Are men really more violent than women?

[Lonewulf]

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

What, no Lwlf? Or Lonf? Or, uh, however the hell you shorten my name; Lwulf?

There's always my alternative name, Fluwenol.

 

[ConspiRaider]

What, no Lwlf? Or Lonf? Or, uh, however the hell you shorten my name; Lwulf?

There's always my alternative name, Fluwenol.

Sorry about that, Chief. I updated the ticker just before the market closed.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry about that, Chief. I updated the ticker just before the market closed.

OH SNAP! I was going to sell! Or buy! Or whatever you do when you have over a hundred!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND STOCKS!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Amazing. I can see the bigger picture here and I thought I explained it sufficiently that folks would say, ah ha! I get it.

But I know that is never the most likely scenario when people are holding fast to their original positions.

Lonewulf, I put that in there for a reason. Your reply ignored my stated position that I was simply recognizing where we were differing in this argument. You haven't accepted my position and I don't accept yours. But we remain people of equal worth.

I'm trying to address the meat of the disagreement here. Everything else is just talking past each other. Sometimes more data is not useful. In this case unless we recognize each side is defining the measure of violence differently, all the data in the world is not going to support one conclusion over the other.

So what counts as violence? I say lack of inhibition to harm is the key component. Lonewulf and others are saying it is not relevant and the physical action is all that matters.

If we agreed on this underlying premise, we'd agree with the research conclusions being offered as supporting evidence. But we don't. So all the studies in the world showing the rate women hit men (or whatever) and the rate men injure women are never going to convince the other side.

 

[Lonewulf]

Amazing. I can see the bigger picture here and I thought I explained it sufficiently that folks would say, ah ha! I get it.

But I know that is never the most likely scenario when people are holding fast to their original positions.

I apologize if I did not understand what you were meaning to say.

Lonewulf, I put that in there for a reason.

Okay; I thought that it might have indicated facetiousness or humor, but I've come to get used to emoticons being used even when none is intended.

Your reply ignored my stated position that I was simply recognizing where we were differing in this argument. You haven't accepted my position and I don't accept yours. But we remain people of equal worth.

Well, I'm flattered that you would consider me of equal worth, at least.

I'm trying to address the meat of the disagreement here. Everything else is just talking past each other.

That's true.

Sometimes more data is not useful. In this case unless we recognize each side is defining the measure of violence differently, all the data in the world is not going to support one conclusion over the other.

Very true.

So what counts as violence? I say lack of inhibition to harm is the key component. Lonewulf and others are saying it is not relevant and the physical action is all that matters.

To a degree, I suppose. My premise is that if a woman could, in the moment she attacked the man, suddenly grow stronger and do damage, that they may very well consider it in the moment. This involves a bit of "mind reading", and is speculative, but I stand by my perception.

If we agreed on this underlying premise, we'd agree with the research conclusions being offered as supporting evidence. But we don't. So all the studies in the world showing the rate women hit men (or whatever) and the rate men injure women are never going to convince the other side.

That's true.

Very well, I understand what you are saying now.

Ah hah and such.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...To a degree, I suppose. My premise is that if a woman could, in the moment she attacked the man, suddenly grow stronger and do damage, that they may very well consider it in the moment. This involves a bit of "mind reading", and is speculative, but I stand by my perception....

But we can do better than mind reading here. We can look at how people act when they do have sufficient strength to do damage. That is what I was trying to show by the examples of kicking the dog or injuring the child you may be spanking. (Mind you I do not believe spanking a child is the least bit useful and raised my well behaved boy without ever hitting him.) We are inhibited to varying degrees from actually injuring even when we lash out in quasi-violent ways. (I say quasi because I continue to define violence as greater when there is no inhibition of doing serious harm.)

In addition, at least one of the sources here claimed women used weapons more often than men in violent acts. Now maybe they were counting the frying pan as being equal to the gun, the details were not in the cited link, but regardless, if women were as violent as men and only brawn differed, then one would expect to see as many deadly weapons used, or at least an equal number of weapons related injuries or deaths between male and female violence. You do not see that.


The fact of the matter is, when anyone strikes another, there is a certain degree of assessment of how much harm that strike is actually capable of. Even when a person hits someone as hard as they are capable of, that same person may or may not be capable of the same strike using a baseball bat. What stopped your mother, Lonewulf, from hitting your dad as hard as she could with the nearest blunt force object? What stopped you dad from kicking your mother in the head as hard as he could with his shoes or boots on? (Hopefully he didn't do this but some men do.)

Female initiated violence is of course occurring in these events the researchers went out to investigate. But none of the studies can show equal levels of inhibition to do serious harm. That measure of violence is clearly reflected in the physical harm done. The unequal distribution of male perps and female victims is irrefutable.

When someone is hitting another, the majority of the time there is an inhibition to do serious harm. It isn't by accident. When there is no such inhibition, then you see horrendous injuries. Except in certain self defense (including combat in war) the vast majority of people in most cultures are not capable of pulling a trigger to end someone's life. (I'm not sure how that number goes in countries where violence is a way of life.) No matter how angry you are or how out of control you are, people are only rarely so out of control or so angry that they could inflict serious harm. That is the true measure of violence which differs between men and women.

If you take lesser measures of violence, then at some point, apparently women in the studies presented here commonly engage in such activities.

 

[Lonewulf]

What stopped your mother, Lonewulf, from hitting your dad as hard as she could with the nearest blunt force object?

It was out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night, outside, between two cars.

She lashed out in a single moment, very quickly. She certainly didn't seem to be in a state of thinking clearly when she did so. I highly doubt she was in the state of mind to look for a weapon.

I don't know specifics about the study that allegedly demonstrates that women are more likely to reach for weapons. Where was that posted again?

What stopped you dad from kicking your mother in the head as hard as he could with his shoes or boots on? (Hopefully he didn't do this but some men do.)

Nothing, except that he aimed for the ribs. In another case, though.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Are men really more violent than women?

Yes

So do it. Kill me. I'm too dangerous for you, girls *Ahem*

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes

So do it. Kill me. I'm too dangerous for you, girls *Ahem*

Too dangerous, too dangerous for your shirt!

Too dangerous, too dangerous for your pants!

If you keep it up this song, I'll frakking kill you!*









*I am kidding. Please don't ban me.

 

[calebprime]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_57f5DngOg

A tribute to Capn' Adequate

(I can't see avatars--I hope this still makes sense)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The internet is a great leveller.

Three of the most aggressive assertive female members bashing us poor blokes about how violent we are in the real world.

 

[Lonewulf]

The internet is a great leveller.

Three of the most aggressive assertive female members bashing us poor blokes about how violent we are in the real world.

Well, I would agree with assertive in the case of skeptigirl, although that's not necessarily an insult. I disagree that they're necessarily bashing anyone in particular, and certainly aren't making actual generalizations, far as I can see.

Skeptigirl doesn't seem to be claiming that anyone here is necessarily violent, and seems to have suggested the opposite in another thread, when she clarified her position. She does feel that, on average, men are more violent than women are. I can understand this perspective; everything tells us that men are more violent. Society tells us that when we're born, we're raised to believe it, and men end up going and proving them right statistically (although I disagree with the seeming suggestion that it's necessarily evolution pulling the strings entirely).

Francesca, though I've been frustrated to no end by her, hasn't actually stated much one way or the other, and I have yet to see if she even understands what anyone is arguing in this thread. However, I don't believe I've seen her actually claim that every male is violent, nor did she name names.

Fiona also seems to be very level-headed in this discussion, and has also not made any generalizations or personalized claims. She has, however, been arguing statistics and studies; in short, the facts of the matter.

So I don't feel that your claim there is a fair one. If it was a joke, then I don't personally find it very humorous, but I'm sure someone will.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....(although I disagree with the seeming suggestion that it's necessarily evolution pulling the strings entirely).....

I've not discounted contributing factors. Clearly the level of violence surrounding the individual has a huge impact. But the idea evolution hasn't contributed specifically to the male/female differences makes no sense.

 

[bpesta22]

fwiw, skepgirl, I agree with you. It seems to me a no-brainer that men are on average more aggressive than women, and that it's a biological thing.

Otherwise, just lurking here.

 

[Lonewulf]

I've not discounted contributing factors. Clearly the level of violence surrounding the individual has a huge impact. But the idea evolution hasn't contributed specifically to the male/female differences makes no sense.

Okay. I don't discount evolution altogether or biological factors.

How big a factor is it, is one of the important questions.

fwiw, skepgirl, I agree with you. It seems to me a no-brainer that men are on average more aggressive than women, and that it's a biological thing.

Otherwise, just lurking here.

Yeah; I'm probably stupid to think that there might possibly be any other possible factors to weigh. It has to be 100% biological. No-brainer; you don't have to think to come to such a conclusion... funny way of putting it.

Sigh.

 

[calebprime]

truisms instead of anecdotes from caleb, for a change

If you're a parent, you are vividly impressed with the force of your child's personality. It doesn't come from you.

We didn't make my son have an interest in fighting skills. I'm only meeting him halfway if I box around with him or wrestle with him. He only does things that he's interested in. He snaps into focus and a state of delight if I play-box with him. He doesn't respond this way to anything else I do.

People who have taken testosterone speak of the alteration in their consciousness and interests.

Men who have gotten sex reassignment therapy to become "women" and who have taken estrogen also speak of a profound change in their affect and thinking--Jan Morris, the travel writer, is one, but I only remember the passages from a New York Times Book Review.

She spoke of a complete change toward a kind of vulnerability. Maybe I can dig it up, somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Morris

I also vividly recall this piece by Andrew Sullivan, who takes testosterone:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~mastg/The He Hormone.htm

from the piece:

And then after a few days, as the testosterone peaks and starts to decline, the feeling alters a little. I find myself less reserved than usual, and more garrulous. The same energy is there, but it seems less directed toward action than toward interaction, less toward pride than toward lust. The odd thing is that, however much experience I have with it, this lust peak still takes me unawares. It is not like feeling hungry, a feeling you recognize and satiate. It creeps up on you. It is only a few days later that I look back and realize that I spent hours of the recent past socializing in a bar or checking out every potential date who came vaguely over my horizon. You realize more acutely than before that lust is a chemical. It comes; it goes. It waxes; it wanes. You are not helpless in front of it, but you are certainly not fully in control.

Then there's anger. I have always tended to bury or redirect my rage. I once thought this an inescapable part of my personality. It turns out I was wrong. Late last year, mere hours after a T shot, my dog ran off the leash to forage for a chicken bone left in my local park. The more I chased her, the more she ran. By the time I retrieved her, the bone had been consumed, and I gave her a sharp tap on her rear end. "Don't smack your dog!" yelled a burly guy a few yards away. What I found myself yelling back at him is not printable in this magazine, but I have never used that language in public before, let alone bellow it at the top of my voice. He shouted back, and within seconds I was actually close to hitting him. He backed down and slunk off. I strutted home, chest puffed up, contrite beagle dragged sheepishly behind me. It wasn't until half an hour later that I realized I had been a complete jerk and had nearly gotten into the first public brawl of my life. I vowed to inject my testosterone at night in the future.

That was an extreme example, but other, milder ones come to mind: losing my temper in a petty argument; innumerable traffic confrontations; even the occasional slightly too prickly column or e-mail flame-out. No doubt my previous awareness of the mythology of testosterone had subtly primed me for these feelings of irritation and impatience. But when I place them in the larger context of my new testosterone-associated energy, and of what we know about what testosterone tends to do to people, then it seems plausible enough to ascribe some of this increased edginess and self-confidence to that biweekly encounter with a syringe full of manhood.



cp:

We have genetics, we have nurture, and we have the chemical soup.

As someone who is more motivated by his own chemical soup than the outside world or social pressures, and who is very aware of fluctuations in my own moods, Sullivan's article rings true for me.

Testosterone is what gives me a big upper body, the desire to use it, and a certain love for watching boxers beat the **** out of each other. It's that feeling of ape, of the pleasure of flexing, of moving fast, of impatience with chicken ****.


I also believe that it is quite difficult to understand the feelings and desires of someone whose chemistry is different than yours.

An example is the old feminist suspicion about pornography. Lacking that kind of response, feminists of a certain stripe concocted all kinds of theories that missed the simple mark: Men tend to like porn because it feels good. It feels good because they have that kind of appetite.

Take away the testosterone, or interrupt the libido with SSRI's, and it doesn't feel that good, and you lose interest. Then, porn seems ridiculous, because it is.

I can remember an 80's-style feminist interrogating me about "gazes" in the porn I liked--as if that had anything to do with it. She believed in elaborate imaginary theories of dominance and power relations that could be revealed by nuances of eye-contact.

It wasn't about power, or politics, or eye-contact. It was about lust.

Well, read Sullivan, ignore what I've said.

 

[Delvo]

What happens when an individual is given an amount of any hormone which is unnatural for that individual, or when the amount is forced through a sudden unnaturally drastic change, is not indicative of the natures of different people with different levels of that hormone. Testosterone happens to be a convenient example of that general rule. A man's body doesn't just have somewhat more of it; it has 40-60 TIMES as much, and even those who say men are more aggressive or hornier than women couldn't possibly say it's by that much of a factor. Obviously, other factors mitigate at least some of its effects by making women's minds more responsive to it or men's minds less responsive to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Yeah; I'm probably stupid to think that there might possibly be any other possible factors to weigh. It has to be 100% biological. No-brainer; you don't have to think to come to such a conclusion... funny way of putting it.

Sigh.

I'm not sure bpe was saying it was 100% biological. Take a look, however, at the animal world. We are only one evolutionary step away from our closest relatives. It seems like a no brainer that biology accounts for the majority of aggression in species including male/female expressions of aggression. How would you hypothesize such a giant leap out of this pattern for humans?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not sure bpe was saying it was 100% biological.

No, he just said the answer was biological and left it at that; no possible social influence at all.

Take a look, however, at the animal world. We are only one evolutionary step away from our closest relatives.

I have. I didn't see them making cars, writing philosophy, or debating points. Sorry.

I know you, Skeptigirl. You throw everything behind the biological, and you ignore almost all of the social. You've done it continuously in other threads.

Social life is far more complex than you think. Tribes, cultures, languages, and entire ways of looking at the world has been constructed just based on local social influence, even within the same species; can you point to ANY other species and show such an incredible difference... and then the ability from one of that species to go from one tribe to another and assimilate into the local tribe, even though it's almost radically different in almost all ways?

It seems like a no brainer that biology accounts for the majority of aggression in species including male/female expressions of aggression. How would you hypothesize such a giant leap out of this pattern for humans?

I'm not sure. How would you hypothesize the giant leap of going from "Ook Ook" to Einstein?

I have a theory; the entire human race has been a giant leap out of the pattern.

 

[Zelenius]

What happens when an individual is given an amount of any hormone which is unnatural for that individual, or when the amount is forced through a sudden unnaturally drastic change, is not indicative of the natures of different people with different levels of that hormone. Testosterone happens to be a convenient example of that general rule. A man's body doesn't just have somewhat more of it; it has 40-60 TIMES as much, and even those who say men are more aggressive or hornier than women couldn't possibly say it's by that much of a factor. Obviously, other factors mitigate at least some of its effects by making women's minds more responsive to it or men's minds less responsive to it.

Certainly there is more to it than simply men having higher testosterone levels, but I am in agreement with Skepticgirl here. Hormones would barely be able to stimulate certain biological functions or muscle growth or bone growth without the hormone receptor sites on the outside of cells.

Men have more of these testosterone receptor sites along their muscle cells, and various other parts of the body. These receptor sites make cells/tissues more responsive to hormones. This is why men tend to be more muscular, on average. Tall people didn't grow tall just because they had a higher level of growth hormone in their blood while they were growing, but because they had extra receptor sites(which are genetically determined) on their bone cells that were responsive to this above average level of hormone. However, it could be possible to grow tall while having an average level of growth hormone if there is a large "surplus" of receptor sites for the growth hormone to act on. Even cancerous growths can be stimulated by hormones acting on cancerous cells through these important receptor sites.

The same probably goes for the male brain under the influence of testosterone which leads to men being more aggressive, on average, although the brain is so much more complicated. At least this is my understanding of it anyway.