Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That being said, women can still be cruel and violent, and just because our society has allowed men to take on the burden for women, that doesn't mean that women couldn't act out in violence if society were organized in different ways.
What do you mean by this? What burden would that be that causes men to be overwhelmingly violent based upon crime statistics?
I just finished a good book about spies in WWII.
The author was "on the inside" and was involved near the end with negotiation for Japan to surrender. It was a done deal. When they asked the Japanese (in late July) what date seemed likely, they answered "Sept 1". Like it or not, it takes time to put these things together, write up the documents, make sure everyone is on board, etc.
Instead we dropped two atomic bombs - unleashing more than just those couple 100 thousand dead, but the "OK" to develop and use such weapons in the future.
The author points out he was proud to be a member of the effort to have civilized men sit at the table. As mentioned, it was a done deal (Russia did mess it up a bit by attacking Japan from the North).....
But this is a sad example of our inability to seek the civilized way.
Yes, males are responsible for most violence. But does the white guy who pushed the button to release the bomb become a hero while the African American who lashed out and did a drive-by shooting is inhuman?
In the case of most racial disparities, it is poverty and history (it's hard to use the word "culture" for forced slavery, breeding, lynching, hanging, segregation, etc.)....which does make things worse in the USA for black folks.
They are problems we could solve if we wanted to - but we don't - maybe because it makes us feel superior that our race doesn't kill as many people. Plenty of Italians and Irish were involved in thousands of deaths back in US History when they were on the bottom of the food chain (or had criminal elements). Heck, even modern day Whitey Bulger was a one man murdering machine.
BS !
The 1st bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6.
The 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9 with the threat of conventional bombing resuming.
Devastation the likes we have never seen !
Yet, it still took 8 days after Hiroshima for Japan to surrender and the vote amongst the 6 military officers who were to decide was deadlocked at 3-3.
It took the Emperor ( who had no vote ) to beg the 3 no voters to reconsider.
Two massive atomic bombs and a 3-3 deadlock to surrender?
I just finished a good book about spies in WWII.
The author was "on the inside" and was involved near the end with negotiation for Japan to surrender. It was a done deal. When they asked the Japanese (in late July) what date seemed likely, they answered "Sept 1". Like it or not, it takes time to put these things together, write up the documents, make sure everyone is on board, etc.
Instead we dropped two atomic bombs - unleashing more than just those couple 100 thousand dead, but the "OK" to develop and use such weapons in the future.
The author points out he was proud to be a member of the effort to have civilized men sit at the table. As mentioned, it was a done deal (Russia did mess it up a bit by attacking Japan from the North).....
But this is a sad example of our inability to seek the civilized way.
Yes. Women need to wake up and realize this. Men overwhelmingly commit murders, rape, and other violent behavior. If it was a race doing this we'd be all over it, but since it's a gender we aren't.
We have. For a long time now. Its called feminism.
What do you mean by this? What burden would that be that causes men to be overwhelmingly violent based upon crime statistics?
Testosterone. To paraphrase Elaine Benes, I don't know how you guys live with that burden!
I totally agree with OP. Criminal profiling by gender, age, and economic status is just obvious.
So, here's my fantasy: when I'm Queen of the Universe, I'll send all males between the ages of 13 and 33 to Mars. There they can fight each other to their heart's content. The strong will survive. They can come back down to earth after age 33, and peacefully coexist with the rest of us. If they don't, back to Mars they go! Babies born from these surviving men will be nice and strong. And maybe aggressive, too, but that's ok because when they're 13 they have to go to Mars. If women want to have sex with a guy in that age range they can go up for some fun weekends.
Back on Earth there will be dominant women and aggressive women, as is the human condition. Conflict will continue to exist, but on a much smaller scale.
Oh - and I'll send all religious people to Mercury, where they'll all burn up and leave the rest of us in peace.
What do you think? Do you elect me Queen of the Universe?
And really, it's some small fraction of that population; most black Americans are respectable people but there's this 1% gangbanger population that packs heat and is quick to use it.
In fact if you were to ignore this small but violent fraction of the population, our general murder rates and gun homicide rates would be only slightly above those of Canada and western Europe--in other words, not a major problem. Certainly it wouldn't justify the kind of hysterical anti-gun activists that are trying to ban all firearms. They either don't know or don't care who's doing all the shooting.
And yes, there's more violence among black and Hispanic women than among white women. It's not just gender. It's cultural, economic, and ethnic factors.
Thanks, peanuts. Saved me lots o' readin' an' writin'!
When a crime is committed in the US, there's much ado or speculation about the race of the individual. There's often coded language about race, religion, mental health, the weapon used, the tangled relationships or the wealth involved.
They're thugs.
They're muslim.
He's a lone wolf (e.g. crazy).
He's an irresponsible gun owner.
He got rid of her for his mistress.
He collected the life insurance.
However, the media and the population rarely (if ever?) dissect why violent crime is so decidedly, overwhelmingly male. There's often discussion over what to do about those thugs, those immigrants, those religious extremists or those guns. What gets lost, is that men, regardless of race, color, religion, creed, weapon of choice or financial standing are the principal proponents of violence.
Men are half of the population yet are charged with 73% of offenses against family and children, 77% of aggravated assault, 89% of murder and 99% of forcible rape according to 2012 FBI statistics.
Are men raised differently than women, expected (even encouraged) to be more physical?
Are hormones a driving factor?
What is it about men that prevents them from controlling violent impulses?
Is men perpetuating violence ignored because it's simply accepted as nothing exceptional?
A 20F degree day during a Wisconsin winter is nothing of note. A 68 degree day is newsworthy. Is a violent man (murderer, wife beater, rapist, child abuser) just another 20 degree day?
Yes, it's primarily a male thing. Almost all terrorism is male, as well. Not all, but almost all.
It's testosterone mixed with the way some males are raised, viewing the world from an entitled point of view and a form of narcissism. Things should be their way. Others should believe the way they do. Others should act the way the guy says they should act. If another male confronts them, some of them react w/violence to show them that they are the better man, to safeguard their ego and sense of masculinity, or just because they never learned to control themselves. To walk away is being sissy.
It seems to me that women are getting more violent. But it's still almost wholly a male thing. Yet this is rarely mentioned.
I just finished a good book about spies in WWII.
The author was "on the inside" and was involved near the end with negotiation for Japan to surrender. It was a done deal. When they asked the Japanese (in late July) what date seemed likely, they answered "Sept 1". Like it or not, it takes time to put these things together, write up the documents, make sure everyone is on board, etc.
Instead we dropped two atomic bombs - unleashing more than just those couple 100 thousand dead, but the "OK" to develop and use such weapons in the future.
The author points out he was proud to be a member of the effort to have civilized men sit at the table. As mentioned, it was a done deal (Russia did mess it up a bit by attacking Japan from the North).....
But this is a sad example of our inability to seek the civilized way.
Yes, males are responsible for most violence. But does the white guy who pushed the button to release the bomb become a hero while the African American who lashed out and did a drive-by shooting is inhuman?
In the case of most racial disparities, it is poverty and history (it's hard to use the word "culture" for forced slavery, breeding, lynching, hanging, segregation, etc.)....which does make things worse in the USA for black folks.
They are problems we could solve if we wanted to - but we don't - maybe because it makes us feel superior that our race doesn't kill as many people. Plenty of Italians and Irish were involved in thousands of deaths back in US History when they were on the bottom of the food chain (or had criminal elements). Heck, even modern day Whitey Bulger was a one man murdering machine.
This is an old fake story about how the Japanese were going to surrender. It's simply not true.
A drive by shooting at innocent people is murder of innocent people. Not at all like war. War is hell on earth, for sure, and in many instances is unnecessary (Germany's plan to take over the world by violence, for example). But war can be a defensive action, or a necessary action to rid the world of someone else who is starting wars and causing harm and death on others. A drive by shooting is never that.
Poverty does not cause violence. People do. That's how some people react to not getting what they want, or how they respond in general to adverse conditions. It's the male response....it's not the adverse conditions. If it were the conditions, all who face those conditions would be violent.
The mob was not about poverty. It was about corruption for the purpose of monetary gain and power.
These criminals, jailbirds, violent offenders are products of single mothers. Fact. You want to screw up a little boy: remove the father. But that's not politically-correct talk is it?
BTW the Koran is violent and advocates violence. Read it and find out, a short book.
I'm a man 39 years old who was a product of a single mother for most of my childhood and unfortunately also a foster child at one point for a few years along with my sisters. I don't have a criminal record not even a speeding ticket and i've been driving 22 years now. Life is not A or B.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
