What causes men to be violent towards women?

[elaine567]

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.

Went through a phase of researching my ancestors a few years ago.

Just about all the women 1800s had loads of kids, some had 13-14 kids. Some kids did die, but NOT 50% and of all the women I found, and I found a lot, (slightly obsessed ) only one died in child birth, well not actually childbirth, - post partum infection and most of the women lived till they were 50+, some even 80+.

Many of them very, very poor too.

So where do you get - she died if she gets pregnant to another man? Nonsense.

[johndoe2]

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.

1) In the western world, women get lighter sentences for every kind of violent crime, up to and including murder. This is beyond dispute. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/15-year-study/chap4.pdf

 

2) The notion that, pertaining to theperpetration of violence against men by women, th "incidents is so low as to be incomparable" is untrue. The idea that domestic violence is essentially something men do to women can only be backed up by arrest and conviction records, which don't accurately reflect incidence given that the law is not enforced equally among people to begin with. Look at some articles by Murray Straus on the subject, which show another side to the phenomenon; Straus I believe uses survey data, which may not be especially reliably, but nor are arrest and conviction records.

 

Murray A. Straus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here's a bibliography:

Home Page for Murray A. Straus

 

Has some links in it to his articles on intimate partner violence.

[johndoe2]

Went through a phase of researching my ancestors a few years ago.

Just about all the women 1800s had loads of kids, some had 13-14 kids. Some kids did die, but NOT 50% and of all the women I found, and I found a lot, (slightly obsessed ) only one died in child birth, well not actually childbirth, - post partum infection and most of the women lived till they were 50+, some even 80+.

Many of them very, very poor too.

So where do you get - she died if she gets pregnant to another man? Nonsense.

Are you seriously trying to insist that childbirth-related death (of mother and/or infant) was uncommon back then?

 

Here's what wikipedia notes about the work of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis: "Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis worked at the Vienna General Hospital's maternity clinic on a 3-year contract from 1846-1849. There, as elsewhere in European and North American hospitals, puerperal fever, or childbed fever, was rampant, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of admitted patients."

 

That is in the 19th century, in Europe, the most developed region in the planet, and incidence could climb as high as 40%. Only near the end of the century did the rate of maternal death seem to permanently drop to around 1% in a few advanced western nations.

 

Historical mortality rates of puerperal fever - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Then consider what the rate might have been even further back, 3,000 or 4,000 years ago?

 

In short, not nonsense; very much sense in fact.

[BluEyeL]

I think men are more physically abusive just simply because they can, they're bigger. Sometimes they also have economical advantage that allowed them to be and continue to be abusive. Historically that was even more so true. My ex wasn't physically abusive towards me because he was afraid of me, but he was abusive towards our son, because he wasn't afraid of him. Simple as that. Coward! I used to tell him to come fight me if he's so brave

[johndoe2]

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.

it's interesting you should say this, as women are more likely to murder infants than men.

 

Now I wouldn't see a point in trying to attribute that to femininity, femaleness in general, or some female chauvinist conspiracy or whatever. In fact the explanations are far more pedantic than that; having to do with hormonal issues often. (Then again, violent males also often have hormonal imbalances which disproportionately afflict the male gender).

 

I think there are anthropological explanations for stark differences in behavior between the genders, mostly rooted in biological differences (including neurological differences between men and women; 'gendered' behavior cannot be explained away as socially constructed, much as some would like it to be). For this particular problem, I get the impression that some people are quite annoyed by any explanation that does not leave the blame, somehow, on men collectively, maleness, 'toxic masculinity', patriarchy' or some other stand-in for the male gender.

 

So males disproportionately commit violence. Ok, what then? What is this supposed to be evidence of? Is the fact that males also make the vast majority of life-improving scientific discoveries also evidence of something? What exactly are these proportions supposed to belie regarding the genders exactly? Generally, considering that surveys I've seen tend to show violent men and women tend to commit domestic violence for similar reasons, it's simply a matter of a behavior disproportionately present in one gender but, when present, present for more or less the same reasons in either one.

[autumnnight]

Here's a question:

 

Does the unfortunate unfairness in the legal system violence toward women? If not, then all this men vs.women deflection is just more playground fighting.

[TaraMaiden2]

.... Is the fact that males also make the vast majority of life-improving scientific discoveries also evidence of something?

Actually, they don't.

We have just been led to believe they do.

Because women's successes in these fields have been either suppressed or stolen.

 

6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism

 

Women in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

SHiPS Resource Center || Women in Science

 

Beyond Tesla: History's Most Overlooked Scientists

 

Women in Science: Nobel Snubs

 

5 Women Who Should Have Won the Nobel Prize | Anna Leahy

[TaraMaiden2]

Here's a question:

 

Does the unfortunate unfairness in the legal system violence toward women? If not, then all this men vs.women deflection is just more playground fighting.

 

 

...What....?

[Tree lover]

The father of my child would beat me up. His mother was never nice to him, and he never knew why. She would hit him and call him names when he was just a little boy. I think that's why he was so mean to me. Even though I'm nothing like her, he associated me with that abuse because I am a woman. I've seen her belittle him and then he shuts down and questions why. I know that isn't always the case, but I think because of her he hates all women.

[Rejected Rosebud]

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.

You would do well to ;)start a thread about that but this thread is about why men are violent towards women specifically.

[TaraMaiden2]

Here's a question:

 

Does the unfortunate unfairness in the legal system violence toward women? If not, then all this men vs.women deflection is just more playground fighting.

 

I wish it were so.

This is a lot more dangerous that 'playground fighting'.

 

Most men will look at this and scorn it as laughable.

Many women will see this as another life-threatening jibe, along with so much more we have had to - and still - endure.

[Taramere]

it's interesting you should say this, as women are more likely to murder infants than men.

 

Which is absolutely unspeakable, and a subject that is almost impossible to talk about without a lot of distress ensuing.

 

No doubt there's a range of reasons from serious mental health problems to pure psychopathy...but the bottom line is that somebody who does that is not fit to be left with the care of a child. Unfortunately, sometimes these problems are concealed sufficiently to prevent those who could have protected the child to detect the problem. Or mothers whose issues could have been detected with proper monitoring slip through the net.

 

Usually, with a small baby, the main carer will be a woman. Whether that's the mother or another female relative (or foster mother), a nanny or nursery staff. It's not that common to find a situation where a man is the primary carer for a small baby. It happens, but the norm by far is still that a woman is the primary carer. Anybody (whether that's a baby, or somebody very sick or very old) who is heavily dependent on a carer is, unfortunately, potentially at risk from that carer. It's the nature of extreme dependency, sadly. The cared for individual is wholly dependent on the carer being mature, responsible, stable and nurturing (and supported - as full time caring is a demanding and stressful role) enough to fulfil their role safely.

 

While society can take steps to minimise the risks of infanticide, it can't eliminate those risks altogether. It helps, obviously, if there are alert friends, family and neighbours who pick up on any concerns and pass them on. A baby at risk depends on that sort of alertness in others. Unfortunately, sometimes a mother is socially isolated and professional services can't or don't fill in the gap...so serious risks to the young child go unaddressed.

 

Obviously this particular thread is dealing with men who are violent towards women, so there are very different dynamics at play. There's the possibility of reciprocal violence. Of deliberate provocation. It would be wrong to ignore those possibilities. Unfortunately, the existence of those possibilities is sometimes exploited by manipulative abusers who successfully inveigle others (who are either easily fooled or of a similarly abusive mindset) into victim blaming.

 

 

So males disproportionately commit violence. Ok, what then? What is this supposed to be evidence of?

 

I think you would have to ask somebody who was involved in academic research of this issue. I'm not. I tend towards the view that for ordinary people, protecting themselves from violent situations takes priority over understanding why the violent person behaves as they do.

 

For the violent person themselves...hopefully they seek professional help that will assist them to address the problem, instead of relying on others to be prepared to support them unconditionally and expose themselves to abusive behaviour in doing so. Unfortunately, in some cases the problem is unfixable.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Taramere

[elaine567]

Are you seriously trying to insist that childbirth-related death (of mother and/or infant) was uncommon back then?

 

Here's what wikipedia notes about the work of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis: "Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis worked at the Vienna General Hospital's maternity clinic on a 3-year contract from 1846-1849. There, as elsewhere in European and North American hospitals, puerperal fever, or childbed fever, was rampant, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of admitted patients."

 

Most women delivered at home and not in hospitals, those who were unfortunate enough to develop sepsis with no antibiotics were going to have a tough time surviving, despite hospital care.

So whilst the hospital figures are understandably bad, the majority of women giving birth would never have been admitted to hospital in contrast to what we see today.

3000-4000 years ago or even further back in time, survival of the fittest would have played a big part. Women who had problems conceiving and delivering babies, would not have passed on their genes, so only women who had good reproductive genes would have been in the majority, giving birth with little fuss.

NO natural animal species would survive as a species, if labour and pregnancy complications are the norm. If young women died in droves during pregnancy as is your contention, the human species would have died out thousands of years ago.

[123321]

If young women died in droves during pregnancy as is your contention, the human species would have died out thousands of years ago.

 

In some places on Earth, 1 in 7 women STILL die in childbirth, and if we only consider first children the figure is higher. In 2013 almost 300,000 women died in childbirth worldwide.

[Rejected Rosebud]

In some places on Earth, 1 in 7 women STILL die in childbirth, and if we only consider first children the figure is higher. In 2013 almost 300,000 women died in childbirth worldwide.

I know this is true. I'm still confused about why the fact that women die in childbirth ties into why men are violent towards women though is it for our own good??

[123321]

I know this is true. I'm still confused about why the fact that women die in childbirth ties into why men are violent towards women though is it for our own good??

 

I have no idea, seems fairly close to a non sequitur to me too, but I'd be happy to learn more.

[autumnnight]

...What....?

 

The question was supposed to be: does the unfortunate imbalance in the justice system JUSTIFY violence toward women.....I left out a word.

 

And since any rational person would answer no, all this kindergarten playground (she did it too!" mess is just a deflection.

[autumnnight]

I know this is true. I'm still confused about why the fact that women die in childbirth ties into why men are violent towards women though is it for our own good??

 

Anything to keep from admitting men do something wrong???

[123321]

Anything to keep from admitting men do something wrong???

 

I think it's fair to point out that inappropriate violence comes in all genders. For me though, men are just better at it due to some innate advantages.

[Taramere]

I think it's fair to point out that inappropriate violence comes in all genders. For me though, men are just better at it due to some innate advantages.

 

So going back to the question at the start of the thread, is that what causes some men to be violent towards women? As a "we're stronger" reminder in this endless battle of the sexes?