The cost of masculine crime

"Men are, by a huge margin, the sex responsible for violent, sexual and other serious crime. The economic cost of this ‘masculine excess’ in delinquency is staggering - to say nothing of its emotional toll. Why is the social shaping of masculinity not an urgent policy issue?"

Don't give me the old bromide that testosterone did it! That is an excuse! A denial of self-responsibility! A claim that protects violent men from being held accountable. Both men and women suffer because of these brutes! 


"Of the one-third of a million people in England and Wales found guilty of an indictable offence in the 12 months ending June 2012, 85% were men. The more violent the crime, the more men predominate. From a unique table deep in the quarterly Ministry of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Bulletin for England and Wales we learn that males were 88% of those found guilty of violence against the person, and more than 98% of those committing sexual offences."

Just as the women of Turkey, dressed from head to toe in heavy gabardine in 100 degree F weather, to conceal their bodies because men couldn't control their impulses to rape, so, men of many countries continue to think they are entitled to use and abuse women. Doesn't that sound sophomoric to you? How can anyone claim they can't control their natural urges? If men were subject to such impulses, doesn't that imply those who can't exist as less human than the gentler ones? More like beasts than Homo sapiens. 

Views: 870

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

women are more likely to be violent against their children than men are

What's your evidence for this?  This suggests that a woman taking care of her child is more likely to be violent than a man taking care of his child. 

A resource states

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers. Mothers are more likely to abuse or neglect their children than fathers because they bear a larger share of parenting responsibilities in two-parent families and because a large percentage of families today are headed by mothers. In some communities, they are the majority

I haven't seen evidence that a woman taking care of her child is more likely to be violent than a man taking care of his child. I doubt that.

Right there is in fact an interesting distinction that the research uncovered. Even though something like 55% of women and 65% of men SAY that it is ok to give a kid a good hard spanking, when it comes to actually administering that violence women were 4 times more likely to actually hit their kids. I don't recall if that figure was adjusted by other factors. In the study I linked earlier where the parents wore constant audio recording devices one woman hit her 11 month old baby. This was a well educated middle class white woman. and unfortunately this wasn't an extreme case. 

You write, "Is it useful to identify crime along gender lines? Is there an action which is a crime for a woman but is not a crime for a man?"

The answer, historically, there is an action which is a crime of assault and men are not held accountable for violence in the home. Law enforcement and law considers man head of the household and can use instrumental behavior to gain control over other family members. Stated another way, men who assault women and children are not held accountable for their behaviors.

Is there an action which is a crime for woman but is not a crime for a man?

In many countries it's a crime to be raped, or to walk around not covered from head to toe, or be in public without a male escort, or to drive a car - if you're a woman.

Quite so. And those laws are unjust because they don't reflect universally applicable objective standard, correct? My point is that such universality doesn't care about gender. 

It doesn't matter what universally applicable objective standard exists. The reality is, behind closed doors, men can commit assaults and are not held accountable by family, friends, neighbors, culture in general, laws and law enforcement. Many judges ask what the women did to cause the assault. My uncle was one of those kinds of judges. I am not kidding you! That is a fact. The hidden crimes are not recorded so I cannot give you citations. 

Yes I agree. I have examples from my own life.

What I'm meaning is that there is a difference between dispute because of injustice and dispute because something is objectively wrong. 

Women tend to be more conformist, for whatever reason. Girls are expected to conform, boys are given more latitude - "boys will be boys".  Women tend to be more sensitive to social cues. Women are more trained to serve others - which includes flattering men by agreeing with them.

It's one thing I appreciate about men - they tend to be more themselves than women. 

Perhaps the difference in the crime rate reflects this:  men feel more entitled to violate laws. 

A female child who doesn't learn how to be helpless, powerless, dependent, passive, submissive pays a heavy price. Of course females are more sensitive to social clues, they have to be if they want to be accepted by others in the tribe. Females also learn to not think for themselves, to ask permission and direction, to submit to authority. Usually, everyone around them, from infancy to death, is bigger and stronger than they.

It is by giving up wanting to please that a female can find her own voice and power. Some females are born with that independent spirit and it is encouraged. Some of us had it beaten out of us. The razor strap was the instrument of torture in my childhood. 

The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir is about what happens to women through their lives.

She paints a terrible picture, a total robbery of selfhood from women.  It isn't that bad anymore, but her book is distressingly, still relevant.

I used to go to lesbian-feminist events, and they were very conformist under the guise of "political correctness".  I felt this culture reflected the upbringing of women to conform to social expectations.  In a lesbian-feminist environment, there were equally demanding social expectations - just different ones.  The leaders of the lesbian-feminist groups seemed to feel that women could be controlled.  Since women get controlled from childhood.  We're underlings.

This female conditioning is often reflected in feminist views.

Many men put down feminists.  Part of that is just denial.  But the dislike of feminists could also come from the conformist and shaming aspects of female conditioning, reflected in what the feminists say.  The guys don't like having those female values applied to them. 

So male criminality is (to some extent) the downside of the originality and selfhood that men are allowed to have. 

I tend to be a loner.  And part of the reason is to escape the attempts of others to control me. 

"So male criminality is (to some extent) the downside of the originality and selfhood that men are allowed to have. "

That is a fascinating idea Luara. Many thinkers from the very libertarian / anarchy perspective make that point a lot but I've never seen it arrived at it from this direction.
By extension when women enjoy the same degrees of selfhood and originality we might expect that their criminality would increase. So in practice which would be better: more or less liberty? Or in other words, perhaps it would be instead be better than men give up those aspects that lead to criminality and emulate the feminine aspect. But that would also mean that if those things are objectively undesirable, women should give up wanting those things too right?

Most of the people in prisons come from bad, disadvantaged backgrounds - poverty or abuse.  Their criminality was their response, their way of coping with life. 

So I would say, help the people with bad backgrounds to cope in a better way than being criminals - that would be the answer rather than bringing them up in a traditionally female way. 

Our prison system and our punitive ideas of justice are all messed up.  Those people need help and education, but prison often just hardens people, embitters them and trains them to be better criminals. 

Our punitive ideas of justice perhaps come from religion.  The idea of transcendent will - that anyone can choose not to do the things they did, by making a choice outside of physical reality, justifies punishment.  I don't see any other justification for punishing people. 

Some people have to be confined to protect society.  But they are probably better off and will behave better in the future if we try to help them and treat them as well as possible - rather than punishing them by allowing their lives to be miserable in prison.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service