Are men really more violent than women?

[gumboot]

So what then, we just have poorer aim?

It can be possible to use a lethal weapon without actually killing someone (or even causing them harm)

This argument is pure bull as are the majority of the references you cited claiming women are just as violent domestically as men or more so. I debunked those sources in another thread which made these same BS claims. The studies you cited are lies published by groups such as the "Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men group that raises awareness of gender inequalities".

All of the studies I have cited are from legitimate researchers conducting genuine research, not interest groups.

Explain why women are seriously injured and murdered by their male partners at such higher rates than men are seriously injured and murdered by their female partners?

Men are (generally) capable of inflicting substantially more damage than women.

The number of men here includes men killed by male domestic partners. The number of Lesbians who killed domestic partners is minimal.

Physiologically it's really no easier to kill a woman than it is to kill a man. It's the gender of the offender that makes the difference, not the gender of the victim.

The exception is, of course, children, and both mothers and fathers are equally likely to kill their children.

 

[Fiona]

The exception is, of course, children, and both mothers and fathers are equally likely to kill their children.

That is perfectly true but the picture is far from simple. In the first place the numbers are small. Secondly the instances of child murder form a u shaped curve when plotted against the age of the child: infants are very much more at risk than any other age group, with those in middle childhood least likely to be killed. Third this does not speak to the relative incidence of violence between men and women because it excludes those children killed by a step parent: these are a smaller percentage than those killed by biological parents but they still represent a signficant proportion of child murders: and they are overwhelmingly male step parents.

http://www.dewar4research.org/docs/chom.pdf

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/Statistics/KeyCPStats/4_wda48747.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, there does seem to have been some controversy as to the aggression part of steroid use (there are side effects of steroid use that have nothing to do with increased aggression, after all), although I'm pretty darn persuaded by the evidence.

I am not immune to being wrong, after all.

None of us are.

 

[gumboot]

This argument is pure bull as are the majority of the references you cited claiming women are just as violent domestically as men or more so. I debunked those sources in another thread which made these same BS claims. The studies you cited are lies published by groups such as the "Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men group that raises awareness of gender inequalities".

I'm going to reproduce my post in another thread which responds to the above post.

...


Study finds women as violent as men

This is a news article on a website for Webster University which discusses the findings of a study published by Harvard Medical Publications.

The journalist compliments the study with comments from various people including people from the University who deal with the subject, and two interest groups.

The publication in question is here and cites the study:

Whitaker DJ, et al. "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury between Relationships with Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence," American Journal of Public Health (May 2007): Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941–47.

A quick Google Search seems to indicate this Whitaker person has got quite a few studies published in reputable journals. Interest group? Doesn't look like it.

This was the second reference which refers to a study conducted by the University of Florida and University of South Carolina.

Obviously "male matters" is an "interest group" but what about the University of Florida itself?

(The UF article is directly linked from the first article).

This article, as well as quoting the people who conducted the study, cites a second study conducted by the University of Florida with similar results.

Interest group? Maybe you can email the people who conducted the study and ask them (emails given at the end of the article).


I also cited this article from the American Psychiatric Foundation which was also looking at DJ Whitaker's work, and provided additional information about the study, and who this Whitaker was:

These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health.

So apparently the US Government is an "interest group" and their nationwide study can be dismissed on the face of it as "crap information" from "begrudging activists groups"

For what it's worth the CDC is widely regarded as one of the leading organisations for health research in the world.

The last link I gave was this one.

It is entitled:

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

And is assembled by Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach.

His resume is extensive. "Interest group"?

Anyway, back to the list.

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 246 scholarly investigations: 187 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 237,750.

Now, I haven't read all 246 of these investigations, but scanning through them briefly, the overwhelming majority cite publication in respectable peer-reviewed journals. This summary provides a brief account of sample sizes and findings.

Now, it could be that all of these are just "interest groups" presenting "crap information" and that Dr. Fiebert is himself part of these deceitful interest groups, but frankly I find that rather hard to swallow, and it would seem to suggest that quite a few reputable medical journals have lowered their standards somewhat.

These studies include some like:

White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 487-508.

Which the summary describes as:

A review and analysis which acknowledges that "women equal or exceed men in number of reported aggressive acts committed within the family." Examines a variety of explanations to account for such aggression.

These studies cover an expansive period of time and have been conducted in numerous different countries.

 

[gumboot]

Third this does not speak to the relative incidence of violence between men and women because it excludes those children killed by a step parent: these are a smaller percentage than those killed by biological parents but they still represent a signficant proportion of child murders: and they are overwhelmingly male step parents.

I might point out that mothers are overwhelmingly given custody of children in a parental dispute, thus children are overwhelmingly exposed to step-fathers compared with step-mothers.

 

[bpesta22]

I'm not sure this has been mentioned but one research area that can be valuable in resolving the issue relates to how CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) affects behavior.

CAH people are exposed to high levels of male hormones while developing in the womb. Psychologists follow these people around to see if they differ from "normals".

CAH females, for example, are more aggressive than normal females; more likely to prefer "male" toys and more likely to be lesbian.

Here's a few abstracts on CAH and aggression levels if anyone's interested:

Early androgen effects on aggression in children and adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
BERENBAUM S. A. (1) ; RESNICK S. M. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)

Résumé / Abstract
Males are more likely than females to show aggressive behavior across species, ages, and situations, and these differences may be partly influenced by early hormones. We studied aggression in three samples of subjects with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who were exposed to high levels of androgen in the prenatal and early postnatal periods. Controls were siblings and first cousins similar in age. In Sample 1, adolescents and adults completed the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), which includes an Aggression scale. In Sample 2, adolescents and adults completed the MPQ and a paper-and-pencil version of Reinisch's Aggression Inventory. In Sample 3, parents rated the aggression of children aged 3-12, using a modification of Reinisch's Inventory. In all three samples, control males had higher aggression scores than control females. Further, as predicted, females with CAH had higher aggression than control females, but the difference was significant only in adolescents and adults. These results suggest that early androgens contribute to variability in human aggression.


Increased aggression and activity level in 3- to 11-year-old girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH).

Experimental research in a wide range of mammals has documented powerful influences of androgen during early development on brain systems and behaviors that show sex differences. Clinical research in humans suggests similar influences of early androgen concentrations on some behaviors, including childhood play behavior and adult sexual orientation. However, findings have been inconsistent for some other behaviors that show sex differences, including aggression and activity level in children. This inconsistency may reflect small sample sizes and assessment limitations. In the present study, we assessed aggression and activity level in 3- to 11-year-old children with CAH (38 girls, 29 boys) and in their unaffected siblings (25 girls, 21 boys) using a questionnaire that mothers completed to indicate current aggressive behavior and activity level in their children. Data supported the hypotheses that:
(1) unaffected boys are more aggressive and active than unaffected girls; (2) girls with CAH are more aggressive and active than their unaffected sisters; and (3) boys with and without CAH are similar to one another in aggression and activity level. These data suggest that early androgens have a masculinizing effect on both aggressive behavior and activity level in girls.


Effects of Early Androgens on Sex-Typed Activities and Interests in Adolescents with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia*1
Sheri A. Berenbaum 1999

The goal of this study was to examine the relation of early androgen exposure to sex-typed activities and interests in adolescence. Participants aged 9–19 years included 24 girls and 18 boys with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and 16 unaffected sisters and 24 unaffected brothers who served as controls. Using standardized questionnaires, adolescents reported on their participation in sex-typed activities and interest in sex-typed occupations, and parents reported on the adolescents' activities. As hypothesized, girls with CAH showed sex-atypical preferences: increased interest in male-typical activities and careers and reduced interest in female-typical activities and careers compared to the unexposed control girls. These results extend findings of sex-atypical play in young girls with CAH and suggest that the sex-atypical activities and interests of females with CAH reflect direct effects of androgens on the developing brain rather than social responses to virilized genitalia. These results also suggest that population sex differences in activities and interests arise in part from sex differences in early androgens.

 

[Lonewulf]

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

So, anyone care to tackle this?

If social surroundings and upbringing is a "contrived reason" as Skeptigirl seems to claim, can someone explain the increase in violence amongst female youth in this case?

 

[bpesta22]

I think social surroundings matter-- Low income upbringing likely leads to higher violent crime. But, I'd bet raising different people in the same environment would produce individual differences in aggression levels.

The environment you're in might determine overall levels of aggression but I doubt it would change individual differences in aggression levels.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think social surroundings matter-- Low income upbringing likely leads to higher violent crime. But, I'd bet raising different people in the same environment would produce individual differences in aggression levels.

The environment you're in might determine overall levels of aggression but I doubt it would change individual differences in aggression levels.

What do you mean by environment? Even under the exact same household, with the exact same income level of the parents, there are obvious differences between raising a boy and raising a girl in the average family, even while in the crib. As soon as Ultrasound determines whether it's a boy or a girl, that's already made the average family's plans on how to treat the child, what color of clothing to purchase, and what "identity" to give the child, more or less. The differences between the two are started even in the earliest stages of childhood psychology -- is that not true?

Boys are encouraged to go one way and are accepted when they do certain things. Girls, are encouraged to go another way and are accepted when they do certain things. When the two start to cross, they're often marked as "different"; tomboys and girly boys come to mind. There will always be at least some social pressure to not be marked as "different", far as I can tell.

Of course I'm simplifying, and I know some people are going to lash at me that I'm too black and white about this. I'm not attempting to be; it's part of the problem when talking averages, though. However, I think that a lot of parents (and society in general) do encourage a common divide in overall identity even from birth, resulting in two very different kinds of environment and upbringing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I might point out that mothers are overwhelmingly given custody of children in a parental dispute, thus children are overwhelmingly exposed to step-fathers compared with step-mothers.

That's a reasonable point. It doesn't negate all the rest of the examples of violence in men being greater than violence in women, but it certainly bears consideration in violence of men against children.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What do you mean by environment? Even under the exact same household, with the exact same income level of the parents, there are obvious differences between raising a boy and raising a girl in the average family, even while in the crib. As soon as Ultrasound determines whether it's a boy or a girl, that's already made the average family's plans on how to treat the child, what color of clothing to purchase, and what "identity" to give the child, more or less.

Boys are encouraged to go one way and are accepted when they do certain things. Girls, are encouraged to go another way and are accepted when they do certain things. When the two start to cross, they're often marked as "different"; tomboys and girly boys come to mind....

Yes, this is what I have observed also. But it isn't explicable simply based on environmental exposure. A good friend of mine had her daughter the same time as I had my son. We are both liberal minded women, we were both single parents having split with our children's fathers before our kids were born and had both been university students together in the nurse practitioner program getting our master's degrees. We both found it fascinating that despite our social views, her daughter expressed an early interest in Barbies and all the girl things and my son had the usual interest in cars, Batman and boy things. These kids were influenced by the outside from their earliest years but at the same time, some of it was clearly genetic.

I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is the evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact our kids were influenced as much by the genetics of their gender as they were by social influences. My friend was unhappy her daughter was so into Barbies. She accepted it though reluctantly. By the same token, homosexual children exhibit different behavior from very early ages. If it was just socialization, this would not be the case. You just cannot explain this behavior strictly on the basis of what kids are exposed to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think social surroundings matter-- Low income upbringing likely leads to higher violent crime. But, I'd bet raising different people in the same environment would produce individual differences in aggression levels.

The environment you're in might determine overall levels of aggression but I doubt it would change individual differences in aggression levels.

There is a correlation between dysfunctional families, low income and violence. But it is the dysfunctional family that correlates with the violence more than it is the income variable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, anyone care to tackle this?

If social surroundings and upbringing is a "contrived reason" as Skeptigirl seems to claim, can someone explain the increase in violence amongst female youth in this case?

You are taking what I said and misapplying it to this data showing an increase in girls getting in trouble for violence in the UK. Again, you are ignoring the variables responsible for this matter and assuming it is evidence men and women are inherently equally violent.

 

[Lonewulf]

You just cannot explain this behavior strictly on the basis of what kids are exposed to.

Well, ignoring that your observation was an anecdotal single case, I never claimed that the behavior was strictly on the basis of exposure. But to deny exposure having any influence is equally disingenuous.

So where's the divide between social surroundings, upbringing, and environment, and evolutionary pressure?

You are taking what I said and misapplying it to this data showing an increase in girls getting in trouble for violence in the UK. Again, you are ignoring the variables responsible for this matter and assuming it is evidence men and women are inherently equally violent.

Educate me then. What are the variables responsible that I'm ignoring for this matter?

And I do see it as evidence that social circumstances can influence how violent a person acts, yes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@ gumboot

Here is a reply to your sources:

Besides the fact most of these are not primary sources....

Study finds women as violent as men

"A woman's slap stings, a man's punch can break a jaw," Conway-Long said in an e-mail.

The assumption here is that the only variable is the weakness of women over the strength of men. But there is another variable. A woman who slaps knows she is not going to seriously injure a person. A man who punches cannot make that claim. You cannot equate the two behaviors in terms of level of violence. A previous claim cited said women were more likely to use weapons. One should expect then to see the same number of dead men at the hands of violent women. Yet you see no such thing.



Domestic violence: Not Always One Sided

The authors say they have no intention of minimizing the very real problem of serious domestic violence — the classic male batterer. The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering. Domestic disputes that turn physical because of retaliation and escalation do not have the same causes or the same consequences as male battering.

STUDIES SHOW YOUNG WOMEN BECOMING MORE VIOLENT WITH PARTNERS

Soon there was shoving, slapping and kicking....However, the amount of battered men in the United States is still lower than women and male abusers are much more likely to kill or seriously injure their victims.

Women more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as well as victims

“Often women are more emotional because the relationship matters a lot to them, and while that may come out in a push or a shove or a grab, all of which are considered dating violence, it doesn’t have the effect of intimidating the man.”

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence This study finds all sorts of female violence against men. Once again, if you count minor injuries you get different data than if you count serious injuries. The problem is this kind of data collection negates the crucial variable, does the instigator restrain themselves when they know the potential for serious injury is present? And is that violence really equal to violence when the perpetrator knows the potential for serious injury is likely? It is not!



REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY There are too many studies here to look at so I just took the first and the last one.

Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.)

Same old crap, equating slapping to serious assault.



And the last

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

That seems rather astonishing so I looked for the data.

I found Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001 which cited quite different numbers.

In recent years, generally, about 33% of female murder victims but 4% of the males were killed by an intimate.

...Note: Categories used for intimate in this table are spouses, former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends (including homosexual relationships). Sources: FBI, Supplementary Homicide
Reports, 1976-2000 and <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates>

I have to wonder if the source cited in your article, gumboot, is telling the truth. It would appear they are not.



Martin Fiebert Ph.D. Not sure what this link was supposed to prove.
FACULTY PROFESSIONAL RESUME; October, 2008; MARTIN S. FIEBERT Or this one.

Again, unless you can show that slapping is the same as severe beating when the perpetrator obviously knows one action can seriously injure while the other cannot then you cannot equate the acts of violence. You have not accounted for this variable. Citing the qualifications of this researcher is not relevant to that question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, ignoring that your observation was an anecdotal single case, I never claimed that the behavior was strictly on the basis of exposure. But to deny exposure having any influence is equally disingenuous.

So where's the divide between social surroundings, upbringing, and environment, and evolutionary pressure?

Educate me then. What are the variables responsible that I'm ignoring for this matter?

And I do see it as evidence that social circumstances can influence how violent a person acts, yes.

Of course social circumstances influence violent behavior. The question is, are there variables which specifically influence male vs female violence, not which variables simply influence levels of violence.

There are clear differences in male vs female violence.

The data is clear on who gets injured more. If it were simply a matter of relative strength you would expect to see just as many men killed by women using lethal weapons as women killed by men. You see no such thing.

If you want to negate that variable claiming women are not socialized into using weapons like men are, you also negate your claim women are as violent as men.

There are clear differences between men and women when it comes to violence in war, in crimes committed, in occupations, in history, in evolution... there is an unmistakable pattern here.

The studies purporting to show women are just as violent than men if not more so that are continually trotted out by activist men's groups and those who blindly accept such data are missing one key consideration. If a woman hits a man that woman knows she is not going to seriously injure that man. To assume that equates to the level of violence which results in an actual serious injury or death ignores the things in our personalities which prevent all of us from murdering or seriously injuring another person.

Have you ever hit your dog with a newspaper or smacked your kid on the behind? Is that the same violent behavior as someone who punches a child with brute force or kicks a dog across the room? Of course not! Because we know the difference and most of us couldn't lash out in a way that hurt a person or an animal. To equate any violent behavior with all violent behavior is ludicrous. It is a researcher looking to find evidence which supports their hypothesis not a researcher looking to see what the evidence actually shows.

 

[Lonewulf]

Anecdote alert:

I remember an incident vividly in which my mother and my father were arguing. My father was, without question, an abuser, and I defend him in no way; I am merely explaining what I observed.

However, my mother, in anger, slapped him three times, with no effect. She did so as strongly as she could, I believe.

My father struck her with force in response, sending her to the ground and crying; his was an open-handed slap, the exact same kind she used. She may have fell because of shock, I'm not sure, but I do remember falling. This was an incident burned into my mind.

This incident seems to show to me the relative strength of the two, and the immediate effects. If she was the stronger, he would have been forced to the ground.

I fail to see how my mother was "hitting a dog with a newspaper" or "smacking a kid on the behind", personally. I'd also question which police are most likely to arrest for: The man slapping a woman hard enough to cause a welt, or the woman slapping the man hard enough to annoy him, even though I fully believe that they were slapping with an equal amount of intended force.

 

[Lonewulf]

Of course social circumstances influence violent behavior. The question is, are there variables which specifically influence male vs female violence, not which variables simply influence levels of violence.

Okay.

But if variables can increase female violence, that certainly does seem to be evidence that females can be affected by social variables, adding more weight to the idea of social influence biasing one gender identity in one direction and the other in another; and in a particular case, the female identity seems to have been able to be socially influenced into increasing violence rates.

The data is clear on who gets injured more. If it were simply a matter of relative strength you would expect to see just as many men killed by women using lethal weapons as women killed by men. You see no such thing.

Even if that were so, that STILL means that assault without a deadly weapon and violent rape would still be affected, no matter what.

If you want to negate that variable claiming women are not socialized into using weapons like men are, you also negate your claim women are as violent as men.

??? I don't follow.

I believe that women are not very socialized into embracing violence in general, including with violent weapons; you buy the boy a GI Joe toy and the girl a Barbie.

I fail to see how you conclude that claiming that there is a variable for women not socialized into using weapon demonstrates that women are, innately and through instinct alone, less violent than men? That seems rather silly to me. I must be missing something?

The studies purporting to show women are just as violent than men if not more so that are continually trotted out by activist men's groups and those who blindly accept such data are missing one key consideration.

Ah, the age old claim that any studies that demonstrate what you don't want to see are biased studies made by activists...

Very familiar.

If a woman hits a man that woman knows she is not going to seriously injure that man.

That certainly doesn't seem to keep them from trying, as reported by women throwing things at men in anger; which often don't go reported, as far as I know.

To assume that equates to the level of violence which results in an actual serious injury or death ignores the things in our personalities which prevent all of us from murdering or seriously injuring another person.

Men are arrested for giving a woman a broken nose. A woman is not arrested for annoying a man with a slap. Neither is murder or serious injury.

I'd also say, as in the case of me witnessing my mother slapped my father my father, that there are circumstances where reason flees in the face of anger. I honestly believe that if my mother could affect my father with the equal force of his own slap against her, she would have done so. That's the way I see things.

(And I wouldn't blame her, but that's neither here nor there...)

Have you ever hit your dog with a newspaper or smacked your kid on the behind? Is that the same violent behavior as someone who punches a child with brute force or kicks a dog across the room? Of course not! Because we know the difference and most of us couldn't lash out in a way that hurt a person or an animal. To equate any violent behavior with all violent behavior is ludicrous. It is a researcher looking to find evidence which supports their hypothesis not a researcher looking to see what the evidence actually shows.

Okay. But in certain fields, there is an obvious biological difference, that should not go ignored in my mind.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. Based on the studies I've seen, statistically it isn't even close. Since women have entered the work place, gained independence and closed the gap in so many areas the one area they have not closed the gap as much is violence. There are sociological reasons for this but it appears to be primarily caused by genetics. The sociological component is likely, largely, itself the bi-product of genetics.

Gender and Crime - Similarities In Male And Female Offending Rates And Patterns, Differences Between Male And Female Offending Patterns.

Gender is the single best predictor of criminal behavior: men commit more crime, and women commit less. This distinction holds throughout history, for all societies, for all groups, and for nearly every crime category. The universality of this fact is really quite remarkable, even though many tend to take it for granted.

Also, it's understood from an evolutionary perspective and can be seen in the wild of social animals including chimps. Male chimps will from time to time go on raiding parties where they find and kill non-member chimps in very violent fashion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lonewulf, I can't see that you have addressed my point. Would you please address the issue, what stops a person from seriously injuring another? Is the inhibition or lack of inhibition to cause serious injury a valid measure of level of violence?

And surely you cannot be equating a broken nose with a slap?