> women are stalked and victims of violence more than men
This is going to be a bit off-topic now, but I'd say by violence above only physical violence is meant. If verbal and psychological abuse is included, the balance isn't quite so obvious.
>historically women have been on the receiving end of physical violence from men far, far more often than vice versa and were told to suffer in silence.
Historically, men have been on the receiving end of violence far, far more than women. Far more likely to be assaulted/murdered on the street, convicted for a crime they did not commit, or drafted into and killed in war.
>There is another possible source of fear - in addition to biology and trauma, there is also observation together with reason. Even if one has zero prior trauma, it's not hard for one to realize that men are on average an order of magnitude more violent than women are.
This is sort of true. I'll talk about the aspect that is true. What is true is that men are an order of magnitude stronger than women on average. What isn't true is the violence part. Women are actually more violent then men and the reasoning is simple.
It's because men are stronger will do more damage if they get violent so men have a tendency to hold back. I don't know if you dealt with women a lot socially, but when women get frustrated they're more likely to pound you or push you with their pathetic little fists. They often have much less ability to control themselves.
The caveat here is that when it comes to actual damage men do far more greater damage, meaning that when a man actually does decide to lash out at a woman the damage is far greater and the crime far more severe. Outside of specific studies the severe crimes are the only ones that are reported. However, make no mistake, within studies that account for this bias, the numbers show women are more likely to be violent. In fact even those "territorial" men you talk about actually literally hold back when there's a woman around. There is no equal treatment here.
>My own experiences with fighting have not given me a fear of men in general, but they have certainly contributed to a caution that I have around certain types of men - in particular, around men who have either an animalistic concern with territoriality and status, a socioeconomic desperation that makes them willing to rob outsiders, or both. I try to steer clear not only of men of this type but also of entire demographics and parts of the world in which they are common.
Have you had much encounters with women? Even in dating and going to the club practically every aspect of their lives is centered around safety and caution. They rarely go out alone. Always with another man friend or with other groups of women (three at least) and when in bars or clubs even women who are strangers are always watching each others backs.
This is despite the very true fact that Men are actually much more likely to be the target of violence from other drunk men then women are when going to bars or clubs. The fear women have is biological and inbuilt as valid defenses for the more savage hunter and gatherer era. It is currently an outmoded standard of behavior that is no longer as relevant in modern society. But biology is biology and we are slaves to our biology.
Additionally it could be that women have these defenses because the consequences are much more severe. While a man is more likely to suffer from a violent attack from other men and women then a woman herself would, if a woman should get unlucky enough to suffer from an attack the consequences are extreme. This would be an argument in favor of your point of view, but still in support of the fact that women behave this way because of biology not reasoning. The biology is just an "reasonable" evolutionary response to the environmental pressure.
> Also some sweeping gender statements are actually true, such as men being more prone to violence than women.
Well, the alternative explanation is that men are simply better at violence than women (because we're stronger).
E.g. men commit more suicides than women despite women attempting more. Also, domestic violence is roughly equal (60-40), but I imagine women are hurt worse more often.
> That said, historically women have been on the receiving end of physical violence from men far, far more often than vice versa
It is funny how statistics works. If we look at questioners, women and men report the same amount of physical violence from partners. If we look at households the rate of police reports for domestic violence is identical regardless of what gender the inhabitants has.
There is no gender difference in who is on the receiving end of physical violence. There is however a gender difference in the method of physical violence. Women mostly use knives and makeshift weapons. Men mostly use their hands. As is, knives and makeshift weapons don't actually do a lot of damage on average when wielded by someone not trained. Fists however almost always causes damages, especially when repeated.
This isn't true. Women just express violence in different ways (many of which are not seen as typically 'violent' because the benchmark is based on the sort of violence men do).
Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait.
> That said, historically women have been on the receiving end of physical violence from men far, far more often than vice versa and were told to suffer in silence
Statistically, this is not true. In relationships where there is one-sided violence, the violence is (something like) 70/30 with the woman initiating the violence. In relationships where there is two-sided violence, the woman initiates the violence more than half of the time. These studies are hard to find and often have no funding because they get shouted out of the mainstream consciousness.
> First of all: Men can be victims of violent domestic incidents. Don't use "woman and children" here.
We shouldn’t let a misguided sense of equality blind us to the real nature of the problem. Women are not only twice as likely to be murdered by an intimate partner as the other way around, but in over 40% of cases where women murdered men, there was evidence it was in response to violent acts by the man: https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanac...
Statistic after statistic bears out the fact that men are by far the more violent sex, and “women and children” are the victims of male violence.
Can you expand on this because it sounds completely baseless
> Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait
While committing violence isn't exclusive to males, males are statistically and historically much more prone to violence than females regardless of culture or race. There's plenty of data to back this up.
>I think this paints a somewhat dark picture of gender roles within typical story plots. Women are more likely to be in the role of victims- “she screams”, “she cries”, or “she pleads.” Men tend to be the aggressor: “he kidnaps” or “he beats”.
How's that different from actual real life beatings, murders and kidnappings?
> Perhaps the reason why women seek TROs and ROs is because they are much more likely then men to be the victim of physical assault, stalking, harassment, or murder from their partners or former partners.
Whether or not that is the case, it is also possible that it is more that when they are (or, in the case of murder, expect to be) the victims of such things, they feel they don't have other effective remedies outside the legal system, whereas men feel more able to respond effectively (whether or not legally) with physical violence.
> the evidence from other studies has pretty regularly found that at the very least women get more vicious attacks and are more likely to be stalked. Sentiment analysis on very large datasets has been pretty conclusive in this regard.
> "Abusive men threaten spouses" (aka domestic violence is a man thing)
Anyone can be the victim of domestic violence, and anyone can be the perpetrator, but overwhelmingly domestic violence involves a male perpetrator and a female victim.
Even if you expand the definition of "violence" to include "abuse" you still see double the number of female victims of abuse.
Here's a source. They list their methods, they give the Excel sheets.
There were differences between males and females in the pattern of relationships between victims and suspects. Women were far more likely than men to be killed by partners/ex-partners (44% of female victims compared with 6% of male victims), and men were more likely than women to be killed by friends/ acquaintances (32% of male victims compared with 8% of female victims).
> People need to denounce prejudice by anyone (despite what political correctness says). Feminism doesn't deserve protection in the way that the KKK don't deserve it. You aren't born a feminist or KKK, but you sure can choose to propagate the intolerance. I took my stance when I saw that young boys are impacted by a gender war that never should have started.
> A male-free society would be expected to have a much lower violence rate.
I did gather that conclusion from your "Men tend to be much more violent than women" belief ... yet, a conclusion stemming from a belief is no more valid than the belief itself. Try contemplating on the nature of violence itself ... as a starting point, look up 'female aggression subtle' on your favourite search engine. Here is just one article picked from a cursory glance: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201401/...
We cannot know that. It has not been researched, and the victims don't talk about it.
There was a time, in Finland, when everyone assumed that domestic violence is "almost entirely about men", research proposals were ridiculed and not funded. When they eventually studied the topic, 20% of the perpetrators turned out to be women, and in aggravated assaults 50%.
This is going to be a bit off-topic now, but I'd say by violence above only physical violence is meant. If verbal and psychological abuse is included, the balance isn't quite so obvious.
reply