Are men really more violent than women?

[Lonewulf]

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?

In what context? I can't give you a simple explanation.

Is the inhibition or lack of inhibition to cause serious injury a valid measure of level of violence?

Uh, I think? I'm not sure what you're asking here, but if you're asking me if someone hitting someone as hard as they could and not doing any damage can be compared to someone hitting someone as hard as they could and doing damage, then I do think the two can be compared, especially when such strikes are made in the heat of the moment when reason tends to fly away. While I'm no mind reader, I would speculate that the slapper/attacker would do more damage if they felt that they could get away with it.

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

Some slaps can be hard enough, and at an angle, where they can cause a broken nose. I'd know; my dad gave my mom a bloody nose with an open-handed slap.

So I guess?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, my interest in this thread comes from arguing this false portrayal of equal violence difference between genders in a past thread. The claim is absurd. Murder and serious injury inflicted on women by men cannot be compared as equally violent because some PC researchers created surveys listing every slammed door or slapped face in the same category as murder and assault. IT'S CLASSIC WOO technique. The claim women are as violent as men is as absurd as the claim water has memory. I'm sorry but it just is.

 

[Lonewulf]

Writing studies off as stuff by "PC researchers" is pretty wooish as well, in my view. Though you may be right, and the studies have absolutely no merit. Maybe.

And you are perfectly free to say what you think is absurd all you want.

Personally, though, when I say that men are naturally violent, it leaves a bitter taste on my tongue. I'm not really attempting to say that women are just as violent as men, but when I say that "men are violent" to begin with, it sounds pretty shallow and generic.

I can't wait until we download ourselves online and get away from the judging-people-by-their-chromosomes thing. Or ruled-by-testosterone/estrogen-thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In what context? I can't give you a simple explanation.

Uh, I think? I'm not sure what you're asking here, but if you're asking me if someone hitting someone as hard as they could and not doing any damage can be compared to someone hitting someone as hard as they could and doing damage, then I do think the two can be compared, especially when such strikes are made in the heat of the moment when reason tends to fly away. While I'm no mind reader, I would speculate that the slapper/attacker would do more damage if they felt that they could get away with it.

Some slaps can be hard enough, and at an angle, where they can cause a broken nose. I'd know; my dad gave my mom a bloody nose with an open-handed slap.

So I guess?

This answer demonstrates where we differ in this discussion. But I'm right and you are wrong.

You need to think a little more deeply about what it is that stops the average person from murdering when they are upset at someone. What is it that stops a parent who has lost his or her temper from injuring their child compared the the parent who injures the child when the parent's temper is lost? Are we all capable of shaking a crying baby or not?

I say we are not. Most angry people are inhibited from injuring a person or child or pet even if they slap or spank or lash out in some other way. Violence is not losing one's temper, violence is losing one's inhibition to injure. I assure you there is a big difference.

 

[Puppycow]

I love how people automatically shut off their ability to think and make assumptions about basic human nature based upon our social experiences.

Maybe instead of doing that you could offer up a tiny bit of evidence that the relatively small differences in testosterone between men and women actually cause a difference in violent behavior.

Are you serious? First of all, 'social experiences' are evidence.

 

[Lonewulf]

This answer demonstrates where we differ in this discussion. But I'm right and you are wrong.

Sigh. Alright.

I suppose I shouldn't have bothered to read or respond from here, really. What's the point? But I'll spend my time anyways, for motivations even I don't comprehend.

You need to think a little more deeply about what it is that stops the average person from murdering when they are upset at someone.

So now you're equating murder with a broken nose?

What is it that stops a parent who has lost his or her temper from injuring their child compared the the parent who injures the child when the parent's temper is lost? Are we all capable of shaking a crying baby or not?

I say we are not. Most angry people are inhibited from injuring a person or child or pet even if they slap or spank or lash out in some other way. Violence is not losing one's temper, violence is losing one's inhibition to injure. I assure you there is a big difference.

When did I state that everyone that loses their temper is necessarily violent? However, are you honestly stating that no one is more willing to inflict injury when angered as opposed to when calm? That one who injures another thanks to anger and being pushed over the edge must NECESSARILY be the same kind that would injure and kill in a cold blooded, calm fashion? I don't believe that, and I don't think the law works that way either.

Rage can be quite influential on a person's personality. It can cause an otherwise calm non-violent person to break out into a berserk rage when pushed over the limit, in extreme cases; I've known of a few individuals that have demonstrated such behavior, and later regretted their actions completely. You can say that they don't exist all you want... but they do, no matter what you say. And you can insist that you are right all you want; you cannot make them disappear in a puff of logic, like God.

However, I do believe that when one's temper motivates them into violence, women are less likely to inflict real injury than men, and when they lose their inhibition to injury and are motivated to strike or throw things, they don't commit grievous harm. And a more serious weapon is not necessarily at hand (or they don't think to grab it), and anyways, the desire to strike someone is not necessarily the same as the desire to stab or shoot someone.

That's some speculation, though, I admit.

It seems that you are suggesting that the desire to strike hard enough to cause a nose break is necessarily the same kind of motivation that would motivate a woman to stab or shoot someone, given your previous arguments, though.

 

[gumboot]

@ gumboot

Here is a reply to your sources:

Your response was so utterly worthless that I don't see much point in continuing. You completely failed to address any of the findings, instead focusing on throw-away comments from third parties that the journalists interviewed to accompany their reports on the studies.

In particular, you ignored the CDC study which found that 1) women were more likely to initiate violence and 2) men were more likely to be injured, and instead made a weak appeal to the fact that essentially if a woman is violent, because she can't inflict as much damage, it shouldn't be counted.

Lastly, with the homicide rating study you utterly misrepresented the data of your own source, ignoring their actual figures (which support the study you were attempting to refute) and instead quoting a generalised comment that didn't actually mean anything worthwhile (it was comparing intimate murders for each gender as a percentage of total murders, not comparing intimate murders for one gender with intimate murders for the other).

On the basis that this last study was false (which your own source indicates it isn't) you've decided to ignore all of the 200+ studies.

The only one displaying woo behaviour here is you. You clearly have a vested interest in arguing that women are not as violent as men in domestic situations (as you freely admit in your comments), and have no interest in any factual discourse.

My work here is done.

 

[gumboot]

It seems the crux of the disagreement here is one of deciding how you determine what violence is. I've said this before but I thought I'd say it again.

Those arguing that men are more violent primarily focus on outcome and measure a gender's relative level of violence with how much violence they inflict.

In contrast those arguing that both genders are relatively equally violent are measuring relative violence in terms of intent not outcome, in which case the relevant data is how often people behave violently, not what the outcome is of that behaviour.

So...

In the interests of resolving this impasse, I would like to appeal to KingMerv00 who posed the original question:

Statistics show that men are much more likely to be accused and convicted of violent crimes. Does this mean men are more prone to violence than women?

Based on the above two interpretations of violence, can you please clarify which of the two you were thinking of when you created the OP? Do you mean that men are more violent in terms of outcome or that men are more violent in terms of intent.

I suppose you could quantify it as:

"Are men more destructive"

or

"Are men more aggressive"

Thank you in advance for your clarification.

 

[Fiona]

Sadly I do not have access to many full articles as I am not a member of an academic institution. It would be great if those who do perhaps have access could review some of the citations because the methodology is being challenged here. It is really important in the context of this discussion to know what was actually done, in detail (well, it always is but in this debate the question is at the root of much of the discussion)

Having said that, it is easy to find abstracts which seem to show all sorts of things.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2008/00000023/00000003/art00003

(a) women's violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partners;

This is relevant because one of gumboot's references talks about "reciprocal violence" and I would like to know just what that means in both studies

in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents;

It may be that this only reflects the relative physical strength of men and women: or it may not. The question of inhibition remains open.

I say that because so far as I remember there has been some work done on the different manifestations of serious violence in men and women in the context of a defence of provocation or of self defence. Historically it has been held that such a defence is only available if the response is immediate and this has been shown to deny it to many women charged with serious violence against a partner.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ple-who-kill-partners-in-the-home-541055.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA53,M1

The problem is similar to that I mentioned in relation to educational achievement of black and white boys: a great deal depends on what is chosen to be considered. This is a complex issue and each side focuses on different aspects: predictably the various studies come up with different results because of that and again it is essential to look at methodology in detail; we are not in a position to do that but even if we were there would remain arguments about what is and what is not relevant. Those are to some extent philosophical questions though, again, some light can be shed on these complex matters through carefully designed research.

women and men are equally likely to initiate physical violence in relationships involving less serious "situational couple violence," and in relationships in which serious and very violent "intimate terrorism" occurs, men are much more likely to be perpetrators and women victims

I have to say that anecdotally this does not surprise me. Where there is trust within a relationship that each party has the normal inhibition against escalation to serious violence then I do not really know why would expect a gender difference here. After all partners are very annoying and in a safe situation anyone can lose their temper and do something horrible like fling a plate. But this raises Skeptigirl's question: are we comparing like with like? Despite Lonewulf's anecdote about the fight between his parents it seems clear to me that a person who is in fear of real injury is less likely to engage in this kind of behaviour (and the evidence from considerations about the meaning of "provocation" and Self-defence" does give some tentative support to that view. For me this is not gender specific. I have known men who will claim that they were "provoked" into serious assault against a woman because they have the kind of temper which leads to "red mist". Curiously many of those same men do not seem to suffer this complete loss of control when faced with provocation from a much larger man. So the notion that men are more often guilty of levels of assault against women which lead to criminal conviction because they "can" takes on a different complexion. But most men and most women are inhibited against such action against anyone: and, again, I would like to know more of the details about gumboot's "reciprocity" study.

women's physical violence is more likely than men's violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men's physical violence is more likely than women's to be driven by control motives;

It would be nice to see the full text of this article and the references which underpin this conclusion

 

[Lonewulf]

Curiously many of those same men do not seem to suffer this complete loss of control when faced with provocation from a much larger man.

While I wouldn't be surprised if some were lying, or there was something deeper into this, I DO know of at least one male that did fly into such a berserk state as to attack someone that was larger and more experienced in fighting, while flailing his arms in useless motions. The results were very predictable. He had a tendency towards such rages, although it sounded like he was more capable of rational thought in some than in others.

I think that states of anger do affect some people differently than others. I also think that many will use the "red mist anger" defense dishonestly, as it shoves off guilt from themselves.

However, there may be another factor in this altogether, that I feel is worth considering. In any case where anger is involved, there is a degree of escalation before the individual is pushed over the edge. The few people I knew that had a tendency towards powerful rages worked hard to distance themselves from most altercations, in the fear that it might affect them. There is a gap between "calm" and "rage" that's made up of "simply frustrated/angry" to "pretty darn angry", etc., and builds up to the more extreme kind of anger. I speculate that weaker individuals are more likely to distance themselves from stronger individuals, and will only respond if backed up into a wall and continually harassed. These are the situations where the people I mentioned often ended up attacking people stronger than themselves, usually as a result of schoolyard bullying.

Interestingly, the same individuals I talked with never mentioned attacking someone weaker than themselves. But then, we didn't talk about the subject for too long.

 

[Fiona]

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).

I cannot find a link to the study itself and it is not in the list of Gover's publications.

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:...er+domestic+violence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

Do you have access to the study itself because I am confused about some aspects of the report you have linked: in particular

Contrary to stereotypes, women can be just as likely to mentally and physically abuse their partners, according to two studies recently released by the University of Florida and the University of South Carolina. 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.

Although women were the predominant abusers, they still made up the largest number of victims in both surveys, accounting for 70 percent of those being stalked, for example.

Probably just bad reporting but those make no sense to me. The second quote is accounted for thus:

The reason more college men weren’t victims may be that women in the study did not exclusively date them, preferring men who had already graduated, not yet enrolled in college or chose not to attend college at all, Gover said. “It shows that students who are perpetrating these attacks aren’t just targeting other students on campus,” she said.

Do college men exclusively date college women, then? I can't make any sense of this and I really would like to see what we are talking about here.

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:

Just a quick point on this:

in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). "This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious," Whitaker and his group stressed.

How does this fit with your proposition that the disparity in injury is due to the fact that men are more able to inflict injury? And how does this fit with

http://www.doh.wa.gov/HWS/doc/IV/IV-DV2007.pdf

The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that intimate partners account for a third of female and 3% of male murder victims.8 These estimates are based on the two-thirds of murders for which we have information about the relationship. A Washington study found that in 2005, intimate partners accounted for half of female murder victims. The higher rates in Washington were largely due to counting ex-girlfriends in the Washington study but in not the national figures.9 Nationally, between 1990 and 2004, domestic violence homicides decreased by 66% for black male, 43% for white male, 36% for black female, and 15% for white female victims.8

The last link I gave was this one.

You did indeed.

Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988).

Abstract

Undergraduate students (N=344) completed measures of violence in dating relationships. While 85 percent of respondents reported opposition to violence in romantic relationships, 25 percent of the women and 7 percent of the men reported experiences of violence in dating relationships. Twenty-two percent of women reported being involved in acquaintance rape and 51 percent reported successfully avoiding acquaintance rape. (NB)

Is it your contention than women perpetrate attempted or actual acquaintance rape more than men?

Anderson, K. L. (2002).

Abstract

In national surveys, around half of intimate partner violence perpetrators are also victims of partner assaults. However, data on intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration are rarely examined together. This study examines the relationships between perpetration, victimization, and three psychosocial variables—depression, self-esteem, and substance abuse—that have been constructed in prior research as both causes and consequences of partner violence. Results indicate that associations between substance abuse and self-esteem and partner violence perpetration are mediated by controlling for victimization, but depression is associated with both victimization and perpetration. Associations between mutual violence and depression and substance abuse are greater among women than men, supporting the position that gender symmetry in reported violence perpetration does not imply symmetry in outcomes.

Archer, J. (2000)

Abstract

The following points are made in reply to critical comments on the author's meta-analysis of partner physical aggression (J. Archer, 2000): (a) The theoretical dichotomy used in the review is one clearly identifiable in published articles, and the distinction between acts (aggression) and consequences (violence) is clearer than alternative definitions involving victims' perceptions; (b) despite the database containing many samples of U.S. students, there were sufficient other samples to draw meaningful conclusions; (c) the Conflict Tactics Scale may be limited, but in contrast to suggested alternatives, it involves clearly defined categories; (d) sexual aggression, although forming an important part of partner violence, cannot legitimately be aggregated with nonsexual physical aggression; and (e) there is a marked contrast between sex differences in physical aggression toward partners and toward same-sex opponents.

Criticisms of his metanalysis include points I have raised above about whether we are comparing like with like

Archer, J. (2002).

Abstract

Meta-analyses are reported of sex differences in acts of physical aggression to heterosexual partners, derived from the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) [J Marriage Fam 8 (1979) 75], using methods based on standardized mean differences, and on odds ratios. Women were more likely than men to throw something at the other, slap, kick, bite, or punch, and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to beat up, and to choke or strangle. Differences ranged from very small to medium. Samples selected for marital problems showed large effects in the male direction, and student samples showed effects more in the female direction than community samples. Effect sizes derived from partners' reports were more in the male direction than those derived from self-reports, but the overall pattern of results was similar. A similar pattern of findings resulted from the use of odds ratios to derive effect sizes, although the magnitude of effects was greater. Limitations of the current CTS measures and the database are discussed.

I have already linked to an article on problems with the use of CTS measures.

Archer, J. (2006)

Abstract

n developed western nations, both sexes commit acts of physical aggression against their partners. Data from 16 nations showed that this pattern did not generalize to all nations. The magnitude and direction of the sex difference was highly correlated with national-level variations in gender empowerment and individualism-collectivism. As gender equality and individualism increased, the sex difference in partner violence moved in the direction of lesserfemale victimization and greater male victimization. A second analysis of 52 nations showed that 3 indexes of women%'s victimization were also inversely correlated with gender equality and individualism. Sexist attitudes and relative approval of wife beating were also associated with women%'s victimization rates, but general levels of violent crime were not. The findings are discussed in terms of a social role approach to variations in sex differences between cultures.

This appears to support the idea that violence is influenced by societal features including perceptions of the role and possibilities of women. Sadly this says nothing about outcomes and the reality of female empowerment as against the perception of it. It also curious to find that alongside this study, in the same year, the same author produced this:

Abstract

Research on testosterone-behavior relationships in humans is assessed in relation to a version of the challenge hypothesis, originally proposed to account for testosterone-aggression associations in monogamous birds. Predictions were that that testosterone would rise at puberty to moderate levels, which supported reproductive physiology and behavior. Sexual arousal and challenges involving young males would raise testosterone levels further. In turn, this would facilitate direct competitive behavior, including aggression. When males are required to care for offspring, testosterone levels will decrease. Testosterone levels will also be associated with different behavioral profiles among men, associated with life history strategies involving emphasis on either mating or parental effort. Most of these predictions were supported by the review of current research, although most studies were not designed to specifically test the challenge hypothesis.

It is not very clear at all what is relevant and what any of these findings mean

Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989)

This is a preliminary study and the sample was 23 couples. The only important fact about it is that it did attempt to met some of the criticisms of the CTS: but only in terms of measures of agreement between the parties: problems of what is included remain. The abstract does not do it justice however since it does not mention this modification

Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989)

Abstract

This investigation examined subjective evaluations of spousal aggression as a function of sex of the aggressor, severity of the violence, and sex of the respondent. Male and female respondents evaluated male violence and female violence equally. Forms of violence implying greater physical harm were evaluated more negatively, and all forms of violence were evaluated more negatively when the male was the aggressor. Both men and women who reported experiences as aggressors or victims in their relationships evaluated aggression less negatively than individuals with no history of violence in their relationships. Respondents offered similar situations legitimizing male violence and female violence.

Again this does not provide enough information about what kind of violence was actually experienced and it does not help us much, though again CTS was the tool and the problems with that have not been addressed

I do not have time to do more of this now but I urge those who are interested to have a look at some more of these: those I have looked as so far do not seem to unequivocally support the conclusions attested: and I really do think there is a problem in not separating out those cases where there is fear of real and severe physical injury from those where the sample is within the normal range of inhibited behaviour. So far I am not persuaded that these things are the same phenomenon

 

[Francesca R]

This is page 5 and the "evidence fight" is getting ever harder to follow.

Just maybe the sceptical method is not going to produce a situation where everyone is of one accord and in one place.

As an economist by inclination, I would like to set up a market in which there was a freely tradeable market price for male violence (event not intent . . .) And one for female violence. Like an insurance contract, such as those CDSs one hears so much about these days.

Then we could simply observe which one traded at the higher price and how much higher it was (It would be the male violence contract BTW )

Much easier than trying to do hard analysis on social science. (If anyone has heard of such a study, please let me know)

 

[Lonewulf]

When Stephen Colbert made Argument by Free Market, it was a joke.

When Francesca makes the same argument, it's no different.

 

[Francesca R]

By all means carry on your way. I know which one I think is the parody

 

[Lonewulf]

By all means carry on your way. I know which one I think is the parody

Ditto.

But if you want to demonstrate how your system could possibly work even remotely scientifically, please do so. By all means, educate those of us that aren't as wise and knowledgeable as yourself.

Namely, I would love to see how you can demonstrate the underlying reasons for violence, which is the issue at hand, at least the issue that I've been talking about through this thread (although I'm just sure you were paying attention)...

If, however, you think number of violent acts demonstrates innate violence, then I assume that you believe that African Americans are innately more violent than whites, thanks to genetics?

Actually, I don't even know why I'm responding with any questions at all. Your proposal is so innately ridiculous, it doesn't even rate a response. Why am I such a masochist?

 

[Lothian]

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.

So true, if the ultrasound nurse had not mistaken the right foot for a willie, things would have been so different for my sister, Humphrey.

 

[Francesca R]

Why am I such a masochist?

I dunno, are you the violent type?

You may reserve your false analogies and arguments from ignorance if you wish.

 

[Lonewulf]

I dunno, are you the violent type?

Something tells me that you do not know what masochism means.

You may reserve your false analogies and arguments from ignorance if you wish.

I see.

So no explanations or clarification of your position or your argument. Just like I thought; nothing more than a troll.

False analogies -- because assuming that men are naturally violent based on statistics alone (as you're doing with money; you are claiming that violence is statistically higher, and thus, that men are innately violent -- if you aren't, you're free to say so, but you don't care to clarify, so why bother?) is NOTHING like assuming that African Americans are naturally violent based on statistics alone. I'm sorry, but the only way that Sceptigirl could hope to attack this argument was by claiming that the stemming reasons were different, except that the stemming reasons for the higher rate of statistics is exactly what I am questioning.

Arguments from ignorance -- I'm afraid I fail to see where I made such a fallacy.

And you can save your Free Market fallacy, as well. Although the only time you aren't making such a fallacy is when you're posting sniping posts that do nothing but waste time. I'd say you could save those as well, but then, what could you possibly talk about?

Perhaps I should save us both time and simply add you to my ignore list. You saying nothing would be a vast improvement over your usual tactics.

 

[Lonewulf]

So true, if the ultrasound nurse had not mistaken the right foot for a willie, things would have been so different for my sister, Humphrey.

 

[ConspiRaider]

...as an economist by inclination, i would like to set up a market in which there was a freely tradeable market price for male violence (event not intent . . .) and one for female violence. Like an insurance contract, such as those cdss one hears so much about these days...<<i snipped this out, yep i did>>

..... Trky .. 59¼ ........ Darat .. 47½ ........ Grvy .. 109¾ ........ Jben .. 1500½ ........ Hoku .. 9¾ ........ Rady .. 2495¾ ........ Fran .. 3¼ ........ Hgal .. 2¾ ........ Gboot .. 71½ ........ Skgrl .. 5½ ........ Lwolf .. 212¾ ........