Are men really more violent than women?

[gumboot]

The problem with analyzing the thought processes of successful suicides is a lack of first-person after-the-fact testimony.

Other considerations might include making minimal mess, leaving an attractive corpse, causing minimal problems for other people, or making it look like it might have been accidental to spare survivors or for religious reasons.

Quite true.

 

[Lonewulf]

I find the number of people willing to ignore the obvious in favor of the PC claims that women are just as violent as men but [fill in the blank with some contrived reason] skews the results to be rather astounding. I've pondered why that might be but I only have hypotheses.

I find the number of people who claim the obvious and then state that it must be because of [fill in the blank with some singular reason that happens to be the One True Reason and no other possible factors and that other people are CrazyOMG to suggest otherwise] to be rather astounding. I've pondered why that might be but I only have hypotheses.

I also have hypotheses about people who make vague suggestions about hypotheses they make about other people.

But please, keep going on about how OMG PC we are. This amuses me.

 

[Fiona]

Did I say that? No.

Er....yes

f 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

I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of having done that. It's something that happens generally in society.

Ok. Not a problem then

the problem with this is the crime statistics only reflect the result of violence.

No. The crime statistics reflect the fact of violence. We have no other measure of violence than violence, do we?

The OP was referring to intention.

Not really. It talked about whether men were more prone to violence. I do not think that is the same thing as intent. You might leave your house with no intention to be violent at all. Something happens. You react violently: another person in the same situation does not. I think that makes you more prone to violence but it does not speak to intent at all

You could have a paralyzed person who was obsessively psychotically violent, yet because of a physical inability to actually commit violent acts, any crime statistics would not count him.

See the problem here? It's a question of intent versus outcome.

I see what you mean. I disagree. You cannot see intent and if there is no violence then there is no violence. Your paralysed person might be apt to fantasise about violence, and might be furiously angry all the time: but he or she is not violent. They might like to be: but they aren't. See the problem?

They're a good measure of who is being violent.

Yes

They're not a good measure of who is prone to violence. Crime statistics deal only with the end result, not intent and not cause.

I disagree.

"prone:5. having a natural inclination or tendency to something; inclined, disposed, apt, liable: 6: ready in mind (for some action); eager" (OED)

You appear to be arguing that we can assume the tendency to violence in the absence of any evidence it is there. You also seem to be arguing that it is not legitimate to infer from actual violence that the propensity exists. I cannot make sense of either position. It is much simpler to say that the fact of the violence is the best evidence we can have of the propensity. I see no reason at all to dismiss verifiable facts in favour of mind reading: but that is what you seem to be asking me to do. There is a reason we do not prosecute for intent but only for action. It is because we cannot know another's mind but we can know what they do.

I think I've accepted, from the start, that most serious violent crime is perpetrated by males. In my opinion that doesn't adequately answer the OP. I was attempting to address the other side of it.

I understand that. I just do not think you have any method of doing so and I do not think you have made your case

Think of it as two separate questions:

1) Which gender can be more violent
2) Which gender wants to be more violent

Crime statistics neatly answer 1) (there are issues about domestic violence, as discussed, but I think it still hold true that men are more violent) but Crime statistics do not answer 2).

Ok. You choose to ask the questions in a particular way which seems helpful to you. They are not obviously so to me. First you say:

1. Which gender can be more violent?

In the first place, as others have said, either gender can be violent. Weapons do make that equally possible for men and women, at least where guns are available. People have also given instances of women fighting with women, so there is nothing preventing women from being violent. Like men, they probably won't pick a fist fight with someone a lot bigger, but women are as variable in size as men are so there is nothing at all to prevent intra-female violence being perpetrated at the same levels as intra-male violence. We do not see this, however. It happens but at much lower levels, as Tanja's source shows.

Secondly, and despite your denial, you are now again arguing that capacity equals action. It does not. So your statement that the crime statistics answer this question is not true. They do not answer the question who can be violent: they answer the question who is violent. Not the same thing at all.

You then go on to ask

2. Which gender wants to be more violent. As a philosophical question that cannot be answered at all. As a practical matter, the only evidence of desire is the action which satisfies it. And that action is violence. Which brings us back to recorded instances of violence: ie the crime statistics. I do see that you wish to find some way of answering the abstract proposition: but I cannot see how you justify such an enterprise

However looking at a specific more controlled and better studied subset of violent crime - domestic violence - helps to give some insight into 2).


Study finds Women as violent as Men

Studies show young Women becoming more violent with partners

Summary of 246 scholarly investigations indicating that women are as physically aggressive or more physically aggressive than males in domestic relationships

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

And so on...

I have looked at the links you have provided. 3 out of 4 are reports rather than studies and it is not possible to evaluate them. The other is a summary of a number of studies. I have not time to try to find them and I do not know if they are available to me: but in passing I note that many of them use the CTS and I have already provided a link to a critique of that tool. It may have been modified to take account of some of the criticisms and you may be able to confirm this: I will be glad to look at any of these studies you can provide. But as others have said, much of this work is not comparing like with like and that is not a trivial issue.

It's ******** that New Zealand Police believe that, or what they believe is ********?

The latter

The first time I said "well over half". The second time I said "60 to 80%". How is there any discrepancy there?

Granted. But while 60% can be described as well over half quite readily: 80% is not something I would describe that way. But no matter. It is a trivial point and I accept that you are correct

URL="http://www.peterellis.org.nz/FalseAllegations/Opinion/2005/2005-0808_NZHerald_FalseRape.htm"]False rape complaints annoy police[/URL]
NZ Herald, August 8, 2005


False rape complaints tie up resources
One News, TVNZ, August 8, 2005

So one "senior officer" makes this estimate just after members of his own force have been accused of rape? And everybody working in the field disagrees. This does no more than confirm the evidence I cited in the other thread about police attitudes in rape cases and the role that plays in attrition.

I wasn't making a point, I was providing some background information so people unfamiliar with New Zealand law could follow the statistics.

Ok. I do not see how it related to the statistics you cited but ok

It's not, it's about propensity for violence in men and women. I've explained my reasoning for using domestic violence as an indicator.

You did indeed

No, I'm not.

ok

I'm not sure why you're getting so uptight about me merely pointing out some aspects of how crime statistics in New Zealand are recorded.

I am not. It was a personal observation.

You mean New Zealand detectives are still wrong about the false allegations.
More on the problem of false allegations in New Zealand.

The site appears to be a campaigning one for someone called Peter Ellis. I assume he is protesting his innocence of some crime. It is not really objective I think: though I make no comment on his situation, since I know nothing of it. I just do not see how it is relevant.

Yes. Reported crime statistics total numbers of formal complaints made to police.

Can you tell me a bit more about this process in NZ. I ask because there is evidence from all over the world of women being prevented from making formal complaints because of the attitude of the police. In this country this problem is being recognised and the procedures for dealing with rape complaints has changed though not enough: what is the attrition rate in NZ and what is the conviction rate. I have to say that with senior police officers going about saying 60-80% of complaints are false it seems likely to me that they are unlikely to make it easy to register a formal complaint: perhaps I am wrong and there are really good procedures for recording but I would just like that confirmed. Do you not have a mechanism for "no criming"? I have asked already but I do not see a direct answer

That's why they distinguish between "resolved" and "unresolved". Some of the false complaints will be "resolved" (about 300 women in New Zealand are charged every year with laying false sexual assault complaints - these are only the rare cases that expend so much police time that prosecution is initiated) and other false complaints will be "unresolved".

That does not really answer my question. Are all complaints registered formally or are some "no crimed" by the police as happens in most parts of the world? if they are what is the percentage?

Of the cases which are "resolved" how many are dropped by the prosecuting authority and at other stages, and what percentage come to trial? what is the conviction rate and how does it compare with other crimes of violence and with other countries, what are the variations in those figures in different parts of the country and how are they explained?

What does "unresolved" actually mean - pending trial? no suspect? or what? I

Of course you also get wrongful convictions such as the case of Peter Ellis who was convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse that any clown with a brain can see never occurred.

child sexual abuse is another matter entirely and it is clear this is a celebrated case in your country: no comment as I know nothing about it and I cannot see it is relevant at all

Your remark is ridiculous. Willful damage to property is quite obviously an act of violence, even using the most narrow definition of the word. The intent is to use force to cause physical damage to an object.

It does not seem ridiculous to me. I think you will find you cannot be charged with an assault on an object. Damage to property is not violence.

Your second sentence is incomprehensible. The discrepancy cited is specifically in relation to domestic violence.

what discrepancy?




See above.

Did I say that? No.

It seemed to be implicit in your case but I clearly misunderstood you. Apologies

Because data is less likely to be clouded by other factors.

I'm going to speak hypothetically here, because I want to illustrate the point in a simple way.

Let us assume that we have a set of data on violent crime, and it indicates that males commit most of the violence in society. But what if the majority of non-domestic violent crime results as an escalation, or as a component of, other non-violent crime. For example, a burglar breaks into a house to steal someone's television and surprises the owner, and causes injury to the owner in their attempt to escape.

Let's pretend that men are more likely to commit non-violent crime also.

It would then be possible that the higher percentage of males committing violent crime was not a result of men being more violent, but men committing more crimes in general - in other words it's not men that are more likely to be violent, but criminals, and men are more likely to be criminals (for reasons other than violence).

Now, all of the above could, of course, be totally false. That's why I said it was hypothetical. Another hypothetical could be that men are more likely to be criminals because they are more violent. But it illustrates the problems that you run into when you start looking at violent crime statistics.

Certainly.

This is why domestic violence is useful. Domestic violence, by its very nature, is a more controlled environment for study.

I do not think "controlled environment" means what you think it means

Both men and women are equally likely to be in domestic situations, and due to the nature of domestic situations the individuals in a given situation are going to be experiencing similar socio-economic influences.

No. The economic situation of a woman in an abusive relationship often bears no relation at all that of the man in the same house. Her social circumstance are also often vastly different

It is a confined environment - typically you're talking about small family units of a couple of adults and possibly children.

No. domestic violence takes place in the home. business fraud happens in the work place: burglary takes place in a home: all crime tends to take place in a confined environment - well maybe not mugging but most

You can easily isolate gender relationships - male-female, male-male, and female-female.

yes but they are informed by much wider things than that particular relationship

Further, most people, regardless of attitude, values, history, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, or any other factor, are in some sort of domestic living arrangement. Most (obviously) are not violent, so we can conclude there is nothing inherently violent about being in a domestic relationship.
(Contrast this with, say, belonging to a gang).

Yes. But then most people work somewhere and don't embezzle the cash: most people do not belong to a gang: a great deal of violence happens in or outside pubs. So what?

That's why domestic violence is a more useful sample for assessing a particular gender's propensity to be violent than simply counting up incidents of violent crime.

no.

 

[gumboot]

Er....yes

The quote you cited doesn't say what you think it says.

Not really. It talked about whether men were more prone to violence. I do not think that is the same thing as intent. You might leave your house with no intention to be violent at all. Something happens. You react violently: another person in the same situation does not. I think that makes you more prone to violence but it does not speak to intent at all

I see what you mean. I disagree. You cannot see intent and if there is no violence then there is no violence. Your paralysed person might be apt to fantasise about violence, and might be furiously angry all the time: but he or she is not violent. They might like to be: but they aren't. See the problem?

I understand what you're saying. I suppose it's a matter of how you interpret the OP. When I read it I thought of it in terms of a mental propensity to violence - a violent mindset. Violent action in itself doesn't seem overly useful to me as violence can be entirely accidental. When talking of whether men or women are more prone to be violent, I had assumed what was meant was a mental attitude of using violence.

I disagree.

"prone:5. having a natural inclination or tendency to something; inclined, disposed, apt, liable: 6: ready in mind (for some action); eager" (OED)

I fail to see how this definition works against my argument. It deals primarily with cause which is something not given by crime statistics.

You appear to be arguing that we can assume the tendency to violence in the absence of any evidence it is there. You also seem to be arguing that it is not legitimate to infer from actual violence that the propensity exists.

I don't understand what you mean by the first point, but I disagree on the second. Were this true, I would be arguing that men are not violent. I have not argued this. But this discussion is about the comparison between men and women. Crime statistics confirm that men are violent, but they do not confirm that women are not violent. Therefore they don't answer the OP.

I see no reason at all to dismiss verifiable facts in favour of mind reading: but that is what you seem to be asking me to do.

Nonsense. I have not dismissed crime statistics in favour of conjecture, I have focused on actual data that more readily answers the OP and doesn't have the same flaws as crime statistics.

Ok. You choose to ask the questions in a particular way which seems helpful to you.

How is it helpful to me?

First you say:

1. Which gender can be more violent?

In the first place, as others have said, either gender can be violent. Weapons do make that equally possible for men and women, at least where guns are available.

This is debatable (there are other issues to raise with guns) and guns are involved in a small fraction of violent crime so they're not overly significant.

People have also given instances of women fighting with women, so there is nothing preventing women from being violent. Like men, they probably won't pick a fist fight with someone a lot bigger, but women are as variable in size as men are so there is nothing at all to prevent intra-female violence being perpetrated at the same levels as intra-male violence. We do not see this, however. It happens but at much lower levels, as Tanja's source shows.

This is true, and a good point in your favour, however there is more to it than being "bigger or smaller than your opponent". Humans are by and large made of the same material, and by and large a minimum level of force is required to cause injury. If a woman has insufficient physical strength to inflict physical injury, it won't make much difference if she's attacking someone a little bigger or a little smaller than her - there won't be much damage. Violent crime offenses are established essentially by degree of damage inflicted, so this might explain a lack of female-female violent crime.

Secondly, and despite your denial, you are now again arguing that capacity equals action.

Nonsense. The first part addresses capacity, the second action. Why do people always make this basic mistake? (I get the same strawman arguments thrown at me when I talk about the topic of conditioning to kill).

So your statement that the crime statistics answer this question is not true. They do not answer the question who can be violent: they answer the question who is violent. Not the same thing at all.

Presumably those who are more violent can be more violent, so yes, it does answer that question.

You then go on to ask

2. Which gender wants to be more violent. As a philosophical question that cannot be answered at all. As a practical matter, the only evidence of desire is the action which satisfies it. And that action is violence.

This is incorrect. You can also use evidence of attempts to satisfy it. "Violent Crime" is not a universal statistic of all violent acts. For various levels of violence, minimum thresholds are required. A person can have violent intent, and can act in a violent way, yet inflict insufficient damage to reach a minimum threshold of violent crime.

I have looked at the links you have provided. 3 out of 4 are reports rather than studies and it is not possible to evaluate them. The other is a summary of a number of studies.

Will you at least accept that studies with these findings exist? I am all for assessing the validity of a study's findings but what you asked for was evidence of the existence of these studies. Demonstrating the validity of all of these studies is, of course, well beyond the practical confines of an internet discussion.

Granted. But while 60% can be described as well over half quite readily: 80% is not something I would describe that way.

I thought it wise to err on the side of caution. According to wikipedia this abstract looked extensively at a range of studies on false accusations in New Zealand, the UK and US from 1968 to 2005 and found an enormous variation in rates - from 1.5% to 90%.

So one "senior officer" makes this estimate just after members of his own force have been accused of rape? And everybody working in the field disagrees. This does no more than confirm the evidence I cited in the other thread about police attitudes in rape cases and the role that plays in attrition.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... police have been accused of rape, therefore a police officer who talks about rape is a liar? "everybody working in the field" doesn't disagree. My most recent post cites yet more examples of other officials and researchers presenting similar findings.

Ok. I do not see how it related to the statistics you cited but ok

Because I was specifically looking at domestic violence and that particular offense applies exclusively to domestic violence.

The site appears to be a campaigning one for someone called Peter Ellis. I assume he is protesting his innocence of some crime. It is not really objective I think: though I make no comment on his situation, since I know nothing of it. I just do not see how it is relevant.

Peter Ellis' case isn't really relevant to the thread, but their site keeps an ongoing index of media articles about false allegations, which is relevant to the specific topic of false rape allegations. The site isn't objective, obviously, however the news articles are real, not fabrications.

(For what it's worth the Peter Ellis case is probably the worst miscarriage of justice in New Zealand history - it's actually quite a fascinating study of how badly even a thoroughly uncorrupt legal system can fail)

Can you tell me a bit more about this process in NZ. I ask because there is evidence from all over the world of women being prevented from making formal complaints because of the attitude of the police. In this country this problem is being recognised and the procedures for dealing with rape complaints has changed though not enough: what is the attrition rate in NZ and what is the conviction rate. I have to say that with senior police officers going about saying 60-80% of complaints are false it seems likely to me that they are unlikely to make it easy to register a formal complaint: perhaps I am wrong and there are really good procedures for recording but I would just like that confirmed. Do you not have a mechanism for "no criming"? I have asked already but I do not see a direct answer

New Zealand used to be much like other western countries particularly with poor attitudes towards rape complainants but we've tended to be a bit ahead of most of the world in terms of woman's rights, and so the changes brought about by the feminist movement are pretty well established here. Further, New Zealand has a major domestic violence problem so in the past years a pretty substantial effort has been put into encouraging women to report domestic violence - last year domestic violence reporting surged over 30%.

Police have dedicated sexual crime investigation teams and they thoroughly investigate every complaint. In fact the reason police have complained about these false complaints is because they expend so much time and resources investigating them which takes resources away from genuine victims.

In terms of statistics, when a complaint is made police will ask the victim to fill out an official form detailing the complaint, and this is immediately logged as a reported crime. Police recognise that some victims may be scared to make a formal complaint, so in domestic violence situations independent victim support counsellors attend, take the victims aside, and talk them through the entire process to assure them that they will be protected and their complaint will be taken seriously.

In New Zealand, most crimes cannot be investigated unless a formal complaint is lodged.

That does not really answer my question. Are all complaints registered formally or are some "no crimed" by the police as happens in most parts of the world? if they are what is the percentage?

All complaints are lodged formally if the complainant chooses to do. I'm not sure what you mean by "no crimed". Do you mean the police determine no crime was committed? If you do, yes, this obviously occurs, however it does not affect "reported" crime statistics - these would be counted in "resolved" crimes.

Of the cases which are "resolved" how many are dropped by the prosecuting authority and at other stages, and what percentage come to trial? what is the conviction rate and how does it compare with other crimes of violence and with other countries, what are the variations in those figures in different parts of the country and how are they explained?

Resolved crimes are those for which the following has occurred:

(Statistics are for violent offences)

Family Conference Youth Justice - 382
Other - 3,011
Prosecution - 34,315
Diversion - 318
Warning/Caution - 8,439
Youth Aid - 2,096

Prosecution only includes those cases taken to court - conviction statistics are supplied by the Ministry of Justice. Violent crime statistics for 2006 (most recent) are as follows:

Prosecutions - 20,374
Convicted - 11,131
Discharged - 1,515
Not proven - 7,671

What does "unresolved" actually mean - pending trial? no suspect? or what?

Unresolved means the case is not solved - no one has been convicted of the crime, and police still feel a crime was committed. Bear in mind you get double-ups here because Justice statistics measure cases not crimes, so there can be multiple cases for the same crime if an initial suspect is found not guilty or if there are multiple offenders.

child sexual abuse is another matter entirely and it is clear this is a celebrated case in your country: no comment as I know nothing about it and I cannot see it is relevant at all

It was the first example of a wrong conviction which sprung to mind. It's only relevant insofar as pointing out the rather obvious fact that sometimes innocent people are found guilty of crimes.

It does not seem ridiculous to me. I think you will find you cannot be charged with an assault on an object. Damage to property is not violence.

Assault and violence are not the same thing. If you like, assault is violence against a person. The OP did not specify violence against other people, it just specified violence.

what discrepancy?

As outlined in one of my first posts - domestic violence statistics are skewed heavily against males due to the way they are dealt with by law enforcement.

I do not think "controlled environment" means what you think it means

A fully controlled environment has no undesirable variables. Obviously any real world environment is not going to be fully controlled, but there are a range of conditions between totally uncontrolled and totally controlled. It makes sense to attempt to use a model which eliminates as many variables as possible.

No. The economic situation of a woman in an abusive relationship often bears no relation at all that of the man in the same house. Her social circumstance are also often vastly different

I disagree quite strongly.

No. domestic violence takes place in the home. business fraud happens in the work place: burglary takes place in a home: all crime tends to take place in a confined environment - well maybe not mugging but most

This is incorrect, at least in my country. The overwhelming majority of violent crime either happens in a dwelling (the majority of which is domestic violence) or in a public place.

yes but they are informed by much wider things than that particular relationship

Of course, but it's easier to isolate violent action of individuals than it is in other contexts.

Yes. But then most people work somewhere and don't embezzle the cash:

Embezzlement isn't a violent crime.

most people do not belong to a gang:

Exactly.

a great deal of violence happens in or outside pubs. So what?

Most people do not spend any substantial period of time in a pub, and because the people involved are constantly changing, so too are the personal relationships involved. Not true of a domestic environment.

no.

I disagree.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Why when you hear the word weapon do you assume gun? Throwing a plate at someone is both using a weapon and violent, it's not likely to kill them, but it certainly is violence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Brilliant policy because it's totally impossible to injure yourself while attempting to attack someone else. I mean no way you can trip over the coffee table or cut yourself while waving a knife about. Nope just assume that all injuries are inflicted by the other person. Of course no way that injures can occur in self defence either. Nope, guys better just let themselves get hit and hope there is enough force to injure them cause if they push their attacker away and injure them, well they're the ones in trouble. Even better, if they both have injures, arrest the guy, same if neither have them.

 

[Tanja]

As outlined in one of my first posts - domestic violence statistics are skewed heavily against males due to the way they are dealt with by law enforcement.

Let me try again - the data I posted from the British Crime Survey is not based on recorded crime - it is based on a large survey of experiences of victimisation on a sample representative of the general population in the UK. One of the purposes the British Crime Survey is conducted is to try and establish "real" crime figures, as opposed to recorded crime figures.

The British Crime Survey indicates that:

• Domestic violence was the only category of violence for which the risk for women
(0.6%) was significantly higher than for men (0.2%). Risk of stranger and acquaintance
violence was substantially greater for men than for women; 2.1 per cent of men were
victims of stranger violence, compared with 0.6 per cent of women based on 2007/08
interviews (Table 3.01).
• Violence against men is much more likely to be stranger violence: 45 per cent of violent
incidents against men were stranger violence, compared with 19 per cent of incidents
against women. Conversely, 33 per cent of violent incidents against women were
domestic violence, compared with four per cent of incidents against men.
• In the majority of incidents of domestic violence the victims were women (85%) while
for incidents of stranger violence most victims were men (78%, Table 3.03).

Also, here is a paper which looked at New Zealand Police attitudes towards rape allegations.

 

[Francesca R]

Much as I disagree with Fran in other threads, I think this tack, the same one Lonewulf seems to have taken misses the point I made at the beginning: Sometimes the obvious really is the true picture.

Are you all suggesting we post links to the proof more men are in jail for violent offenses than women, more men murder, more men injure others than women, or do you think it's OK to call this a given?

I'm happy to be in agreement with you on an issue .

Some of this thread is quite a warped application of the principle of "sceptical analysis" and it simply highlights that the method has drawbacks, and that you can lie your arse off with statistics and data if you want to (neither of which are news). Men are more violent that women. To say otherwise is mumbo jumbo.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm happy to be in agreement with you on an issue .

Some of this thread is quite a warped application of the principle of "sceptical analysis" and it simply highlights that the method has drawbacks, and that you can lie your arse off with statistics and data if you want to (neither of which are news). Men are more violent that women. To say otherwise is mumbo jumbo.

Well, I'm certainly glad you all have it all figured out. I'm sure that you also draw the conclusion that blacks are innately more violent as whites; the statistics back you up, so it must therefore be evident, right? Or is it a "warped application of the principle of 'sceptical (sic) analysis'" just "warped" by OMG PC PEOPLE when they question judging by sex instead of by race?

I do find it interesting to see how you will justify either judging African Americans based on race alone, or find a way to describe why I'm using a "warped application" of "sceptical analysis" works one way but not the other...

 

[Ryokan]

Right. Murder stats, prison stats, gun violence stats, victim/perp stats..... a lot of unskeptical self evident arguments for sure.

Murder stats, prison stats, gun violence stats, victim/perp stats also show that blacks are overrepresented.

Do you also agree then that blacks are more inherently violent than white people?

If not, why not?

 

[Lonewulf]

Murder stats, prison stats, gun violence stats, victim/perp stats also show that blacks are overrepresented.

Do you also agree then that blacks are more inherently violent than white people?

If not, why not?

Hey! I got here first!

This DOES seem to be a question that's going oddly ignored...

 

[Ryokan]

Hey! I got here first!

This DOES seem to be a question that's going oddly ignored...

Sorry, I'll admit to not reading the thread through before replying.

But my post was clearer and directly to the point!

 

[Darat]

Oh well. I posted relevant excerpts from the British Crime Survey earlier today, and nobody commented on that data at all. Let me repeat: the British Crime Survey (largest organised survey of victimisation in the UK) indicates that men are perpetrators of about 87% of violent crime.

Or just continue bickering and never mind the numbers...

I wonder if that will change over the next few years given that there have been quite a few reports that claim that crimes of violence by females have been increasing at quite an astonishing rate (one figure quoted had the number increasing by 50% in 4 years):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7380400.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7550755.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7534779.stm

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, I'll admit to not reading the thread through before replying.

But my post was clearer and directly to the point!

Bah!

Want to pull a Skeptigirl and make various hypotheses as to why the question has gone unanswered so far?

I wonder if that will change over the next few years given that there have been quite a few reports that claim that crimes of violence by females have been increasing at quite an astonishing rate (one figure quoted had the number increasing by 50% in 4 years):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7380400.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7550755.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7534779.stm

As Francesca said,

[...] Some of this thread is quite a warped application of the principle of "sceptical analysis" and it simply highlights that the method has drawbacks, and that you can lie your arse off with statistics and data if you want to (neither of which are news). Men are more violent that women. To say otherwise is mumbo jumbo.

So she's already called your statistics LIIIIES. And mumbo jumboooo. :O

(Hm, in the mood for some gumbo now.)

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] there have been quite a few reports that claim that crimes of violence by females have been increasing at quite an astonishing rate (one figure quoted had the number increasing by 50% in 4 years):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7380400.stm

See, the picture in that story is Sonia Jackson off EastEnders, played by Natalie Cassidy, and two other actresses. That fight was completely made up and fictitious. Rumour even has it that the ladies concerned were paid to do it and make it look convincing. Talk about trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes . . . I'm not falling for that!

 

[Lonewulf]

See, the picture in that story is Sonia Jackson off EastEnders, played by Natalie Cassidy, and two other actresses. That fight was completely made up and fictitious. Rumour even has it that the ladies concerned were paid to do it and make it look convincing. Talk about trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes . . . I'm not falling for that!

Oh wow. An argument that either is a form of parody or satire, or is taken out of the book of a woo.

Okay. So... you are entirely disregarding the statistics and reporting of the *three* links thanks to the image taken of three actresses posted on one, to enunciate the story (and was entirely extraneous in the first place)? The first link wasn't even reporting the act as if it was real; the entire point was to enunciate the fact that women engaging in violence is more "shocking" than if men engage in an equal amount of violence (although I admit, it is somewhat shocking to hear of someone being pushed in front of a car, no matter the sex of the perp that did the pushing...) It went on to list statistics -- the exact same kind of statistics that Skeptigirl was so proud of when it demonstrated something else.

I really hope that you're simply engaging in parody and I'm just too stupid to see it, I'm missing something very major here, or something, because the alternative is true disappointment.

 

[Fiona]

I have very little time today but I do just want to say this: there is absolutely no reason to suppose that a propensity to violence is inherent: and if that is what you think I am arguing I deny it completely.

As with all social issues the situation is extremely complex and in my view it is folly to imagine that causation has been established: I do not believe it is possible to do that even in principle; though of course research can give us clues.

The problem here is nothing to do with causation: even if you believe that we could answer that in principle we are not there yet, are we? As this thread shows we are not even agreed that there is anything to investigate and that is what the op addresses.

There are those who are arguing that in some mysterious sense both genders are equally violent. If that is true then we have nothing to discuss after that fact is established. I do not think it is true and so far what we have as evidence of it is on the one hand a mystical attribution in the absence of behavioural indicators: and on the other some assertions that research into domestic violence shows that in that context women are equally violent. I have not had time to address the latter point properly but the evidence propounded so far is suspect on both methodological and interpretative grounds. Sceptigirl and others have dismissed it in shorthand but in fact what I have read so far does tend to support the idea that you can get to this conclusion only if you count "slamming doors" the same as "breaking jaws" (that is a bit of an exaggeration but it does make a serous point, and that point is so far ignored in this discussion. It has only been answered on the basis of greater physical strength but this is not adequate because some of that same research is claiming that injury is more severe in female on male domestic violence: we cannot have it both ways.

However that turns out (and I will give this more time when I have it) it is counter intuitive: science often is but if it is it needs to be robust because the evidence of violent crime is evidence and any alternative explanation not only has to be possible it has to be able to account for the other facts in at least a plausible way: there are many stories we can tell about how things happen: but in this case, again, we are not at the stage of explanation or interpretation: we are arguing about whether there are facts to explain. I think there are. I think the crime statistics cited show that there are: and I think they must be included if we are to discard those facts or reframe them.

I do not think those who blithely assert it is testosterone or social conditioning or anything else are necessarily wrong: but for the purpose of this thread they have skipped a stage. It is perfectly possible to skip that stage and to be honest a lot of us are weary of having to re-invent the wheel every five minutes: we are a bit more concerned in how to reduce the level of violence: less with philosophical speculation about its cause. And if that is your concern then having to continually "prove" that men carry out most acts of violence in our society at this time is frustrating: because so much evidence supports that conclusion. But hey ho: emotions run high and there is clearly a strong will to debunk that. I don't mind that and I will engage, but it is a bit like the search for a gay gene. Some issues never go away and are the subject of ongoing research long past the stage where that makes any sense at all. They are often emotive issues and this is not something that is likely to change. If such research eventually finds something which does not involve denying observable facts: which does not violate the normal rules of investigation and interpretation: which does not rest on semantics rather than substantive information: then that will be marvellous. But, while I will try to address any such evidence honestly, I have not seen anything yet which seems robust in face of cross cultural agreement about higher rates of male violence: careful collation of records of actual instances of violence in all sorts of contexts (crime statistics; hospital admissions of both genders; the evidence from actual behaviour in response to what appears to be well-founded fear of sexual violence as compared to fear of false allegations of sexual assault): and all the other evidence and anecdote which underpins this conclusion.

If we are to be truly sceptical a possible story is not enough: there has to be evidence and then a different interpretation which fits ALL of the facts better than the current one.

 

[Bikewer]

From my standpoint as a 40-year police veteran, I can count on one hand the number of assault cases I've handled involving women.
Whereas with men.....
In some social situations, it's almost a weekend sport. We used to get complaints as a result of arresting some of these individuals..."But officer, we wuz only fightin'!"

We are aware that female violence does occur, and if we refer to my comments about a bell-curve on the "transgender/genes" thread, I think we can safely assume that the curve would be wildly skewed when applied to violent behavior in women.

Anthropologists have studied "fighting behavior" in men, from the standpoint of the posturing and threat displays, to the fixation on the other party as the conflict escalates, to the initial attack. All this is pretty well studied, and seems to be an inherent set of behaviors, part of our nature. It is remarkably similar to the "fighting behavior" of our cousins.

Just from my standpoint as a longtime observer and report taker, it seems to me that when women do indulge in violent behavior, it is almost always as a result of desperation.
Almost all spousal murders are committed as a result of long-standing abuse, and often occur in self-defense to such abuse.
We are aware of an increase in violence among young girls, which most authorities lay to blame on gang culture and influence. If one is immersed in a situation where violence is the norm, it's not surprising that everyone who wants to be part of the group will be more prone to what the culture demands.

Women are certainly not incapable of violence. However, it seems that just common observation would indicate that they are far less prone to violence than are men.

 

[calebprime]

Thank you, Fiona and Bikewer, and I certainly was being glib.

 

[Lonewulf]

Thank you, Fiona and Bikewer, and I certainly was being glib.

Really? I didn't notice.

Hm, it's interesting how people seem to converge in packs around here. I might as well designate my own pack in this discussion.

Thank you, Gumboot, Darat, and Ryokan, and I certainly wasn't being glib, simply an asshat..