages?

He was apparently someone evading a previous ban with the 'intent to flame':), but he sure got weird fast! Actually, I'm wondering if he was Canadian...he kind of sounded like it with the words he was using. There was a major national news story a few years back about some native kids in an isolated community huffing (sniffing) gas (sometimes airplane fuel) to get high, right in front of the cameras. The community allowed it to be filmed in an attempt to get some intervention.

Ah ... so you want to shake the devil's hand then say you're only kidding. Why not just ask the mods to place a less offensive title on the thread?
When only one person here seems to be so confused by it...I don't think it's an issue.

In this specific instance, with the scene presented, I dont feel the aunt should have interfered.
And I dont see this as being harmful to their child. Taking a doll away from a boy isnt going to harm him. Teasing him about it might be, but there is so much more out their to worry about.

This is trivial at best.
Book.

And why should my kids be led to believe by their aunt that books are just for girls?

Anyway, it was a bad example. The intent was not to focus on my reaction, but on the enforcing of gender roles that don't really serve a purpose. So the boy thinks he shouldn't read because that makes him less of a 'man'. You don't see that as harmful?

He was apparently someone evading a previous ban with the 'intent to flame':), but he sure got weird fast! Actually, I'm wondering if he was Canadian...he kind of sounded like it with the words he was using.

He probably was-you know first hand how F-d up those people are.




:p

There are different factors we need to face because of gender...

Snipped the rest because I agree.

That part, however, is the meat of it. Since we're talking about men in this thread, I'll focus on that. Sports, outdoor activities, games, and all of that are fine for some, but I blame a lot of male aggression over the last generation on either absent fathers or endless strings of step-fathers.

It is a curiosity what things would be like if it were reverse ... what would modern society be like if it were full of dead beat mothers? But that would be a lot of speculation.

Anyway ... yes ... absent fathers. Not just absent, though, but in some cases right out deliberately belligerant (yeah, I spelled that wrong). Ever watch Maury Povitch? Those dna testing episodes where the mother and father are in a screaming match with each other, calling each other names, bringing grandma into it and lining up all the possible fathers (which sometimes gets into the double digits before they find the actual biological father) .... I just hope all copies of those get destroyed before the kid grows up and sees the video of his episode. *shudder*

It almost seems to me that boys are not being taught responsibility any more. Oh, sure, they're being taught how to throw a ball and whatnot (for the most part), but someone seems to have left out a sense of decency and responsibility in the mix.

I think that's where the focus needs to lie. Start 'em young, too. 8, 9, 10 years old. Before puberty warps them (I don't know about being a girl, but puberty hits boys hard and fast and relentlessly and sucks major, major ass). Fix that and, maybe, in a couple generations, things will be better.

Oh, I don't know, TG. It's been my experience that the most aggressive and abusive people are the sports jocks. Remeber Columbine? People were blaming a video game as a primary reason. People blame heavy metal music for crap like this too. It doesn't make them right.

But you're right about sports not necessarily being the most healthy outlet. Of course, having hockey parents go into a rage isn't the best example to set. A lot of leagues have really tightened restrictions on that kind of behaviour in players and in supporters. I think that's a good step.

Competition will always arise in sports, and some feel that is a bad thing. For some kids it might be. It'd be nice to have an option for less team-minded kids to get fit in other ways, without playing sports they do poorly in, and without being bullied by the ones who excell. But...if you let them completely skip the team stuff, maybe they won't learn team skills...I don't know...it's becoming academic now that phsyical ed is being cut down in schools rather than beefed up. Childhood obesity...so what, right?

Oh, I don't know, TG. It's been my experience that the most aggressive and abusive people are the sports jocks. Remeber Columbine? People were blaming a video game as a primary reason.

I'm not too sure organised sports and/or video games are a healthy outlet for aggressive behavior in teens. Adults, well, different story. Apples and Oranges.
The Columbine gunmen were not sports jocks, but (allegedly) game players. The two are usually very distinct communities. I happen to be a member of both, and am not particularly unpleasant. :)

As for those kids...to me they are an example of a system loss, the people I mentioned who cannot adjust to society's expectations of behaviour, irrespective of their opportunities. You would expect that having fairly wealthy parents and healthy outlets for aggression would result in decent individuals...let's not forget the thousand other boys at that school, who led the same lives, and turned out just fine.

So it's absurd to blame environmental influences which play the same part in the character development of a thousand other guys, who never go on to kill innocent people. Some people simply cannot fit in. You find plenty in the French Foreign Legion, tens of thousands of aggressive drifters who recognised this within themselves, and sought out an environment in which they can live for a while, without drifting into criminality.

Now this sense of inevitability that I am trying to get across, do not confuse it with a belief in the simple evil of some people - I do not believe in evil. I just believe that complex societies are a construct rather alien to human nature, and that is is remarkable how the vast majority can find their place, and keep within the boundaries imposed, without doing anyone great harm. But inevitably there are those, who simply cannot belong.

Book.

And why should my kids be led to believe by their aunt that books are just for girls?

Anyway, it was a bad example. The intent was not to focus on my reaction, but on the enforcing of gender roles that don't really serve a purpose. So the boy thinks he shouldn't read because that makes him less of a 'man'. You don't see that as harmful?
Personally yes but where do we draw the line between our opinions and our right to enforce or values in parenting onto other people

Maybe they find the content of said book harmful … would you wish her making that parenting decision for you ?

But anyways you are right this is a bit off topic

Oh, easy. Communist Revolution, baby! Yeah, we just kill all the corporate overlords and their simple minded capitalist supporters. Then we install a worldwide... protection force, to protect people from embracing the ideals of violence which result primarily from capitalism. This protection force will of course be governed only by purely democratic idealism. Then after sufficient time, all government can be dismantled, because now no one will even desire, let alone be truly capable, of committing violent acts against one another. Hey, ditto for racism, greed, hatred, and all those other bad things. It will be a perfect utopia, just as mankind was always meant to be, classless, divisionless, in harmony and unity.

No, seriously. I mean it. Don't laugh.
Oh hush.

Every revolution has shown us that the revolutionaries become their own worst enemy in the end. Throw down the bosses so YOU can become the boss. Na. :p

Book.

And why should my kids be led to believe by their aunt that books are just for girls?

Anyway, it was a bad example. The intent was not to focus on my reaction, but on the enforcing of gender roles that don't really serve a purpose. So the boy thinks he shouldn't read because that makes him less of a 'man'. You don't see that as harmful?


No. Its not "harmful". A lot of details in this take came out after I stated my position on it.

You cant speculate that the boy sat back and fretted over his potential manhood because a female oriented book was taken away-we arent that deep when we're mature, let alone as a child. its more likely he said "Shit-she's right-I dont care about the little princess' unicorn, I wanna see what Barbie's got under that sweater when mom turns around again".

When only one person here seems to be so confused by it...I don't think it's an issue.

Perhaps I take more of an issue with it. I tend to be a masculinist just as you are a feminist (in the true sense, not in the we rock, you suck sense). Suit yourself on the title ... you meant no harm and it is intent that counts, not content ... so I'll drop it.

I did meet i gay man once how used to like to rape straight men, he was pretty fucked up. But I think it is safe to say that his behaviour cannot be applied to all homosexual men.


In prison?

wah wah wah waah.Quit with the man bashing.

wah wah wah waah.Quit with the man bashing.
What an insightful post :rolleyes:

But you're right about sports not necessarily being the most healthy outlet. Of course, having hockey parents go into a rage isn't the best example to set. A lot of leagues have really tightened restrictions on that kind of behaviour in players and in supporters. I think that's a good step.


Oy! No kidding. It took us forever to find a decent, secular softball league for our daughter. We had to weed out the "everyone's a winner" thing.

I will never understand why parents these days are so afraid of letting their kids fail from time to time. It happens. It's part of the learning experience.

Perhaps I take more of an issue with it. I tend to be a masculinist just as you are a feminist (in the true sense, not in the we rock, you suck sense). Suit yourself on the title ... you meant no harm and it is intent that counts, not content ... so I'll drop it.
I understand for some reason the title had my hackles up too even though I could not point out a glaring issue with it

It still had me mad as well … dunno

Oy! No kidding. It took us forever to find a decent, secular softball league for our daughter. We had to weed out the "everyone's a winner" thing.

I will never understand why parents these days are so afraid of letting their kids fail from time to time. It happens. It's part of the learning experience.
Exactly some of the biggest most painful failures in my life were my biggest learning experiences

Snipped the rest because I agree.

That part, however, is the meat of it. Since we're talking about men in this thread, I'll focus on that. Sports, outdoor activities, games, and all of that are fine for some, but I blame a lot of male aggression over the last generation on either absent fathers or endless strings of step-fathers.

It is a curiosity what things would be like if it were reverse ... what would modern society be like if it were full of dead beat mothers? But that would be a lot of speculation.

Anyway ... yes ... absent fathers. Not just absent, though, but in some cases right out deliberately belligerant (yeah, I spelled that wrong). Ever watch Maury Povitch? Those dna testing episodes where the mother and father are in a screaming match with each other, calling each other names, bringing grandma into it and lining up all the possible fathers (which sometimes gets into the double digits before they find the actual biological father) .... I just hope all copies of those get destroyed before the kid grows up and sees the video of his episode. *shudder*

It almost seems to me that boys are not being taught responsibility any more. Oh, sure, they're being taught how to throw a ball and whatnot (for the most part), but someone seems to have left out a sense of decency and responsibility in the mix.

I think that's where the focus needs to lie. Start 'em young, too. 8, 9, 10 years old. Before puberty warps them (I don't know about being a girl, but puberty hits boys hard and fast and relentlessly and sucks major, major ass). Fix that and, maybe, in a couple generations, things will be better.
There was a really interesting thread a couple days back, I'm not sure if you saw it, but it was a poll about who grew up in a two-parent household (loving) compared to other variants, the most important being growing up in a single mother (loving) household AND the political leanings of the people who grew up that way. The majority that voted liberal grew up in a two-parent household, and yet we liberals tend to be the ones who most support the validity of single-parent households. Food for thought...

...but the absence of male role models is a real factor. Not a pleasant one. It's not to say that single moms CAN'T raise kids well. But this extends beyond the family. Very few men become teachers now...because of low pay, but I think more because of fears of being accused of sexual impropriety. We can't necessarily do much to alter the single-mother household phenomena (not in ways I can dream up right now anyway), but we could at least encourage more men to become strong role models in other ways. Yes, some men abuse their positions, and abuse children, whether they be coaches, teachers, priests or otherwise. But despite the sensationalism attached to these crimes, they are NOT the norm. It's a shame they've influenced us so much to avoid males in roles with children.

Personally yes but where do we draw the line between our opinions and our right to enforce or values in parenting onto other people My example (that has been bruised and battered to death:), and the book was for preschoolers, and was about colours) aside, I agree this is a tough question to answer.

It's one thing to say you can't beat your child, and quite another to say, if you spank your kid, you're abusive, and committing a crime. Even more difficult...say a parent encourages his son (or daughter, because I've seen this too) to beat up other kids. You can deal with the actions, the fights, but not necessarily the parenting that lead to it. How do you deal with that?

Let's not beat around the bush anymore. The fact that men are more violent (and we are talking about levels of violence, not pretending that every violent act is equal) than women is backed up by pretty much any stat you can find. That doesn't mean women aren't violent. But we seem to want to gloss over the fact that men commit more violent crimes than women do, and are involved in more violence overall.

Men are on average stronger than women, and more capable of causing harm when becoming violent. They have traditionally filled roles that require violence, such as being soldiers, hunters, protectors...and so on. This violence and strength has filled certain biological needs, and still do, though perhaps not to the same extent.

But men's violence can also be damaging, to themselves, to other men, to women, to children, to society. Men are more likely to complete a suicide, because they use more violent (and successful) means. Men are more likely to be attacked physically by other men than women are. Men face enormous, conflicting social pressures, but very little is done to address the root causes and the effects of male violence. Most of what we deal with is very surface...jail time, punishment, not rehabilitation, not reexamining gender roles.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?


Attending sensitivity classes?

Seriously, I think it is wrong to assume we even have "issues". That's like Newt Gingrich (just an example- you are probably not Newt Gingrich) saying, "Men are born to go out and hunt. Women are born to sit and knit." Except for obvious physical limitations (I would not want a very small woman as a fire man- she just couldn't carry a 300 pound guy out of a burning building. It's physics) there is no limit to what each gender can do. While I will agree with you that there are some (and I stress, some) psychological limitations (the average girl's obsession with being skinny, the average male's fascination with monster trucks), these are not necessarily major barriers, and don't necessarily require "attention".

Oy! No kidding. It took us forever to find a decent, secular softball league for our daughter. We had to weed out the "everyone's a winner" thing.

I will never understand why parents these days are so afraid of letting their kids fail from time to time. It happens. It's part of the learning experience.
Yes. And you do them a major disservice if you don't let them fail, and teach them how to handle that failure. You hide them from it, and they have nothing but unreal expectations of success when they 'go out into the real world'. And then they end up moving back in with you and living there until they're 40:).

I would not want a very small woman as a fire man

I don't trust skinny chefs. :D

It still had me mad as well … dunno
It was meant to. A more PC title wouldn't have gotten a hit. Had the title been, "Women are more passive" I'd have reacted the same way to the title.

Exactly some of the biggest most painful failures in my life were my biggest learning experiences


Failure happens to everyone. The question is, how do you turn arouind that faliure and use it constructivly?

(rhetorical question)

And then they end up moving back in with you and living there until they're 40:).

GAH! Don't even say that .... *shudder*

Exactly some of the biggest most painful failures in my life were my biggest learning experiences
The biggest screw-ups. Uh-huh. I was just thinking that today. Sometimes the best learning is done the hard way.

Attending sensitivity classes?

Seriously, I think it is wrong to assume we even have "issues". That's like Newt Gingrich (just an example- you are probably not Newt Gingrich) saying, "Men are born to go out and hunt. Women are born to sit and knit." Except for obvious physical limitations (I would not want a very small woman as a fire man- she just couldn't carry a 300 pound guy out of a burning building. It's physics) there is no limit to what each gender can do. While I will agree with you that there are some (and I stress, some) psychological limitations (the average girl's obsession with being skinny, the average male's fascination with monster trucks), these are not necessarily major barriers, and don't necessarily require "attention".
Nor are they the issues we're referring to.

I don't trust skinny chefs. :D


For some reason, I'm afraid of skinny russians. I can't really explain it.

Guess my whinge was unnecessary. :)

The importance of role-models has come up. Speaking from experience, I don't feel that being brought up in a single parent (mother) household has done me any damage; indeed, I regard the concept of having two parents around as being highly distasteful. However, I'm pretty effeminate, I guess. Would I have been a substantively different person had my father stuck around? Well, no. My father's really not a 'man's man' and I genuinely feel that his enduring presence would have made little difference to my development as a young man.

It's too easy to blame the existence of wayward young men on the absence of male role models. I don't know what the truth behind the phenomenon is - does anyone? no - but recognition of the complexity of the matter would be a constructive first step.

Nor are they the issues we're referring to.


"Men are on average stronger than women, and can do more damage".

That's hardly our fault.

Blame god.

Or pat robertson. It's always worked for me.

these are not necessarily major barriers, and don't necessarily require "attention".
You make a fair point, for example I've recently graduated and am looking for work in the engineering/infrastructure sector, and there are loads of incentives to females at every level, from school onwards, to take up the subject. And hardly any do. Not for lack of educational effort, resources, even role-models, but because at some fundamental level, various contraptions provoke guys to go "Coool!" and girls to switch off.

I've started to think the whole thing is now a wasted effort, because not only is it simply not working, but because I honestly cannot see the harm in a default gender imbalance in certain professions. Education, OK, but who cares about the gender of the people who designed the lighting system in your building? What impact does it really have on society, if the guys in the electrical distribution network control centre are all guys?

So yes, it's not just when it comes to violence that society needs to be a bit more understanding of gender differences.

Except for obvious physical limitations (I would not want a very small woman as a fire man- she just couldn't carry a 300 pound guy out of a burning building. It's physics)
1) I have been on the volunteer fire department for 2 years now we have some incredibly tiny women (tiffany to name one) that can do a 300 pound lift np so being small is not necessarily a limitation
2) It is not really physics it is biology :p


(that being said I am against the different requirements for the lift for female firefighter)
But some people are tough no matter how big they are

This topic/cluster of topics has grown tiresome....

Wait...I haven't been called a radical, man hating feminist yet? Where's Bozzy when you don't need him?

Stupid man hating feminist. :p :p :p

I actually rather enjoy your commentary, sometimes out of humor though :D

if the govornment were responsible for mitigating the violence in society, the logical end would be something like "a clockwork orange". which is in and of itself pretty disturbing.

humans have a condition-response-outcome-learn nature, men and women. thumping a guy who thumps his wife would eventually work, but of course the anti-violence laws wouldn't allow it.

there is no warm & fuzzy way to stomp out human nature.
communism tried to stomp out the human drive to excel by making everyone equal, and look at how well it did.
why don't you give all women tasers or pistols and wait to see how long it would take before the violence meter shifted the other way?

It was meant to. A more PC title wouldn't have gotten a hit. Had the title been, "Women are more passive" I'd have reacted the same way to the title.
I would have used "women are more docile" :p

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?

I'd like to point out that violent crimes are actually on the decrease.
http://gr.bolt.com/articles/violence/violence.htm
So, I'd appreciate not hearing about how men are soooo violent, and we're all problems. Gov't info shows violent crime is on the decline. Yeah, we may be more violent than women, overall, but that doesn't mean we're out committing violent crimes against anyone.
If violent crime has been dropping off, and men are more violent, obviously it follows that men are being less violent as a whole, and so the problem that existed is being properly dealt with. It won't be miraculously cured over night, but the trends have been going down for a few years now, and there's no real reason for them to increase if the steps taken in the past are still working.

1) I have been on the volunteer fire department for 2 years now we have some incredibly tiny women (tiffany to name one) that can do a 300 pound lift np so being small is not necessarily a limitation
2) It is not really physics it is biology :p


(that being said I am against the different requirements for the lift for female firefighter)
But some people are tough no matter how big they are

I hear you. I heard of a woman who tried to sue when she wasn't allowed to join the firefighters because she was a woman, when in fact it was because she couldn't perform the physical tests that were required. If we let people do life-saving jobs who couldn't perform the tasks... we'd likely have double the casualties, as those people wouldn't get out of the dangerous situations they went into. Sometimes strict guidelines are necessary to stop people from getting themselves injured/killed needlessly.

Guess my whinge was unnecessary. :)

The importance of role-models has come up. Speaking from experience, I don't feel that being brought up in a single parent (mother) household has done me any damage; indeed, I regard the concept of having two parents around as being highly distasteful. However, I'm pretty effeminate, I guess. Would I have been a substantively different person had my father stuck around? Well, no. My father's really not a 'man's man' and I genuinely feel that his enduring presence would have made little difference to my development as a young man.

It's too easy to blame the existence of wayward young men on the absence of male role models. I don't know what the truth behind the phenomenon is - does anyone? no - but recognition of the complexity of the matter would be a constructive first step.
Duly recognised:)

Did you have any male rolemodels at all? In school or otherwise? On tv?

"Men are on average stronger than women, and can do more damage".

That's hardly our fault.

Blame god.

Or pat robertson. It's always worked for me.
That was meant to point out why women are likely not represented as much in the violent crime stats. They aren't as capable of committing crimes that needs strength. No one is trying to blame that strength (or lack of) on anyone...

What bothers me right now is that as far as I noticed, nobody bothered to address the comment somebody made early on that "women don't expect to get into a fight."

Ever been to high school? The catfights there are more insane, all-out throwdowns than any guy-fight I ever witnessed there. The guys punched and generally pummeled, the girls kicked, punched, bit, pulled, did their damnedest to draw blood before they got caught (and usually managed).

Little girls might not expect to get into a fight, but by the time one is entering junior high and onward, it's at the very least acknowledged as a possibility by most chicks of moderate intelligence/possessing common sense. I never got into a fight, but I know I pissed off a lot of people, male and female. I just knew when to back off and go beat on something inanimate for awhile.

I've started to think the whole thing is now a wasted effort, because not only is it simply not working, but because I honestly cannot see the harm in a default gender imbalance in certain professions.
I agree...as long as people who don't fit into the 'traditional' professions are allowed to get in. Male nurses, female iron workers. If they want. Pressuring men to become nurses and women to become iron workers is kind of silly. No...it's just as bad as forcing them NOT to be.

This topic/cluster of topics has grown tiresome....
Welcome to NS...if you miss a topic, have no fear...it'll be recycled shortly! I'm amazed you stick around, actually, as much as you seem to dislike every topic other than sex... :D

I would have used "women are more docile" :p
Yeah...that's more loaded, for sure:).

Yeah...that's more loaded, for sure:).
Yes it is :p

I am a male and I have never had any violent or aggressive tendencies.

Throughout my entire life I have been nothing but kind and compassionate to people, always trying to befriend others. I am morally opposed to violence of any kind, especially war. I hate to hunt, mostly because we have an unfair advantage as humans (guns, global positioning, tracking devices, etc.).

I have always tried to convince others that love and patience is the key to solving a lot of the problems in our society.

Violence is not the answer and I feel, deep in my heart, it can only do more damage.

Not all mean are violent and we certainly are not more violent than women. Just take myself as an example.

Duly recognised:)

Did you have any male rolemodels at all? In school or otherwise? On tv?
Hmm... not that I recall. I've never really understood the whole role model thing. I've never felt the need to idolise or look up to someone else. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it's how I've approached life (naturally, not by intent).

I am curious since men make up most of the statistical violence. Does this mean that blacks are more violent and crime oriented as well? i don't really think you can say men are more violent based on statistics. Personally I am not a very violent person physically.
Do you consider violence to be only physical? I guess you mean only physical violence. if you want to talk about non physical violence or physical violence the one I aquait this with is my grandmother.
Personally i do not think anyone should worry about or try to change man kind. or worry about what all men are doing or women. you shuld only worry about those around you. I dont think it would take a government program to fix things. just a good neighbor. like that damn democrat who spent 30 minutes telling everyone what a good neighbor should be durring a discussion on the energy bill.
I myself have pressed charges agaisnt a former neighbor for hitting his wife. coughs after he and i had a uhmm discussion about it earlier.
but as I said I am not a violent person but when the time comes like hell am i going to stand around while innocent and weaker people are hurt.
People may not like the fact of violence, but as long as there are people out there who wish to hurt other people i will be a violnt person.
kinda makes me sound like a vigilante I guess oh well better than letting my neighbor get a black eye.

i don't really think you can say men are more violent based on statistics.
Yes you can ... as a statistical average men commit more violent crimes

Stats wont nessisarily bear on the indiividual but as a whole men have a higher volume of violent offenders

I am no more qualified to teach my daughters how to be women than my wife is qualified to teach my son how to be a man. I have never been a woman and she has never been a man.

You are assuming that it is as clear cut as "person with penis" = "this type of person" and "person with vagina" = "that type of person."

There are a variety of people in the world. All women are not the same. All men are not the same. Some women are more naturally masculine than many men. Some men are more naturally feminine than many women. Depending on where the child falls, they may look more to the mother, father, aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc., regardless of their own sex.

Beating her kids is clear harm to the kid … influencing a toy decision is hardly as clear cut as that and falls more under freedom to raise your children how you see fit.

I don't believe in "freedom to raise your children as you see fit" when that freedom involves harming your children. If the kid had been trying to stick the toy up his nose, or down his throat, then she would have been right to admonish him - that would harm him. But trying to force him into her preconceived notions of what he should and should not enjoy is going to harm him - mentally and emotionally.

What the kid needed was someone to stick up for him and basically say, "You be who you are, regardless of what bigots want you to be." Sin did that.

Yes you can ... as a statistical average men commit more violent crimes

Stats wont nessisarily bear on the indiividual but as a whole men have a higher volume of violent offenders

So blacks are even more violent then white people in America? They are bigger drug users? dont avoid the question if your going to be a sexist come on out and say it dont be shy. i will admit to being a sexist racist ageist and everything ist n the world. I judge everyone by their first few words how they dress. I change my opinions as i get to know them.. but I'm not afriad to state my mind. "Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who your not....." man I wish I could remember the title of that song. i do like my country music and classic rock. can not beat jimmy buffett or the eagles

In this specific instance, with the scene presented, I dont feel the aunt should have interfered.
And I dont see this as being harmful to their child. Taking a doll away from a boy isnt going to harm him. Teasing him about it might be, but there is so much more out their to worry about.

This is trivial at best.

Saying to a boy, "You can't play with dolls, that is a girl's toy," if he really wants to play with dolls and that is truly what he enjoys will harm him - emotionally. It is no different than a man who looks at his son who he sees as being a "wimp" and says, "I don't care if you like sports son. Men play football, so that is what you are going to do."

Attempting to push a child into some preconceived notion of what type of personality that child "should" have is harmful.

I don't believe in "freedom to raise your children as you see fit" when that freedom involves harming your children. If the kid had been trying to stick the toy up his nose, or down his throat, then she would have been right to admonish him - that would harm him. But trying to force him into her preconceived notions of what he should and should not enjoy is going to harm him - mentally and emotionally.

What the kid needed was someone to stick up for him and basically say, "You be who you are, regardless of what bigots want you to be." Sin did that.
The problem is her case was not a clear cut harm to the child it falls somewhere in the "grey" area

This could be turned around just as easily

Her sister in law thinks that allowing the boy to play with certian things will cause him to be less effective in his future life

Does that mean the sister in law has the right to make sins kids play with only certian toys?

I'd like to point out that violent crimes are actually on the decrease.
http://gr.bolt.com/articles/violence/violence.htm Ah. So it's going down all on it's own in specific countries. Well, that's taken care of! I'm off to tea now...

...violence is not confined to a single time, a single nation or a single gender. Now, we can look at how certain countries with lower violent crime rates are achieving those lower rates...that is useful. Just nodding to the stats and saying it's going down isn't.

So, I'd appreciate not hearing about how men are soooo violent, and we're all problems. Gov't info shows violent crime is on the decline. Yeah, we may be more violent than women, overall, but that doesn't mean we're out committing violent crimes against anyone.
If violent crime has been dropping off, and men are more violent, obviously it follows that men are being less violent as a whole, and so the problem that existed is being properly dealt with. It won't be miraculously cured over night, but the trends have been going down for a few years now, and there's no real reason for them to increase if the steps taken in the past are still working.
Sorry, but I disagree that just leaving it alone "because it'll fix itself eventually" is good enough. Violent crime rates are dropping in specific countries...but not drastically. And suicide rates among men are still stable. As are the other effects of negative gender roles related to aggressiveness... not getting regular medical checkups and so on. Hoping these things will work themselves out is silly.

I'm not talking about massive government intervention and so on. Gods no. But I am talking about people becoming more conscious about the gender roles that influence them. I chose to go into education and become a teacher...why? Because I'm inherently more 'nurturing' than my brothers? Na. The women in my family have traditionally been teachers, and I'm a bossy little bitch. But I honestly didn't consider other fields that I might also have enjoyed. I do now, and I may change careers. But it'd have been easier if I'd started out thinking the sky's the limit...

...and a person who can not control their anger, who snaps out at others, who gets violent with others or themselves...that person needs to sit back and say, 'why am I doing this? how can I stop'? Knowing that they can get help to deal with this problem, and knowing it's OKAY to ask for help is important. Do you think something like alcoholics or gamblers anonymous would have been acceptable 50 years ago? Those things were seen as personal weaknesses, not wider problems. And so they may be...but sometimes people need help overcoming vices, or learn coping strategies. Saying, "it's not my problem, let them deal with it themselves" might be more convenient in the short run, but constantly ignoring it means wider societal problems later on. You seem to be saying that we've already put programs in place that are working, and we should let them run their course. I agree that we've made progress, but I think more can ALWAYS be done.

So blacks are even more violent then white people in America? They are bigger drug users? dont avoid the question if your going to be a sexist come on out and say it dont be shy. i will admit to being a sexist racist ageist and everything ist n the world. I judge everyone by their first few words how they dress. I change my opinions as i get to know them.. but I'm not afriad to state my mind. "Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who your not....." man I wish I could remember the title of that song. i do like my country music and classic rock. can not beat jimmy buffett or the eagles
Statistically yes as far as I have seen (though if you have current crime statistics please post) they have a tendency towards more violent crime

The trick is determining the causes … what is nature and what is nurture and then solving the problem

What bothers me right now is that as far as I noticed, nobody bothered to address the comment somebody made early on that "women don't expect to get into a fight."
Again, we're talking generalities. And I was the one who made that statement, which is ironic, considering I brawled my way through elementary school and beyond.

Women are getting more physically violent. BUT males are still MORE likely (right now) to get into a physical fight than women are. And despite the fact that more women are fighting, parents haven't usually started teaching them how to 'defend themselves' or in other ways encouraging themselves to initiate or protect themselves during a fight. Usually.

Saying to a boy, "You can't play with dolls, that is a girl's toy," if he really wants to play with dolls and that is truly what he enjoys will harm him - emotionally. It is no different than a man who looks at his son who he sees as being a "wimp" and says, "I don't care if you like sports son. Men play football, so that is what you are going to do."

Attempting to push a child into some preconceived notion of what type of personality that child "should" have is harmful.
Yup. The idea that women should be nurses, and men should be construction workers and no switching allowed starts here.

My daughter hit my nephew. My sister-in-law said, "Don't you dare hit her back because she's a girl!" I said, "you shouldn't hit her because hitting is wrong. And you, young miss, better apologise for hitting him!" Implicit in the idea, "don't hit girls" is the notion that it's okay to hit boys. Which is utter bullshit, whether the one doing the hitting is male or female.

Let's not beat around the bush anymore. The fact that men are more violent (and we are talking about levels of violence, not pretending that every violent act is equal) than women is backed up by pretty much any stat you can find. That doesn't mean women aren't violent. But we seem to want to gloss over the fact that men commit more violent crimes than women do, and are involved in more violence overall.

Men are on average stronger than women, and more capable of causing harm when becoming violent. They have traditionally filled roles that require violence, such as being soldiers, hunters, protectors...and so on. This violence and strength has filled certain biological needs, and still do, though perhaps not to the same extent.

But men's violence can also be damaging, to themselves, to other men, to women, to children, to society. Men are more likely to complete a suicide, because they use more violent (and successful) means. Men are more likely to be attacked physically by other men than women are. Men face enormous, conflicting social pressures, but very little is done to address the root causes and the effects of male violence. Most of what we deal with is very surface...jail time, punishment, not rehabilitation, not reexamining gender roles.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?
Men produce alot more testosterone than women do. Testosterone causes "roid rage". Yeah, we're more prone to violence, but most of us deal with that in an appropriate manner. I, for example, practice martial arts and work out when I feel the need to hit someone.

The problem is her case was not a clear cut harm to the child it falls somewhere in the "grey" area

This could be turned around just as easily

Her sister in law thinks that allowing the boy to play with certian things will cause him to be less effective in his future life

Does that mean the sister in law has the right to make sins kids play with only certian toys?
Saying, "don't play with heavy rocks, because they might hurt your fingers and ruin your career as a pianist" is a LOT different than saying, "Boys aren't allowed to do this". Where do you think these attitudes about gender roles begin? Girls are teachers. Boys are mechanics. And girls who want to be mechanics are weird. And visa versa.

No, laws won't help. They'll just piss people off. But pointing out the silliness of things is important. Especially when your kids are involved. So maybe I should've pulled my daughters aside and whispered, "books are not just for girls, they are for boys too". Whatever. The issue remains the same...I don't want my kids feeling limited by what does or doesn't dangle between their legs.

The importance of role-models has come up. Speaking from experience, I don't feel that being brought up in a single parent (mother) household has done me any damage; indeed, I regard the concept of having two parents around as being highly distasteful. However, I'm pretty effeminate, I guess. Would I have been a substantively different person had my father stuck around? Well, no. My father's really not a 'man's man' and I genuinely feel that his enduring presence would have made little difference to my development as a young man.

Indeed. Some of the most feminine men I knew actually were raised with a "man's man" type of father in the household. Stable, two-parent homes. They simply naturally felt more of a natural pull towards their mothers and sisters than towards their fathers.

Tactical GraceYou make a fair point, for example I've recently graduated and am looking for work in the engineering/infrastructure sector, and there are loads of incentives to females at every level, from school onwards, to take up the subject. And hardly any do.

I don't see how you can even begin to hold that suggestion up.

Female enrollment in engineering programs around the country has been going up steadily. The particular engineering school I attended had barely had a majority of men studying, and the specialty I was in was actually majority female. In recent years, female to male ratio in places like GA Tech has gone from 1:7 to 1:3. "Hardly any do"? Hardly.

Not for lack of educational effort, resources, even role-models, but because at some fundamental level, various contraptions provoke guys to go "Coool!" and girls to switch off.

Yin and Yang...

Deal with it people.

Yin and Yang...

Deal with it people.
We would if it were true that 'everything is the way it has always been and it will always be that way'.

Clearly a fallacy.

So blacks are even more violent then white people in America? They are bigger drug users? dont avoid the question if your going to be a sexist come on out and say it dont be shy. i will admit to being a sexist racist ageist and everything ist n the world. I judge everyone by their first few words how they dress. I change my opinions as i get to know them.. but I'm not afriad to state my mind. "Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who your not....." man I wish I could remember the title of that song. i do like my country music and classic rock. can not beat jimmy buffett or the eagles

I love it when people try to argue against statistics, because they have no friggin' idea what they're talking about.
Numbers aren't biased. They don't favour one group or another. It's data that's been gathered from a large sample from the whole population to represent them. Thus, if the numbers say men commit more violent crimes, then they do. It's not sexist. It's fact. Believe it or not, facts do exist, and basic statistics can help you to understand them. It's not saying ALL violent crimes are committed by men. It's not saying anything at all other than more men commit violent crimes. If you want to put your own spin on the numbers, that's your own personal bias being entered into an otherwise bias-free equation.

So blacks are even more violent then white people in America? They are bigger drug users?

Statistically? Perhaps.

And then the question becomes: Why? Why is a certain demographic more likely to be violent or use drugs? Are the two related? In the case of many minorities, it probably has to do with the particular social and economic situations they are most often in. What can we do to correct those situations and cut down on violence and drug use that may be a result of them?

In the issue of male v. female violence, it is the same. Why do men seem to commit more violent crimes? Is it inherent, socialized, or both? What can we do to discourage it without trying to change the basic psychology of men?

I agree that we've made progress, but I think more can ALWAYS be done.

So then what is your end goal with this? Is it to stop ALL violent crime, and live in a utopia where nothing goes wrong?
Personally, I don't think that's attainable on a practical level. Sure, we can always do more, but it comes to a point where you have to ask, "Is it worth it?" If we increase general taxes 5% to stamp out 1% of crime, will people be happy with that? If the crime is coming down, and the only thing making it seem bad is the media over-coverage... then I'd say the media needs fixing more than the crime.

Statistically? Perhaps.

And then the question becomes: Why? Why is a certain demographic more likely to be violent or use drugs? Are the two related? In the case of many minorities, it probably has to do with the particular social and economic situations they are most often in. What can we do to correct those situations and cut down on violence and drug use that may be a result of them?

In the issue of male v. female violence, it is the same. Why do men seem to commit more violent crimes? Is it inherent, socialized, or both? What can we do to discourage it without trying to change the basic psychology of men?
Let's turn this on it's head right now.

If blacks have higher rates of violent crime than whites, you still need to ask..are black MEN committing more violent crime than black women?

The answer being, yes, the point remains.

So then what is your end goal with this? Is it to stop ALL violent crime, and live in a utopia where nothing goes wrong?
Nope. The end goal is to let people be who there are, as long as that doesn't hurt anyone else. And that means letting people move outside of gender roles, and it means helping people deal with emotions we ALL have...anger in particular, in ways that are NOT violent.

And governments can't do this. We have to. As individuals and communities.

Let's turn this on it's head right now.

If blacks have higher rates of violent crime than whites, you still need to ask..are black MEN committing more violent crime than black women?

The answer being, yes, the point remains.

Certainly - the point I was making was that the two situations are similar.

When violence/drug use/suicide/insert bad occurrence here happens more in one demographic than others, we need to try and figure out why this happens. We need to know if there is something we can do to improve upon it. It doesn't matter if the particular demographics are men, women, blacks, whites, aboriginals, children, the elderly, 30-somethings, etc.

Of course, this thread is about finding out why men commit more violent acts than women - and what we can do to cut down on violence in that demographic. The rest are just there for comparison.

I love it when people try to argue against statistics, because they have no friggin' idea what they're talking about.
Numbers aren't biased. They don't favour one group or another. It's data that's been gathered from a large sample from the whole population to represent them. Thus, if the numbers say men commit more violent crimes, then they do. It's not sexist. It's fact. Believe it or not, facts do exist, and basic statistics can help you to understand them. It's not saying ALL violent crimes are committed by men. It's not saying anything at all other than more men commit violent crimes. If you want to put your own spin on the numbers, that's your own personal bias being entered into an otherwise bias-free equation.
"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

You are correct in that numbers aren't biased, in the same way that letters aren't racist. However, the assertion that statistics are unbiased because they use numbers is like saying that Mein Kampf isn't racist because it's written with letters.

Statistics can be biased, and even downright false. Through clever wording and sample taking one could make a statistic to support almost any assertion, and favor any group or policy. Without the knowledge of the sampling methods, people executing the survey, groups surveyed, etc. one cannot be certain of a statistics accuracy.

Statistics can be biased, and even downright false. Through clever wording and sample taking one could make a statistic to support almost any assertion, and favor any group or policy. Without the knowledge of the sampling methods, people executing the survey, groups surveyed, etc. one cannot be certain of a statistics accuracy.

This is absolutely true. And there is a reason that most of us rely on peer-reviewed studies we can get our hands on and look at the sampling methods, people executing the study, groups studied, etc. That way, we can be sure of the statistics' accuracy.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?

Uh, leaving us alone?

Uh, leaving us alone?
Segregation of the sexes...interesting...would we get together just to breed, or would you be sending frozen sperm?

Segregation of the sexes...interesting...would we get together just to breed, or would you be sending frozen sperm?
I think what Americai is getting at is that perhaps it would be best to quit meddling, allowing us to work through our issues instead of telling us how you would do it.

Women are sadistic spiteful bitches

I think what Americai is getting at is that perhaps it would be best to quit meddling, allowing us to work through our issues instead of telling us how you would do it.
Sorry...where was my advice column? I didn't realise I was telling you how to do it.

I'm interested as to what YOU ARE DOING about it. If that's a big secret, fine, well, that's kind of a silly way of going about it. That's the extent of my advice on that point.

However, as someone who will likely have sons, I'd like to know what works for other men, so my sons don't have to stumble around 'figuring it all out themselves' or go into secret 'men only' planning sessions with my husband.

Women are sadistic spiteful bitches
How incredibly insightful.

Sorry...where was my advice column? I didn't realise I was telling you how to do it.

I'm interested as to what YOU ARE DOING about it. If that's a big secret, fine, well, that's kind of a silly way of going about it. That's the extent of my advice on that point.

However, as someone who will likely have sons, I'd like to know what works for other men, so my sons don't have to stumble around 'figuring it all out themselves' or go into secret 'men only' planning sessions with my husband.
I was simply stating what I believed to be the intent of Americai's post, as a counter to your presumption that he meant segragation, as it seemed absurd. I did not add my opinion on the overall issue in any instance, nor have I stated that you shouldn't be allowed, or even encouraged to give advice.

Be careful with how much you assume.

Saying, "don't play with heavy rocks, because they might hurt your fingers and ruin your career as a pianist" is a LOT different than saying, "Boys aren't allowed to do this". Where do you think these attitudes about gender roles begin? Girls are teachers. Boys are mechanics. And girls who want to be mechanics are weird. And visa versa.

No, laws won't help. They'll just piss people off. But pointing out the silliness of things is important. Especially when your kids are involved. So maybe I should've pulled my daughters aside and whispered, "books are not just for girls, they are for boys too". Whatever. The issue remains the same...I don't want my kids feeling limited by what does or doesn't dangle between their legs.
And I agree ... my point was no matter how much I agree under the parenting umbrella do we really have a right to tell a parent how to parent in these "grey" areas where there is no clear proven immidate harm

Women are sadistic spiteful bitches
While I understand why you are saying this (the thread title and such got my hackles up too) does that really justify what amounts to little more then a flame ?

I was simply stating what I believed to be the intent of Americai's post, as a counter to your presumption that he meant segragation, as it seemed absurd. It was meant to be absurd. I was hoping the poster himself would expand...



I did not add my opinion on the overall issue in any instance, nor have I stated that you shouldn't be allowed, or even encouraged to give advice.

Be careful with how much you assume.
Ditto. You're assuming I actually took the original post seriously and replied seriously, and you're assuming that my comments to you actually meant I thought you were saying blah blah blah blah.

Instead, my comments were on the idea that we (I'm assuming we is women?) should 'butt out'. And before you go on...I never said I thought you told us to butt out.

And I agree ... my point was no matter how much I agree under the parenting umbrella do we really have a right to tell a parent how to parent in these "grey" areas where there is no clear proven immidate harm
No. But we can suggest. And point out why immediate harm is not the only harm we should be worried about.

Because of my relationship with my family, I can suggest much more openly than one could with strangers.

Yay. Man Violent. *Clubs women* Very true, no arguement.

Guys need a outsource to vent anger and daily life stresses. Last time we used to do that by the HUNT! Now, everythings provided in the supermarket. Hence I always believe men should go out and do some sports. Really relieves stress tremendously. Better than taking it to the bottle.

Women have anger and stress too.

Far often women are socialized to either take it out on themselves, their children, or in "non-physical" forms of aggression and violence.

That said, I've seen women slap men in public but I have never seen a man slap a woman in public. I guess we find the first more "acceptable" and the second more abusive? Why is one more acceptable than the other? I'm sure in other cultures the opposite is true so it can't be biology.

Women can and do commit violence, how much they do compared to men is, in my opinion, a matter of socialization. The same for men. If you live in a community were violence is not accepted from anyone the odds are you will either have a lot less violence or a lot less reported violence.

I don't think we should under estimate the power of words however. You can recover from a bruise or a broken bone, being constantly belittled and attacked verbally though can harm you inside. Should either be acceptable?

No. But we can suggest. And point out why immediate harm is not the only harm we should be worried about.

Because of my relationship with my family, I can suggest much more openly than one could with strangers.
Absolutely sharing of ideas is how we all learn

And I understand sometimes playful family banter don’t get me wrong I was not trying to pick on you … I meant more in a situation akin to yours (well actually more like depub was covering) hence why I did not make a direct response to your first post cause I understood what YOU meant … more arguing with others impressions and thoughts based on your original post :)

Sorry...where was my advice column? I didn't realise I was telling you how to do it.

I'm interested as to what YOU ARE DOING about it. If that's a big secret, fine, well, that's kind of a silly way of going about it. That's the extent of my advice on that point.

However, as someone who will likely have sons, I'd like to know what works for other men, so my sons don't have to stumble around 'figuring it all out themselves' or go into secret 'men only' planning sessions with my husband.

Look here's the deal lady. If you didn't pick a damned good man to begin with, your ****ed anyway in regards to your sons. Mothers are around for some support, but who we emulate the most must be from the father. (Unless your a femnazi with balls.) So if your husband was hypothetically speaking a half ass man to begin with who is only good for giving you sex. So shall your sons be. Sex crazed losers.

If he is a damned good guy however (in the responsibility and reasoning departments) then your sons will be fine if he keeps on them.

You want to know what we are doing about it? Nothing. It all went to hell when femnazi's arose and screwed up the whole chilvary business. Now we just want to get by and not be ****ed by our government and hoping you femies don't take the last genuine thing that makes us men. Our guns.

****ed by our government and hoping you femies don't take the last genuine thing that makes us men. Our guns.
Are you using this as a euphemism or are you really trying to say that the only thing you have left that makes you a man is your gun? And that it is solely a feminist or woman plot to take it away from you?
Sheesh

Welcome to NS...if you miss a topic, have no fear...it'll be recycled shortly! I'm amazed you stick around, actually, as much as you seem to dislike every topic other than sex... :D


Can you blame me? Its hammer time!

Are you using this as a euphemism or are you really trying to say that the only thing you have left that makes you a man is your gun? And that it is solely a feminist or woman plot to take it away from you?
Sheesh

Its a euphemism. People have to be so damned literal here. Jeez.

*snip*
So if socialisation is the cause...can it not also be the cure? How do we go about it though?

Its a euphemism. People have to be so damned literal here. Jeez.
That’s why I asked but the way it was added to the end did not really lend itself to a euphemistic interpretation

Also want to note adding “ “ around it makes it a lot clearer

…. Our “guns”

That makes it more clear in a written text :)


Lol its the same reason we need the [sarcasm] tags

Look here's the deal lady. If you didn't pick a damned good man to begin with, your ****ed anyway in regards to your sons. Mothers are around for some support, but who we emulate the most must be from the father. (Unless your a femnazi with balls.) So if your husband was hypothetically speaking a half ass man to begin with who is only good for giving you sex. So shall your sons be. Sex crazed losers.

If he is a damned good guy however (in the responsibility and reasoning departments) then your sons will be fine if he keeps on them.

You want to know what we are doing about it? Nothing. It all went to hell when femnazi's arose and screwed up the whole chilvary business. Now we just want to get by and not be ****ed by our government and hoping you femies don't take the last genuine thing that makes us men. Our guns.
In summation:

Men's violence is the fault of feminazis.

And men without guns (meaning penises) aren't real men.

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

In summation:

Men's violence is the fault of feminazis.

And men without guns aren't real men.

Gotcha. :rolleyes:
He meant guns as a euphemism :p :fluffle:

Can you blame me? Its hammer time!
It's always hammer time with you:)

So if socialisation is the cause...can it not also be the cure? How do we go about it though?

Listen, one of the problems is women themselves as much as it is men. Their choice in mates contributes to a disporportunate amount of citizens of poor character. Socialization isn't the cure. Its just more damned dependence on government. Its the culture of picking "hot or rich" guys. Not the guys who are responsible whole some people and vice versa for us guys.

So we're all ****ed till most of the world is obliterated and only the awesome survive.

That said, I've seen women slap men in public but I have never seen a man slap a woman in public. I guess we find the first more "acceptable" and the second more abusive? Why is one more acceptable than the other?

Excellent point. Low levels of violence from women is perfectly acceptable, even funny to society. They can throw shit at us, slap us and generally can be a lot more confrontational than men in a lot of respects because they don't have to back it up like we do. Men are in a position where if we show outright anger we'd better get ready to use force to back it up. Women can let it out at a lower level.

I saw a show last week about wild women getting arrested by cops... it was funny, and was intended as a comedy of sorts. But then I thought, what if I chose to berate cops and punch and kick at them like these women do? I'd get beaten into paste, that's what.

It's always hammer time with you:)


So come, live with me in forests of azure....

Listen, one of the problems is women themselves as much as it is men. Their choice in mates contributes to a disporportunate amount of citizens of poor character. Socialization isn't the cure. Its just more damned dependence on government. Its the culture of picking "hot or rich" guys. Not the guys who are responsible whole some people and vice versa for us guys.

So we're all ****ed till most of the world is obliterated and only the awesome survive.To repeat the point once more: no one is saying the government should 'step in'. Socialisation is a factor of society, we're not discussing government run brainwashing.

men are more violent

It's more of a case of more violent people being men, than men being more violent.

It's more of a case of more violent people being men, than men being more violent.
Actually, yeah. That's true. And much better said. Hmmmm....

It's more of a case of more violent people being men, than men being more violent.
That makes it more clear what I'm getting at too. So if we go with this: MORE VIOLENT PEOPLE ARE MEN...how does that change the way we deal with this issue?

And I agree ... my point was no matter how much I agree under the parenting umbrella do we really have a right to tell a parent how to parent in these "grey" areas where there is no clear proven immidate harm

If a parent wants to be a bigot and attempt to teach their bigotry to their child, that is their right.

It is also my right, as a human being, to worry about that child's future, and to tell that child otherwise.

As an example, when I was a teenager, one of my younger cousins whom I was watching at the time told me how he didn't like one of his classmates. I asked why, and the response was, "He's stupid." I then asked what made my cousin think that his classmate was stupid, and the reply was, "He's black."

I knew this sentiment was coming directly from my uncle, as my uncle, despite being a great guy otherwise, is definitely a racist. I knew that my uncle would not have any problem at all hearing this come out of his child's mouth, and would probably applaud it. Didn't matter though. I sat my cousin down and explained to him that a black child was no more likely to be stupid than a white child - that, if that child was personally a jerk, or called people names, or picked fights with people - that would be a good reason to dislike him.

And I would do the same for any child who expressed such a sentiment to me. I would do the same for any child who spoke of what boys do vs. what girls do, unless it directly involved male and female body parts.

They say it takes a village to raise a child - and I don't see how they're wrong. The whole idea that only the parents should influence their child's upbringing is ludicrous. They should certainly have the most effect, but others will influence that child as well.


Listen, one of the problems is women themselves as much as it is men. Their choice in mates contributes to a disporportunate amount of citizens of poor character. Socialization isn't the cure. Its just more damned dependence on government.

LOL! Socialization doesn't have anything to do with socialism, my dear.

When we talk about socialization, we are talking about what we teach our children, what society views as acceptable, and so on.

Listen, one of the problems is women themselves as much as it is men. Their choice in mates contributes to a disporportunate amount of citizens of poor character. Socialization isn't the cure. Its just more damned dependence on government. Its the culture of picking "hot or rich" guys. Not the guys who are responsible whole some people and vice versa for us guys.

So we're all ****ed till most of the world is obliterated and only the awesome survive.

You make it sound like only the women do the selecting. Like men are supermarket produce and women just need to reach out and pluck out the best ones, who will meekly accept the woman's choice.

While women are becoming more forward in the last few decades, for millenia, women were the ones chosen like commodities (granted in some cultures, marriages were arranged without the consent of either son or daughter), and women had very little choice in who would be their husband.

Saying that women's poor choices in mates has influenced the development of society doesn't recognize the reality of how mates were chosen for women over most of our existence. Men have, at least, had a little more choice in that area, at least in some cultures. Not that I will blame societies' ills on men for selecting sexy bimbos as mates. :P

That makes it more clear what I'm getting at too. So if we go with this: MORE VIOLENT PEOPLE ARE MEN...how does that change the way we deal with this issue?

Okay, what's the big deal? To me this is just like saying,

MORE PEOPLE WITH VAGINAS ARE WOMEN.

How do we 'deal' with that? Well, you have to be more specific.

I don't have a violent bone in my body. I don't even yell.
Are you sure about that? I'm not trying to flame, you, but weren't you in the army, which requires some degree of violence?

That makes it more clear what I'm getting at too. So if we go with this: MORE VIOLENT PEOPLE ARE MEN...how does that change the way we deal with this issue?


Well, now-we could try starting with the cessation OF STUPID FUCKING THREADS THAT PISS US OFF!!!!

Okay, what's the big deal? To me this is just like saying,

MORE PEOPLE WITH VAGINAS ARE WOMEN.

How do we 'deal' with that? Well, you have to be more specific.
So you don't like it. *pouts*


Fine. I'll stick with the generalisation that pisses more people off.

No...no I won't. Because saying more violent people are men is a lot different than saying men are more violent. WHY are more violent people men?

Are you sure about that? I'm not trying to flame, you, but weren't you in the army, which requires some degree of violence?
That claim has since been admitted to be false.

Well, now-we could try starting with the cessation OF STUPID FUCKING THREADS THAT PISS US OFF!!!!
Or you could exercise some self-control and stay out of those kinds of threads...which would kind of force you to stay off General altogether, considering that the kinds of threads that piss you off are by far in the majority...no one is forcing you to be here.

So you don't like it. *pouts*


Fine. I'll stick with the generalisation that pisses more people off.

No...no I won't. Because saying more violent people are men is a lot different than saying men are more violent. WHY are more violent people men?


You're confusing the shit out of me deliberately and thats making me really mad!!!
*running outside to hack at random trees with an axe*

Or you could exercise some self-control and stay out of those kinds of threads...which would kind of force you to stay off General altogether, considering that the kinds of threads that piss you off are by far in the majority...no one is forcing you to be here.

Dont take it so personally- you know I'm kidding, you flip-flopping farce!

And yes-participating on NS forum is part of my sentencing, so I am forced to be here.

You're confusing the shit out of me deliberately and thats making me really mad!!!
*running outside to hack at random trees with an axe*
Not deliberately.

Look at the two statements:

MEN ARE MORE VIOLENT.
MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE VIOLENT ARE MEN.

The first kind of blanket bombs all guys, intentionally or not. The other is slightly more 'PC', but has a bit of a different meaning.

Wait. I'm confusing myself now. *joins you in the tree hacking, with the strict understanding that we will be thanking the tree for its sacrifice, and using it to cook deer meat with later*

Dont take it so personally- you know I'm kidding, you flip-flopping farce!
I thought you liked it when I flip-flopped...better access to both sides and all...
And yes-participating on NS forum is part of my sentencing, so I am forced to be here.
Ay...imagine the crime horrible enough to result in such a sentence! *faints*

You make it sound like only the women do the selecting. Like men are supermarket produce and women just need to reach out and pluck out the best ones, who will meekly accept the woman's choice.

That's because we were discussing something about sons. Don't worry about it. The door swings both ways, but that wasn't why it was written the way it was.

Not deliberately.

Look at the two statements:

MEN ARE MORE VIOLENT.
MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE VIOLENT ARE MEN.

The first kind of blanket bombs all guys, intentionally or not. The other is slightly more 'PC', but has a bit of a different meaning.

Wait. I'm confusing myself now. *joins you in the tree hacking, with the strict understanding that we will be thanking the tree for its sacrifice, and using it to cook deer meat with later*

Lets stick to the maples-in your honor.

Lets stick to the maples-in your honor.
They're more useful standing.

And they're endangered anyway. Poplars it is!

I thought you liked it when I flip-flopped...better access to both sides and all...


I do like when people dont limit their options.


Ay...imagine the crime horrible enough to result in such a sentence! *faints*

Your imagination isnt vivid enough.

They're more useful standing.

And they're endangered anyway. Poplars it is!

maybe you're right-I have Silver Maples and Japanese Maples- not known for quality syrup

WHY are more violent people men?

Well why are more vagina-having people women? ;)

You see what I'm getting at. It's not the phrase. It's biology that lends itself, as you've already described, more towards violence in men than in women. It's also cultural, but fundamentally I've got probably more testosterone than you, so that's that.

Let's not beat around the bush anymore. The fact that men are more violent (and we are talking about levels of violence, not pretending that every violent act is equal) than women is backed up by pretty much any stat you can find. That doesn't mean women aren't violent. But we seem to want to gloss over the fact that men commit more violent crimes than women do, and are involved in more violence overall.

So what are men doing to deal with their safety, their health, and their issues with violence? Feminists can only do so much...the ball is now in your court, and has been for some time. What programs, policies, and actions do you men see as being positive steps in dealing with male issues?

Yeah...ok? This is a simple observation that all men have tendencies towards violence, which is influenced greatly just by our natural male hormones. The ability to fight and exert control and leadership is an important trait of all mammalian males, for clear evolutionary reasons and survivability of the pack. Now, I don't quite get what you mean about doing something about it. If a person cannot control their anger, male or female, and they break the law, then they are punished according to the law. Do you expect some kind of gender-wide program to change all men into pacifistic drones?

If a person cannot control their anger, male or female, and they break the law, then they are punished according to the law. Do you expect some kind of gender-wide program to change all men into pacifistic drones?
No, I expect that rather than relying on punishment AFTER the fact, we would be looking at understanding why certain people can't control their anger, and finding ways to help them do so. Including not raising our children with stifling expectations that thwart their desires (such not letting your son be a dental assistant, or your daughter be a fighter pilot).

Well why are more vagina-having people women? ;)

You see what I'm getting at. It's not the phrase. It's biology that lends itself, as you've already described, more towards violence in men than in women. It's also cultural, but fundamentally I've got probably more testosterone than you, so that's that.
Careful. Someone's going to call you an anti-male for saying stuff like this... :D

What the hell do you mean men are more violent?
I mean, when guys get into a fight, it's almost always one on one.
When the girls, man. They get their 30 comprandes and beat the shit out of some poor girl.

Sorry, but chickfights are much more violent than guy fights.

Careful. Someone's going to call you an anti-male for saying stuff like this... :D

I would have thought that was more of a pro-male post.

I would have thought that was more of a pro-male post.
Yeah, but some men *looks pointedly around for one who is conspicuosly absent* don't like anyone saying anything negative about men, truth or not, justification through hormones and culture or not...

Yeah, but some men *looks pointedly around for one who is conspicuosly absent* don't like anyone saying anything negative about men, truth or not, justification through hormones and culture or not...


And she aint talking about me. I she was, I'd go ballistic and crush her with a cobble stone.

Yeah, but some men *looks pointedly around for one who is conspicuosly absent* don't like anyone saying anything negative about men, truth or not, justification through hormones and culture or not...

Well.... i've yet to meet anyone like that in real life or on NS, although i realise some people on NS do come pretty close.

No, I expect that rather than relying on punishment AFTER the fact, we would be looking at understanding why certain people can't control their anger, and finding ways to help them do so. Including not raising our children with stifling expectations that thwart their desires (such not letting your son be a dental assistant, or your daughter be a fighter pilot).
An overbearing or overprotective father does not equate into a father with anger issues.

How would we find out who these people are without them committing a crime of passion to be recognized? If stopping crime were this simple, I don't think crime would be the problem it is.

An overbearing or overprotective father does not equate into a father with anger issues.

Perhaps not, but it is very likely to lead to a child with anger issues.

Careful. Someone's going to call you an anti-male for saying stuff like this... :D

I'll be sure to hit them in the face if they do.
:gundge:

Men are more physically violent, women are more mentally cruel. I'm glad we had this conversation.

Men are more physically violent, women are more mentally cruel. I'm glad we had this conversation.

Very very true. I think women become far more vindictive far far quicker...IMHO.

Speaking as a man, I feel much of my agression comes from anger in the way I was brought up. To cut a long story short I basically had the crap kicked out of me, if I did something wrong, if I didn't do something wrong but my father though it was me then i would get the crap kicked out of me...you ge the point.

For years this instilled in me the ideal that the way you deal with bad people is to be violent. That stuck and only when i got children of my own to I re asses that view point in terms of my children. I change it very quickly, and my children suffer from little agression, but they are as tough as hell.

I feel many boys are brought up like this. Agression being the only way to deal with problems. Combined with mans general lack of ability to comunicate and you get a pretty bad combination.

Men are more violent...

DUH

Ever since men became the determained hunters of our species we have had a necessary trend toward physical behaviour. The hunters NEED to be violent in order to survive which can be seen with jackals. In that species the females are the predominant hunters and are FAR more vicious than males.

People like to believe that once upon a time man never hunted or lived in the bush, things just became this way. There are reasons why men are better at some things and women are better at others, we evolved that way.

DUH

Ever since men became the determained hunters of our species we have had a necessary trend toward physical behaviour. The hunters NEED to be violent in order to survive which can be seen with jackals. In that species the females are the predominant hunters and are FAR more vicious than males.

People like to believe that once upon a time man never hunted or lived in the bush, things just became this way. There are reasons why men are better at some things and women are better at others, we evolved that way.
Name one.

And you aren't the hunter now...so what do you do with all that viciousness?

Name one.

And you aren't the hunter now...so what do you do with all that viciousness?

Christians :p (The world was only been around for 5,000 years blah blah)

We have to wait until we evolve beyond the need for physical violence, which won't be anytime soon.

Christians :p (The world was only been around for 5,000 years blah blah)

We have to wait until we evolve beyond the need for physical violence, which won't be anytime soon.
I've never seen a Christian deny that people were once hunter gatherers...

...and what is the compelling need for violence now? We have made many changes since the hunter/gatherer days. We don't mete out our own justice, we delegate that to others. We control our violence, or are punished for it because that violence is unacceptable. How are things not going to change "any time soon" when they've already changed so much?

I've never seen a Christian deny that people were once hunter gatherers...

...and what is the compelling need for violence now? We have made many changes since the hunter/gatherer days. We don't mete out our own justice, we delegate that to others. We control our violence, or are punished for it because that violence is unacceptable. How are things not going to change "any time soon" when they've already changed so much?

Actually had a huge arguement over this with a kid who was trying to prove that man never lived in tribes. I guess people are more ignorant where I come from ;)

War, the need to protect ourselves or the rights of those who can't protect themselves. I also don't advocate violence, but humans are violent animals and it's going to take a very long time to become more than that. Things have certainly gotten better but we won't see a true peaceful world for a very lnog time.

War, the need to protect ourselves or the rights of those who can't protect themselves. I also don't advocate violence, but humans are violent animals and it's going to take a very long time to become more than that. Things have certainly gotten better but we won't see a true peaceful world for a very lnog time.
I agree we won't see a peaceful world in a long time. Well, I won't ever, guaranteed...though hopefully my descendents might.

But people aren't trying too hard either. War is a given, violence is still acceptable, and armies are still normal things to have. Unless we decide that these things are NOT all right, no changes will be made. I hope we haven't come this far just to stop now...we'll never breed out our innate violence, but we can surely come up with better ways of dealing with it than this!