I would guess upbringing plays a major role. I know I spent over twenty years getting beat up by a father who was raised by a woman who taught the complete opposite though. People are perfectly capable of violence despite pacifist moms. We can't pin male violence solely on women by blaming Mommy.

My guess is the matter of why violence is disproportionately commited by men is complex. I won't claim to know the answer.

I think a large part of it (on the upbringing side) is how men are perceived to "win".

If your role models of men (and peers) asserting themselves and getting their way are aggressive/forceful and escalation to challenges rather than pacifist and/or logical reasoned approaches winning the day, that's got to have an influence. When asserting oneself becomes the goal, and this is done through an approach that borders on intimidation, the only way to escalate that when it doesn't appear enough is to be more forceful.

Men who don't act like that tend not to have friends or families who do.
Personal observation. Correlation at least if not causation.

aban57 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I would guess upbringing plays a major role. I know I spent over twenty years getting beat up by a father who was raised by a woman who taught the complete opposite though. People are perfectly capable of violence despite pacifist moms. We can't pin male violence solely on women by blaming Mommy.

My guess is the matter of why violence is disproportionately commited by men is complex. I won't claim to know the answer.

Neither did the article's author in the OP, neither did I (see subtitle). Not that you said I did, of course. But denying it altogether is just stupid.

No clue what you're saying I've denied.

Animavore wrote:
I wonder if we're looking to deeply into this

It can be summed up very concisely: There's always someone who's more of a badass than you are. Men are more violent because, for some unknown reason, they can't resist testing the waters. It must be socialization. But what's that?

Anyway, blaming society has not led reliably to positive change.

Animavore wrote:Maybe men are just more violent then women because they can get away with it more.
Just like many women can be strict and violent with their kids because they can get away with it. Or older siblings bash younger ones because they can.

I know big, violent men could clear a room if they start shit, but not any women who would get far before they are grabbed in a bear hug and picked up with their legs kicking in the air.

I wonder if we're looking to deeply into this

If we are divorcing male violence from an evolutionary sense, then the next question is - why are men larger (on average) than women?

gobshite wrote:

Animavore wrote:Maybe men are just more violent then women because they can get away with it more.
Just like many women can be strict and violent with their kids because they can get away with it. Or older siblings bash younger ones because they can.

I know big, violent men could clear a room if they start shit, but not any women who would get far before they are grabbed in a bear hug and picked up with their legs kicking in the air.

I wonder if we're looking to deeply into this

If we are divorcing male violence from an evolutionary sense, then the next question is - why are men larger (on average) than women?

We could fix violence in a heartbeat, by administering injections to everyone. I've heard Benperidol is hell on wheels at migitgating violent thoughts and actions. See? You don't really want to fix the problem, and can go back to wishing on a star. Perhaps not you, specifically. To understand all is to forgive all; right, Professor?

Wut?

gobshite wrote:Wut?

As Mose Allison wrote, "If you must keep talking, please try to make it rhyme..."

I'm just trying to get you to add some spice to your documentation of the obvious. If you just want to worship "the evolutionary sense" of some not-very-precise words, carry on splendidly.

Do shut your pie hole, Cito.

Fallible wrote:Do shut your pie hole, Cito.

You loveable rascal! I'm a little miffed, though, that you didn't include "sanctimonious fuckstick" in your advice.

Fallible wrote:
Please, for the love of cock, shut your ignorant gob.

Fallible wrote:Do shut up, James.

Fallible wrote:Do shut up.

Fallible wrote:Shut up, james.

Fallible wrote:Oh do shut up.

Fallible wrote:
Then you should shut up about it.

Fallible wrote:Oh do shut up, you insufferable bore.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up Tim, you sanctimonious fuckstick.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up.

Fallible wrote:
…

My, how times have changed, three little words edition:

Did you do that just now, or do you have a file? Which is less sad? I'm not going to trawl through years of your posts for instances of you saying things a lot, if that's OK. Those who expect everyone to be eternally consistent robots should pray to Jebus for relief. If you don't understand why people aren't, that should tell you something about expectations. You'll have to wait till I come back from work if you need more attention. Bend a spoon in the meantime.

Cito di Pense wrote:
I'm just trying to get you to add some spice to your documentation of the obvious.

I didn't document anything. I asked a question. The little curly symbol at the end of my post is the clue there.

Off to visit the nephew et al today and it occurs that he does play "fighty" type games, smashing action figures together; swinging sticks around, shooting plastic crossbows etc ad inf...little girls tend not to play that way so much and that points toward a biological component to the violent male.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:Do shut your pie hole, Cito.[/qtuote]

You loveable rascal! I'm a little miffed, though, that you didn't include "sanctimonious fuckstick" in your advice.

Fallible wrote:
Please, for the love of cock, shut your ignorant gob.

Fallible wrote:Do shut up, James.

Fallible wrote:Do shut up.

Fallible wrote:Shut up, james.

Fallible wrote:Oh do shut up.

Fallible wrote:
Then you should shut up about it.

Fallible wrote:Oh do shut up, you insufferable bore.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up Tim, you sanctimonious fuckstick.

Fallible wrote:Oh shut up.

Fallible wrote:
…

My, how times have changed, three little words edition:

gobshite wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
I'm just trying to get you to add some spice to your documentation of the obvious.

I didn't document anything. I asked a question. The little curly symbol at the end of my post is the clue there.

I know you did:

gobshite wrote:

Animavore wrote:Maybe men are just more violent then women because they can get away with it more.
Just like many women can be strict and violent with their kids because they can get away with it. Or older siblings bash younger ones because they can.

I know big, violent men could clear a room if they start shit, but not any women who would get far before they are grabbed in a bear hug and picked up with their legs kicking in the air.

I wonder if we're looking to deeply into this

If we are divorcing male violence from an evolutionary sense, then the next question is - why are men larger (on average) than women?

We're not really conducting a scientific investigation, here, because scientists ask 'how' (rather than 'why', the way filosofeezers do). I just assumed that you asked the question as if you were in court, where you're never supposed to ask a question the answer to which you don't already fucking well know.

Keep It Real wrote:Off to visit the nephew et al today and it occurs that he does play "fighty" type games, smashing action figures together; swinging sticks around, shooting plastic crossbows etc ad inf...little girls tend not to play that way so much and that points toward a biological component to the violent male.

Try telling that to Serena Williams in the midst of a tirade against some tennis referee, and you might end up picking racket strings out of any teeth you have left. Your nephew is not a sample; he's an anecdote and it can be countered by something that isn't an anecdote. If you want to play the percentages, buy mutual funds instead of trying to pick individual stocks like you seem to be doing, here.

Fallible wrote:
no one said anything about bringing someone totally out of a severe mental illness with reason

That was how I interpreted your comment about absolutely rationalising emotion and this is why I stated I was sceptical
I took it to mean that any mental state can be overcome just by the application of understanding which is not at all true

CBT as you rightly suggest is the most effective methodology against depression but less someone can or wants to change their negative thinking it will be entirely ineffective. Sometimes the depression in question can be so severe that just the will to think positive is not possible even if that state is desired. As Cito says it is only effective some of the time but it is currently the best there is and even the best there can ever be as a holistic type coping mechanism - hence why it is used

No methodology dealing with the human condition will be effective all of the time and so limitations have to be accepted
I dont use CBT myself but what works for me is being detached as much as possible - learning not to hold onto excessively negative [ or positive ] states of mind which are forms of psychological craving and therefore suffering that I should avoid

I know that it works far better when I am in a naturally detached state and so dont have to think about it at all
I never made a conscious effort to become more detached so it slowly developed over time of its own free will
As a consequence I am now now as free as I have ever been and I intend to become even more freer over time