What causes men to be violent towards women?

[dragon_fly_7]

It's a combination of genetics and having a poor male role model. Even if the woman is rude or actually tells him ''Hit me, you POS'', he's suppose to still have self-control and walk away. Just like a previous poster said, a man that hits that type of woman is still a man capable of hitting women.

[TaraMaiden2]

Morrissey would know.

[dragon_fly_7]

Violence towards me was pretty standard with my ex. She asked me to hit her back.

 

I never did.

 

She said. `I was not a man` for not hitting back.

 

Anyone who smacks anyone in a RS should leave. (I did not)

 

But in answer to the question.

 

I don`t know.

You did the right thing not hitting back. She would have probably call the cops or make a scene. Those types do that as a test. They are doing it with the expectation that you will fail it but in reality deep inside, do want a man that's still protective towards her (even protecting her from his own physical force...from himself) and have self-control. It's reverse psychology she was doing basically.

[Haydn]

Morrissey would know.

 

Maybe......

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFDY2eLwS5M

[jay1983]

Is this a joke?

 

Yes Tara, it's meant to say a women beater so weak that the woman ended up beating his ass.

[123321]

Probably for the same reasons that men have always tried to control women. Usually they controlled through social rules or through religion, but the result was the same: women were not allowed to talk to other men; they had to cover themselves in some way and be modest; they were chaperoned or confined to the home.

 

Prior to technological ways for finding out, if a man and a woman were going to partner up to produce some kids the partnership was inherently asymmetrical; she was certain her kids were genetically hers, he was far from certain. Even today, somewhere between 15% and 25% of paternity is misattributed.

 

Those are reasons. Not saying it's justified, but those are actual reasons.

[johndoe2]

Probably for the same reasons that men have always tried to control women. Usually they controlled through social rules or through religion, but the result was the same: women were not allowed to talk to other men; they had to cover themselves in some way and be modest; they were chaperoned or confined to the home.

 

Freud argued that the society's greatest taboos stem from deep desire and temptation. The stronger the feelings/passions something aroused, the more likely it was that there would be strict taboos surrounding that object or person. In other words, feelings of temptation lead to a stronger urge to control. Like most impulses, a person's ability to control themselves when under the influence of a passion of any kind is crucial.

I think this is doubtful, maybe just because I doubt almost everything Freud ever said. He was not particularly scientific, to say the least.

 

The reason why societies (not merely men, as you claim, but other women, arguably even more so; e.g., it is generally women who perform female circumcision in cultures that practice it rather than men) is because, biologically speaking, a woman's reproductive system is much more a 'scarce resource' than a man's, and reproductive 'mistakes' were far more dangerous.

 

If a woman casually slept with a man any time before the 20th century, she would quite likely die if she pregnant as a result. If a man happened to have sex, he didn't face the same biological risk if pregnancy occurred. So effectively, women had 'one shot, better make it count' strategy for reproduction, one rigidly enforced by society. Men and women both had a strong genetic interest in repressing their daughters' sexuality; they perceived a need to make sure that she only mated when a high quality male was found, capable of strengthening and protecting their genetic lineage.

 

To draw an analogy from the animal kingdom, among zebras, in order for a male to mate with a female, the male must beat the female's father at a 'duel' of sorts; not to the death, but a pretty intense fight nonetheless. The father wants to make sure than only a strong male mates with his daughter, improving the odds of his progeny surviving and proliferating.

 

So that, in fact, is why female sexuality has been jealously guarded throughout the pre-modern era, imo.

[johndoe2]

Prior to technological ways for finding out, if a man and a woman were going to partner up to produce some kids the partnership was inherently asymmetrical; she was certain her kids were genetically hers, he was far from certain. Even today, somewhere between 15% and 25% of paternity is misattributed.

 

Those are reasons. Not saying it's justified, but those are actual reasons.

Some anthropologist (forget the name) hypothesized that the reason for patrilineal naming (that is, the woman and offspring takes her husband's name) is basically an anthropological 'consolation prize' that men get to assuage the unavoidable uncertainty males had as to whether their children were, in fact, theirs. A woman knows it's her offspring because it comes out of her, but the man does not. So he gets to name it. This notion seems most relevant in the context of mating habits of primates in general: it is fairly common among primates for some males (those that are not 'alpha males' and do not have their own harems of females) to reproduce by sneaking off with females from another male's harem impregnating her, then leaving the other male to provide for his offspring (which is quite an expensive task needless to say); in short, he cuckolds him. It is akin to birds who lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, so the other bird protects and nurtures them until they hatch, not knowing of course that they are someone else's eggs.

[autumnnight]

Honestly, it is a slippery slope. I have seen some people on this thread respond EXACTLY like an abuser would and, sadly, the only man who was joking was Jay.

 

ANYTIME a man responds to the topic of violence toward women by pointing out how aggravating women can be needs a look in the mirror. This isn't about someone's annoying present or ex wife. This is about violent criminal behavior for which there IS no excuse, regardless of gender.

 

That said, I think the reasons are shifting and becoming even more pathetic. It used to be things like jay talked about: burning dinner, the house being dirty, blah blah. Apparently (the case in CA a year or so ago as an example), a man can assault of even KILL women for sending "mixed signals" or refusing to sleep with him/date him.

 

We have an emerging generation of men who blame women for all their problems, including lack of success with somen. For this reason, I expect the violence to rise.

[elaine567]

If a woman casually slept with a man any time before the 20th century, she would quite likely die if she pregnant as a result. If a man happened to have sex, he didn't face the same biological risk if pregnancy occurred. So effectively, women had 'one shot, better make it count' strategy for reproduction, one rigidly enforced by society

 

What are you saying here? Why would she die?

[Rejected Rosebud]

If a woman casually slept with a man any time before the 20th century, she would quite likely die if she pregnant as a result. If a man happened to have sex, he didn't face the same biological risk if pregnancy occurred. So effectively, women had 'one shot, better make it count' strategy for reproduction, one rigidly enforced by society. Men and women both had a strong genetic interest in repressing their daughters' sexuality; they perceived a need to make sure that she only mated when a high quality male was found,

None of that is actually true. Where did you find it?

 

Do you have any idea how much philandering was going on in centuries gone by?!?!? Also there was not so much a "genetic interest" in repressing women's sexuality, it was more an economical / political / social interest to keep it under the control of men.

[Radu]

Prior to technological ways for finding out, if a man and a woman were going to partner up to produce some kids the partnership was inherently asymmetrical; she was certain her kids were genetically hers, he was far from certain. Even today, somewhere between 15% and 25% of paternity is misattributed.

 

Those are reasons. Not saying it's justified, but those are actual reasons.

 

You know, concerning this subject it shocks me how many in this thread gave explanations straight out of feminist pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo crap when none of them actually put themselves in the position of the individual in question.

 

Until the advent of DNA testing, no man could be 100% of his parentage of the child.

 

Control my foot, ask any father out there and they are worried about who will take care of their daughter more than about who will take care of their son [same answer from mothers too].

So, they did what was needed in order to make sure that their kids ended up with a good match, to protect them from bad choices.

[autumnnight]

Prior to technological ways for finding out, if a man and a woman were going to partner up to produce some kids the partnership was inherently asymmetrical; she was certain her kids were genetically hers, he was far from certain. Even today, somewhere between 15% and 25% of paternity is misattributed.

 

Those are reasons. Not saying it's justified, but those are actual reasons.

 

So....if I'm understanding you correctly...the reason men are violent toward women is because there is a chance their kids might not be his.

 

Now THAT's one I've never heard before....

 

I better beat her in case the kid ain't mine.

 

Amazing the lengths people will go to .....

[johndoe2]

What are you saying here? Why would she die?

Um, because before modern medicine, mothers died during childbirth very frequently. And children died before reaching maturity, in some times and places, at nearly 50%. So all that investment likely for naught.

 

None of that is actually true. Where did you find it?

So, death due to child birth wasn't extremely common in pre-modern times then? Reproduction was not an extremely risky affair for females prior to modern medicine, and effective birth control was as good back then as it is today? None of this sshouldd need to be found, I thought those things were generally well-understood.

 

Do you have any idea how much philandering was going on in centuries gone by?!?!? Also there was not so much a "genetic interest" in repressing women's sexuality, it was more an economical / political / social interest to keep it under the control of men.

I never said philandering never went on. I said that this was the reason why societies tried to prevent it, especially for women.

 

And social and economic interests follow biological interests. Keep in mind that until the 1800s, every society on earth was usually operating at subsistence level; generating just enough food and other commodities for people to survive. So social norms were primarily shaped by the simple biological imperative to survive and maximize the reproductive capability of the species. This meant consigning women to rearing children (because men cannot get pregnant and lactate) and men to the farms, mines, and battlefields (because women have lower upper body strength and, especially when pregnant, were not very economically useful). It is no coincidence that social norms only began to change significantly when technological improvements rendered biological differences between men and women fairly irrelevant at least when it came to labor.

 

So no, gender norms are not the result of a global malevolent male conspiracy to make women's lives miserable and make men's lives great; they are principally the result of biological differences between the genders and how they impact the economic life of the society.

[johndoe2]

Amazing the lengths people will go to .....

But of course. I once read an article in a college newspaper saying exonerating women who abuse their male partners because when women are abusive it's only because "women care more about relationships than men, and sometimes that care comes in the form of a hit." Or there's the "pre-emptive self defense" excuse. Jezebel once published an article where a woman boasted about how she beat up her boyfriend, and the commenters all proceeded to brag gleefully about their own perpetrated abuses. The lengths some will go to indeed.

[123321]

I've been helping a woman get away from her abusive ex ....

 

Best (and saddest) thing I've heard for a long time was a moment ago in a phone conversation (him to her) "Aww come on, I hardly hit you more times than I can count on my one hand" .....

 

Which was sort of an interesting turn of phrase but still makes me sad.

[autumnnight]

But of course. I once read an article in a college newspaper saying exonerating women who abuse their male partners because when women are abusive it's only because "women care more about relationships than men, and sometimes that care comes in the form of a hit." Or there's the "pre-emptive self defense" excuse. Jezebel once published an article where a woman boasted about how she beat up her boyfriend, and the commenters all proceeded to brag gleefully about their own perpetrated abuses. The lengths some will go to indeed.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with a thread whose topic is why MEN become violent against WOMEN.

 

This is more of that playground "she did it too!" stuff that gets on my nerves.

[dragon_fly_7]

I've been helping a woman get away from her abusive ex ....

 

Best (and saddest) thing I've heard for a long time was a moment ago in a phone conversation (him to her) "Aww come on, I hardly hit you more times than I can count on my one hand" .....

 

Which was sort of an interesting turn of phrase but still makes me sad.

It is sad. For me once would be enough. It should never happen in a relationship or marriage.

[johndoe2]

I'm not sure what this has to do with a thread whose topic is why MEN become violent against WOMEN.

 

This is more of that playground "she did it too!" stuff that gets on my nerves.

Many of the comments here clearly have an undertone of there being something particularly wrong with men; perhaps it would do you well to remember that women can be violent too, and they tend to be violent for the same sorts of reasons why men are: alcohol abuse, being abused as children, being victims of violence themselves, poverty, etc.

 

If one started a thread on "why do women do this bad thing" we can be fairly certain pleas would rapidly arise of 'but men do it too/women only do it for such and such reasons that aren't entirely their faults." Which would probably not be inaccurate. On this forum more over, so there are plenty of ready examples/

 

So suffice it to say the whole overarching ethos of men being peculiarly evil gets on my nerves.

[autumnnight]

Many of the comments here clearly have an undertone of there being something particularly wrong with men; perhaps it would do you well to remember that women can be violent too, and they tend to be violent for the same sorts of reasons why men are: alcohol abuse, being abused as children, being victims of violence themselves, poverty, etc.

 

If one started a thread on "why do women do this bad thing" we can be fairly certain pleas would rapidly arise of 'but men do it too/women only do it for such and such reasons that aren't entirely their faults." Which would probably not be inaccurate. On this forum more over, so there are plenty of ready examples/

 

So suffice it to say the whole overarching ethos of men being peculiarly evil gets on my nerves.

 

Perhaps you would do well not to be so condescending. Violence toward another person is wrong no matter the gender. If a woman assaults a man (even a slap) then she should be charged just as a man would. And there IS something wrong with a man OR a woman who would raise their hand to someone else.

 

Like I said, "perhaps you would do well" not to speak to me like I am a child. You joined in May. PERHAPS real the whole of my posts and understand that I do NOT see men as inherently evil.

[johndoe2]

Perhaps you would do well not to be so condescending. Violence toward another person is wrong no matter the gender. If a woman assaults a man (even a slap) then she should be charged just as a man would.

Well I'm glad you see it that way, but surely as you feel frustrated over the disproportionate perpetration of violence by men, you must be able to understand the frustration of a man over the fact that society (and the criminal justice system) do not regard a woman's violence against a man as nearly as severe as a man's against a woman, and that part of the reason the numbers are so skewed is because many men are afraid to call the police on abusive partners because they know they would more likely arrest him than her, just by virtue of the accepted paradigm regarding domestic violence.

[TaraMaiden2]

In your world, maybe. If you read the link I posted, there's a prominent part about how an abusive woman got 8 years in prison for beating up her partner.

I will grant you that so far, the violence perpetrated against men has not been believed or taken seriously enough, in all quarters.

But people are rapidly coming round to how real, and how serious it actually is.

 

Bear in mind though, that while it is still considered to be by comparison, a rare and recent phenomenon, the reverse is true for the treatment meted out to women. It's more aggressive, more lethal and has been going on for centuries.

 

The quoted and studied statistics show how common it is, and in some societies, it is almost an expected norm.

 

So while I take absolutely nothing away from your argument, the perspective and comparison in itself, of numbers and social and global incidents is so low as to be incomparable, on a global scale.

[Radu]

So....if I'm understanding you correctly...the reason men are violent toward women is because there is a chance their kids might not be his.

 

Now THAT's one I've never heard before....

 

I better beat her in case the kid ain't mine.

 

Amazing the lengths people will go to .....

 

123's comment on paternity was in reference to another side discussion, about how 'patriarchal' society was, and how women had no rights, etc ...

That discussion leap-frogged to the argument that 123 presented, it had no link what-so-ever with the main discussion at hand which is abuse of women at the hands of men.

 

And while i applaud the fact that you write, all abusers should be punished equally regardless of gender, something is troubling me [said in the most emotionally neutral way].

I sense emotion in your arguments/posts; i do not sense it in the arguments of other posters.

 

The above is not an ad-hominem attack, nor was it intended to be.

[TaraMaiden2]

Abuse of women is an emotive issue, and I guess it's because although all people have them, they're processed differently, in some ways, by the genders.

 

I am forever telling folks on here that when negotiating 'business' matters with their exes, to focus on the logical and practical necessary aspects, and not use emotions to try to steer or twist matters to advantage.

 

The Law, in all matters, looks at the legal ramifications of a situation, and applies legal remedy.

While a Judge, summing up, may well mention the emotional effect of the accused's actions, the Judge can only apply the letter of the law to the Crime itself, and administer a sentence according to the severity of the criminal act.

They cannot take any emotive matter into consideration.

 

So yes, this is a pretty emotional subject matter.

And for some, it's difficult to separate the emotional feelings it evokes, from the practical level of the discussion.

[Taramere]

With domestic violence, I think it would be really difficult (if not impossible) to ever get statistics that reliably inform us of what goes on behind closed doors - and whether men or women are more responsible for domestic conflict/domestic violence. However, statistically women are certainly more likely to be the victims of domestic murder than men are. Two women a week, in England and Wales, are killed by a current or former male partner.

 

Statistics

 

Evidently domestic abuse perpetrated by women on men must be taken seriously, but it shouldn't detract from the reality of women being significantly more likely than men to die as a result of domestic violence.

 

There's an issue, which is a part of domestic violence. Inflicting violence on family pets as part of abusing a partner or a child.

 

Most Pets Also Suffer Abuse in Domestic Violence Situations

 

I'd invite anybody who wants to take the "women are every bit as violent as men - and even more likely to initiate domestic violence" to come up with any statistics showing that women are more likely to inflict violence on animals than men are. Usually when women are convicted for animal cruelty it's related to stuff like animal hoarding....but not actual human on animal physical violence. It happens, of course. There are violent women out there, just as there are lots of very calm, gentle men who other living things (human and animal) feel immensely comfortable around. But if pets could give evidence, it would be interesting to hear who they would blame in a situation where domestic violence features regularly - and where the man and women are blaming eachother for it.

 

Human conflict is often pretty complex....and in a situation that's one person's word against another, we can't be sure about who hit who first. Feminist groups might be more inclined to blame the man, Men's Rights Groups more likely to blame the woman. I say, if there's a pet in the home then look to see who it stands in front of in a protective gesture - or who it cowers behind when things get heated. Animals aren't political. They just tell it like it is. Same goes for small children. The person who's more likely to inflict violence on an innocent pet or child is, in my opinion, the more violent generally. Why they're violent...well, that's for them to explain. It's their violence. Unfortunately, the explanations of violent people for their violence usually involve attributing blame externally.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Taramere