Are men really more violent than women?

[ConspiRaider]

I believe the discrepancy is due to higher testosterone levels in men, although culture may play a role too. Recent evidence shows that broad-headed men tend to be more aggressive than narrow or long-headed men...

Then we have our answer! If we can just get preggers women to swallow a small vise! And then train them to coo in pre-baby talk to guide the placement of said vise around the occipital and parietal areas to De-Aggresivise in the Womb!

Yes! Plus, it's a depression-proof business! Investors? Call me!

 

[Francesca R]

You seem to weigh in on issues in this manner every now and then.. It seems strange to me. You pick a side and you leave it at that. How does this help?

Do you think the answer to the question can be agreed upon democratically or do you expect people to believe you on authority, or is it something else? Do enlighten me, but please use arguments?

Yes, men really are more violent than women

 

[Tailgater]

I believe you on authority.

 

[Francesca R]

That would be your error

 

[Ikarus]

Yes, men really are more violent than women

You already voted and you can only have one vote. So shh.

 

[KingMerv00]

That would be your error

I believe you because I fear you will hurt me.

Seriously though, where was all the debate I had in the chat room? I was soundly outnumbered there. Are there real arguments against the OP or not? The closest I've seen is testosterone does not cause violence. OK fine...do MEN cause violence?

 

[Lonewulf]

1) Men are, on average, stronger than women. This means that if there's a fight, the man is more likely to overpower the women.

2) Socially, males are, on average, more likely to be encouraged to "play rough". However, that excuse seems much weaker today than it would have been, say, a few decades ago. Regardless, "boys will be boys" isn't "girls will be girls" for a reason.

3) Testosterone. It would take quite a bit to get me to believe that it has no effect at all, even at a "steady" level with no abrupt changes.

These three factors seem to be the three strongest in people's view. The first is especially important if you're talking about the violent crime of rape, for instance. A man can rape a woman, but it takes quite a bit for a woman to rape a man. It's just... different.

How much does one factor overpower the others, though? If socially and physically overpowering is more important than testosterone, for instance, then men are only so naturally violent in comparison with women as blacks are more naturally violent than whites. (Note: I'm not claiming that blacks are necessarily more violent than whites, just saying that it seems to essentially stem from the same logic to draw that same conclusion).

 

[tomwaits]

The female T-Rex in Jurassic Park was violent, therefore women are more violent then men.

 

[Travis]

Purely anecdotal. When I was in high school the vast majority of fights I saw were between guys. But those fights usually all went the same way: both guys yell, their friends hold them back, one takes a swing and misses, they continue to yell with their girlfriends usually egging them on (mess him up honey!) and then security or a teacher shows up and breaks things up. Two days later you might see the two guys that were fighting hanging out and laughing.

The two fights I saw that actually resulted in loads of violence involved two girls. In both the girl that lost the fight was literally unconsciousness and needed to be hospitalized. The loser in the last one I saw actually needed reconstructive surgery.

It was my observation that, in that environment at least, male violence was largely for show and carried no larger meaning while the female violence was about deep rooted antipathy.

 

[tyr_13]

At the same time it's also true that violence against women is vastly more under-reported. But then, did you and this person check to see if whatever stats you were looking at had already taken unreported crimes into consideration? Don't do it twice.

Violence against women is more under-reported than violence against men you say? I don't think this is true.

In the 3rd scenario, you're completely discounting many incidences in which drunk men can and do overpower sober women and rape them. Overcoming the "no" of another person, even if you're drunk, is still rape. There's a reason drunk driving kills are still murder, to make an analogy. And in scenario 2, it's still possible and even common for drunk men to refuse to listen to a drunk woman's clear "no" and rape her. Don't make false dichotomies. Scenario 1 is obviously rape. That you would even ask, is disturbing.

I didn't discount incidences of drunk men overpowering sober women. Thank you for proving my point though that people assume the man raped the woman. The drunk man could have very well said no, or been incapable of saying no, and therefore raped. That is also the case with the second scenario, either one could have said no, but you assumed it was the man who raped the woman. Hell, they both could have said yes at the time and then later one regrets it and says it was rape. And scenario one is obviously rape? The fact that you assume that if the man is drunk it is rape, and if the man is not drunk it is rape is what is disturbing. I wasn't making a false dichotomy; don't you turn it into one.

The second you said "feminazi" you lost your place in an otherwise calm thread. Demonizing feminists doesn't help anybody, in fact it hurts everybody. Feminists talk plenty about how cultural misogyny being enforced by gender stereotypes hurts men, too.

You just lost your place in an otherwise calm discussion by creating a false link. Feminazis are different from feminists. The easy way to remember this is that feminazis are bad and feminists are good. I fit the definition of feminists. Plus, I think Francesca R was being fascists when she used the term. If I'm mistaken, just yell at me Francesca. I can take it.

Oh, the old "all women are money grubbing w****s argument, now I missed it. Not. Way to prove you have no place in this thread.

STOP LOOKING AT MY WALLET.

 

[gumboot]

It's worth defining violence, isn't it? If we're talking merely physical violence I would say men are more violent, by sheer facts of biology - men tend to be bigger and stronger. An average woman simply isn't capable of being as physically violent as an average man, even if she wanted to.

But what if we include psychological violence? And is there even such a thing? Or does violence have to be physical?

It seems to me, in this day and age of ridiculously excessive social navel gazing, many of those basic terms are constantly being redefined, making it very hard to discuss something like the OP.

And getting back to the OP, it's worth reiterating that this is not a question of whether men actually commit more violence, but whether they are more prone to violence.

So how do you measure that?

I think violent crime statistics are probably a red herring, because you're talking of an uncontrolled situation with a multitude of different factors to take into account. Firstly, worth considering is that domestic violence constitutes a big chunk of violent crime statistics, and there's already some good research indicating that offender statistics for domestic violence (overwhelmingly male offenders) does not reflect the reality (woman either equally violent or more violent than men).

Then you take into account false reporting - New Zealand Police estimate that between 60 and 80% of sexual assault complaints made by women against men are false. However as these are reported crimes, they still count towards statistics.

I'd like to illustrate how distorting statistics can be.

New Zealand has a separate offence category called "Male Assault Female" which is used specifically for domestic violence. There is no "Female Assault Male" category.

Further, very comprehensive and detailed crime statistics are available online for New Zealand.

See here.

Note that sexual crimes are recorded in their own category.

Also note that the statistics I am looking at are for reported crime. It is important to remember that this does not mean the crime actually occurred, merely that someone said it did. I've already mentioned how high rates of false-reporting are for rape.

There were 56,983 reported violent crimes in New Zealand last year.

It is additionally worth noting that crimes can be violent in nature, but do not qualify as a violent crime (property damage being an obvious one).

Of the 56,983 reported violent crimes, the largest categories were as follows:

Serious Assaults - 20,623 (36%)
Minor Assaults - 14,021 (24%)
Intimidation and Threats - 13,977 (24%)

Moving into Serious Assaults, you will see the category "Assaults By Male On Female" as a distinct category - these are all cases of domestic violence.

Most common Serious Assaults (out of 20,623):

Male Assault Female - 9,593 (46%)
Misc Common Assault - 5,442 (26%)
Assault With Intent - 1,857 (9%)

This indicates that domestic violence is a substantial percentage of violent crime, and is reinforced by statistics in other countries (about 20% of reported violent crime in the US is domestic, 16 - 25% in the UK).

Further worth considering is that statistically violent crime perpetrated by a stranger is more likely to be reported than violent crime perpetrated by someone the victim knows. This suggests that domestic violent crime is under reported compared with non-domestic violent crime.

The end result of all of this is that domestic violence makes up a substantial percentage of all violent crime.

Once you take into account the discrepancy between reported crime statistics and more detailed studies on domestic violence by gender, what you're left with is a substantial flaw in using reported crime statistics to assess which gender is more violent.

Looking at domestic violence specifically is useful for answering the OP for several reasons.

1) There is comprehensive studies specifically looking at occurances vs reporting and gender roles in the violence
2) Domestic violence tends to be ongoing systematic violence which is a better reflection of a person's propensity to violence rather than one-off criminal acts
3) Domestic situations are common to most people in most socio-economic situations
4) Domestic violence generally is "violence-only" crime whereas many other violent crime happens in conjunction with or as a result of an escalation of another non-violent crime

In this way, I'd argue that domestic violence situations offer a more controlled situation in which it is easier to assess the natural inclination towards violence of each gender.

While it may be that non-domestic violent crime by males is reflective of greater violence from males, there are so many other factors that can come into it, which require extensive research.

And the research available indicates that women are equally violent if not more violent than men in domestic situations. I would argue this is compelling evidence that men are not more prone to violence than women.

 

[Fiona]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129298

 

[TragicMonkey]

I remember reading once that the security guys on Jerry Springer preferred it when the men fought, because they could separate them and once separated, the combatants stopped. They knew they were done. But the women would just keep going, clawing and squirming free, desperate to snatch at their opponent's weave, utterly heedless of taking damage themselves. One lady apparently worked herself into such a frenzy that she was rolling on the floor by herself unaware that she was yanking on her own hair and screaming bloody murder for several minutes.

I don't know what that says about gender and violence, but I do know that's good television.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This came up in my Law and Society class last year. My professor, also a DA and long time lawyer said that men do commit violence more, but that women also don't get nearly the same punishment for the same crime.

Her view. Men go to jail, women go to therapy. It really annoyed the hell out of her.

This BS goes along with the same lie. Women don't get off violent crimes with a wrist slap, they get off because they don't injure the person they may be violent toward. Like I said, if you count door slamming and murder as 1 each, you can make the mythological argument women are as violent as men.

But there are skewing of statistics too. Men are raped almost as often as women*. Yes, mostly by other men, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, that those men don't need support, and that it is any better when women do it to men. Worse yet, most people still view women on men violence, especially rape, as the man's fault, or not even a crime.

Excuse me? Mary Kay LeTourneau went to jail here for a couple of years for 'rape' of a child. How many women rape men? What nonsense.

Here is a good example. A man and a woman are at a bar. The woman gets drunk, and takes to man home, where they have sex. Is that rape? They both get drunk and have sex, is that rape? Only the man is drunk and they have sex, is that rape? Men have been charged with rape in all three scenarios.

Oh please. The genders are not equal when it comes to rape, drunk in a bar or not. This is baseless PC tripe.

...Edit to add: Oh, and the entire time I was at college, there were at least eight times I remember a woman claiming to have been raped where it turned out it was a lie.

So, the truth comes out, you resent women.

 

[Fiona]

It's worth defining violence, isn't it? If we're talking merely physical violence I would say men are more violent, by sheer facts of biology - men tend to be bigger and stronger. An average woman simply isn't capable of being as physically violent as an average man, even if she wanted to.

Which has nothing at all to do with it, does it? Are you really saying that the capacity to win a fight means you have to start a fight? I know a lot of big blokes who would take issue with that.

But what if we include psychological violence? And is there even such a thing? Or does violence have to be physical?

Yes I think violence has to be physical. But if you wish to bring in other kinds of things then by all means define what is included

It seems to me, in this day and age of ridiculously excessive social navel gazing, many of those basic terms are constantly being redefined, making it very hard to discuss something like the OP.

I am not sure anyone but you has done this but perhaps I missed it

And getting back to the OP, it's worth reiterating that this is not a question of whether men actually commit more violence, but whether they are more prone to violence.

That is true

So how do you measure that?

Well one reasonable way would be to see how often they do it. It seems unlikely that people less prone to violence would do more of it, does it not?

I think violent crime statistics are probably a red herring, because you're talking of an uncontrolled situation with a multitude of different factors to take into account.

No. Instances of violence are recorded (not always and not perfectly) and it is a perfectly reasonable measure of violence. Unless you are arguing that there is a whole parcel of stuff which is violent but not criminal? Well I suppose that is true for troops in combat: what else you got?

It is certainly true that the source of the huge difference in instances of violent crime perpetrated by men and women is not at all clear in terms of causation. It has been suggested that female violence is less likely to be reported because men are embarrassed (possible but unlikely to outweigh the failure of women to report it for that and other reasons): or less likely to be prosecuted where it is reported (not seen any evidence so I cannot comment on that; though I find it vanishingly unlikely that women are not prosecuted for murder or other serious assaults, as others have said). Maybe. But this is mostly guesswork. What we do know is that focussing on male on female violence or vice versa leaves out the fact that male on male violence is very widespread too: lots of hospital A+E departments are full of those victims every night of the week: do you have evidence there are equal numbers of women there as victims of female violence? Did you look at the statistics posted in this thread (twice) and do you have any comment to make on this evidence?

Firstly, worth considering is that domestic violence constitutes a big chunk of violent crime statistics,

Yes

and there's already some good research indicating that offender statistics for domestic violence (overwhelmingly male offenders) does not reflect the reality (woman either equally violent or more violent than men).

Link please

Then you take into account false reporting - New Zealand Police estimate that between 60 and 80% of sexual assault complaints made by women against men are false. However as these are reported crimes, they still count towards statistics.

See above. That is ******** and I note in passing that the figure grows every time you tell it

I'd like to illustrate how distorting statistics can be.

Statistics do need to be used with care, that is not in dispute.

New Zealand has a separate offence category called "Male Assault Female" which is used specifically for domestic violence. There is no "Female Assault Male" category.

Then it is recorded as assault. What is your point? The issue is not about sexual assault, or about domestic violence: it is about the relative incidence of violence perpetrated be men and women. Are you suggesting that records of violent crime do not record the sex of the perpetrator? In that case the statistics are not detailed and comprehensive. Those details are definitely recorded in the uk as the links above clearly show

Further, very comprehensive and detailed crime statistics are available online for New Zealand.

See here.

Note that sexual crimes are recorded in their own category.

Yes. I have always wondered why because to me it is part of the reason that the attrition referred to above is so high. A violent crime is a violent crime and I see no particular reason to give sex crime a separate status. But that is irrelevant in any case is it not. For some reason you are intent of bringing this down to violence between men and women and that is not what the thread is about

Also note that the statistics I am looking at are for reported crime. It is important to remember that this does not mean the crime actually occurred, merely that someone said it did. I've already mentioned how high rates of false-reporting are for rape.

You are still wrong about the false allegations. But again, do you honestly think that the figures for reported crime are made of people wandering in off the street and saying there was crime? Do you understand that much of the attrition in ALL kinds of cases occurs when the report is "no-crimed"? Perhaps that is not true in New Zealand but unless you have the highest rate of recorded crime in the world I doubt it

There were 56,983 reported violent crimes in New Zealand last year.

And?

It is additionally worth noting that crimes can be violent in nature, but do not qualify as a violent crime (property damage being an obvious one).

While I was prepared to consider the inclusion of other types of definition of violence if you wanted to do that, I am not prepared to consider property damage as violence: the word loses all usefulness if you take it that far. You want to include jay walking cos it gives drivers a fright?

Of the 56,983 reported violent crimes, the largest categories were as follows:

Serious Assaults - 20,623 (36%)
Minor Assaults - 14,021 (24%)
Intimidation and Threats - 13,977 (24%)

Moving into Serious Assaults, you will see the category "Assaults By Male On Female" as a distinct category - these are all cases of domestic violence.

Most common Serious Assaults (out of 20,623):

Male Assault Female - 9,593 (46%)
Misc Common Assault - 5,442 (26%)
Assault With Intent - 1,857 (9%)

This indicates that domestic violence is a substantial percentage of violent crime, and is reinforced by statistics in other countries (about 20% of reported violent crime in the US is domestic, 16 - 25% in the UK).

Yes

Further worth considering is that statistically violent crime perpetrated by a stranger is more likely to be reported than violent crime perpetrated by someone the victim knows. This suggests that domestic violent crime is under reported compared with non-domestic violent crime.

No. See the other thread

The end result of all of this is that domestic violence makes up a substantial percentage of all violent crime.

It does

Once you take into account the discrepancy between reported crime statistics

What discrepancy? The attrition in cases of rape which no crime such a high percentage of reports?

and more detailed studies on domestic violence by gender,

Awaiting that link

what you're left with is a substantial flaw in using reported crime statistics to assess which gender is more violent.

Looking at domestic violence specifically is useful for answering the OP for several reasons.

1) There is comprehensive studies specifically looking at occurances vs reporting and gender roles in the violence
2) Domestic violence tends to be ongoing systematic violence which is a better reflection of a person's propensity to violence rather than one-off criminal acts
3) Domestic situations are common to most people in most socio-economic situations
4) Domestic violence generally is "violence-only" crime whereas many other violent crime happens in conjunction with or as a result of an escalation of another non-violent crime

You think there are no societal factors influencing the incidence of domestic violence? You think poverty and overcrowding etc etc have no effect on domestic violence but they do on other crimes? Why?

In this way, I'd argue that domestic violence situations offer a more controlled situation in which it is easier to assess the natural inclination towards violence of each gender.

I think "natural inclination" carries baggage, but even if I grant that is not what you intend I do not for one moment see how you can say that domestic violence is a purer indication of the tendency than any other form of violence.

While it may be that non-domestic violent crime by males is reflective of greater violence from males, there are so many other factors that can come into it, which require extensive research.

See above

And the research available indicates that women are equally violent if not more violent than men in domestic situations. I would argue this is compelling evidence that men are not more prone to violence than women.

Awaiting link

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is just one study that indicates that when it comes to domestic violence, it's pretty much 50/50. The major difference is that men can inflict greater damage and also take more damage. Women are more likely to use a weapon of some sort. Men generally won't admit to their female partner assulting them.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, lie la lie, lie la lie.....

OK, you could say that applies to me but I say it doesn't. I look at the leading cause of occupational death among women in the US and see it is murder. I compare the risks a woman faces of being murdered by her domestic partner and the number of men in jail for violent offenses compared to the number of women in jail for similar charges and see a huge discrepancy in numbers that is not explained by women "getting off" more easily. I compare female rapists to male rapists and see a huge discrepancy in numbers as well. I note that rape is considered a violent act, not a sex act by most experts who are familiar with the crime of rape. There is a rare female serial killer compared to many many male serial killers.

Then I look at the absurd attempt to equate those acts of violence with temper tantrums and door slamming supposedly because the only difference is strength which leads to more injuries.

Well I have one word for you PC sour grapes arguers here who think women are as violent as men because someone made this absurd argument and you liked the sound of it: WEAPONS. If the difference in violence between the sexes really were just a matter of brawn, then we females ought to be shooting the balls of the lot of you on a regular basis.

How many pounds of pressure do you think it takes to pull a trigger? Is gun violence equal between the sexes? Hell no.

I propose a different reason why brawn is not what explains the injury difference between the violent woman who doesn't hurt anyone and the violent man who does? Self inhibition. Women can slam doors and maybe throw a few drunk punches. Women can scratch and bite. But they don't do major bodily harm to the men they are violent toward because women are not that violent. It doesn't just take bigger muscles to really hurt someone. It takes lack inhibition stopping you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wonder who is guilty of violence towards their children more
- Fathers
- Mothers

This includes physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

I like gumboot's post. Most men are stronger than most women, so they can succeed in getting what they want physically. Women must use other methods that leave no physical evidence behind.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995

Who Are the Perpetrators?

No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims. In 2006, one or both parents were responsible for 75.9 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. Approximately 15 (14.7) percent of fatalities were the result of maltreatment by nonparent caretakers, and the remaining percentage (9.5 percent) represents unknown or missing information.

There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently, the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s, without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect.

These facts do not support your conclusion regarding gender violence.

 

[tyr_13]

Dear Thor, when did this become about men and women being better than each other?

So men are more violent than women, does than mean we can't talk about the ways women are violent? The ways that the preception of men as way more violent, or of women not being violent shouldn't be talked of? We can't discuss the influences of violence all around?

Besides, if weapons, I'm sorry, WEAPONS are the great equalizer, how come all the violence being committed by men and women against anyone more powerful isn't with a weapon?

Again, I'm not saying men aren't on average, more violent than women. But I am saying that just saying, 'yes, more men are in jail for violence' and closing the thread is a waste.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's a good issue that should be discussed, as it definitely influences the way that laws are written.

I believe that in Nevada whenever there is a complaint of domestic violence called in, the police HAVE to arrest one of the two parties by law. Interesting.

This is a common trend in domestic violence law and evolved from the science which showed too many cops were letting men off when women refused to press charges. The woman failing to press charges is part of the pattern of an abused person. It has the characteristics of an illness. So, rather than just letting the abuse pattern contribute to the persistence of abuse, the laws have been changed to be more effective in preventing the violence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Amd I bet 99 times out of 100 if they can't tell who was at fault they arrest the guy.

They arrest the person who inflicts injuries be it the man or the woman or both. So yes, if the woman has a black eye and the man doesn't have a scratch, the man is going to jail.

'Fault' is not the issue per se if you consider 'fault' as the initiator of the assault. 'Fault' is assigned to the injurer for the reason that it is not illegal to piss someone off. It is illegal to injure someone you are pissed off at.