Men, statistically, are more violent than women. This fact has existed for as long back as we have records. The question is, why?
Despite the common belief that men are ‘naturally’ more aggressive and therefore violent, which feeds into the toxic ‘boys-will-be-boys’ mentality, science suggests otherwise. A recent and unfortunately viral paper attempted to argue that evolution has shaped men to be warriors, that is men are biologically programmed to be aggressive against neighbours in their competition for women. The male warrior hypothesis is certainly alluring as it explains the male violence phenomenon. Unfortunately, it is based on very dubious interpretations of science and often ignores historical factors to blindly hand-wave away the conditions that have led to male violence.
Essentially, it boils down to a simple logical fallacy. The paper states that historically, men have been more warlike, aggressive and violent, and therefore they must have evolved to be that way. But Effect ≠ Causation. A far more sensible hypothesis is that with the advent of agriculture, men seized economic and later political power due to higher physical strength. To keep it, they behaved more belligerently. This fact is supported by the observation that as women are gaining economic and political power they too are becoming more aggressive. Women are committing more domestic violence than ever. They dole out harsher judicial penalties than men when judges. Warfare did not decline with women's suffrage. All of these factors suggest that it is power, not gender, which determines violent behaviour.
While you may be tempted to say that it is testosterone, present in much higher levels in men, which leads to aggressive behaviour. That is surely the biological key to the question we have been asking, right? Wrong. Hormones do not regulate behaviour, behaviour regulates hormones. This is proven by the fact that chemically castrated sexual offenders (historically used as a rather barbaric punishment) did not magically become less violent.
A 2013 study of male domestic abusers showed that the ‘link between testosterone and aggression indicates only a weak connection’. and that ‘when aggression is … physical violence, the connection all but disappears’. These findings should affect our worldview in two key aspects. Firstly, abusers bear responsibility for their abuse, not their hormones - men aren’t predestined to be violent, it’s a learned behaviour. Secondly, it means that abusers can reform.
Violence is a complex problem, with toxic masculinity, general gender stereotyping, centuries of historical context and more feeding into the phenomenon of male violence. There is no simple biological solution, and unfortunately, the belief that male violence is a given is all too often used to excuse abusive behaviour - for example by claiming that ‘boys will be boys’, you assume that boys are naturally more disruptive/aggressive/violent, which just isn’t the case.
Written by Noah Mitchell
Artwork by Zara Masood
Comments