phanto,
sorry if that seemed patronising, but alphas are generally the bigger more aggressive primates=less given to philosophising. More to the point, I'm so used to being attacked for being left-wing and university educated by these same "alpha males" (for whom the terms are synonymous), that I can't help anticipating there predictable patterns of behaviour.
I don't think I'm insecure about my learning, such as it is. I try to use words for precision and only wish to be considered.

Suseonline,

it is a shame we can't be objective and just treat this problem on merit, like any other, but here as elsewhere it's interesting the way we generally line up along partisan lines, in this case gendered.
This article was written by a woman and opinion seems to follow suit (though moi is male).
It is surely fair to say that Women seem to want to place themselves above criticism, being quick to shout misogynist! Yet "mere men" are often cheap fodder in women's magazines and elsewhere?
I wonder if women are capable of critiquing their own role in the manifestation of male violence? I've said above that women are complicit; but women don't seem to want to go there?
Male violence is always condemned out of hand, and justifiably so, but this doesn't mean women are not influential?
And what about machismo? A lot of women enjoy and encourage male bravado and heroics? There's no doubt a biological as well as sociological component to this. Some women enjoy being fought over, the violence of the footy field, military uniforms and wrapping themselves in the flag, being supine in bed etc. etc.
As is always the case, there is much more to this issue than lazy and gendered opinion seem to suggest..

Hi Squeers, just a couple of points re your posts (I’ll need to do it in two posts).
First, re ‘you seem to be drawing a "structuralist" picture of the psyche’, I’d be inclined to say no; nevertheless I’m interested in what prompted you to think so.

Second, re ‘As is always the case, there is much more to this issue,’ I couldn’t agree more. The problem is that no single article can do justice to such complexity. In my case, I write books about the problem and, where possible, try to take one idea and say something relatively useful in 1200 words. Perhaps it doesn’t work, but I think it’s worth trying.

I tend toward interactionalist and biocultural-dialectical views (supported by archaeological and historical research (refs on request)), that it is the construction of patriarchy (with the rise of the city state), with its hierarchies based on class, race and gender, that led to the sheer scale of the violence common since the founding of the Abrahamic religions (as to Eastern cultures, I don’t know enough to comment). Following is an extract from my mainstream book: ‘Barking Mad’:

Lest the very sight of the word ‘patriarchy’ bring you out in hives, let me clarify. The term does not mean that all men have clout or that no women do. Most men don’t write the books and don’t have a say. Nor is patriarchal behaviour confined to men. Think Maggie Thatcher. It’s just that the Cheneys and Rumsfelds outnumber the Thatchers much as Afghan warlords to Trojan Horses.

Author Adrienne Rich describes patriarchy as the power of the Fathers. It works—by direct force or pressure, influence, law, tradition, customs, etiquette, education and the division of labour—to determine what part women shall or shall not play. Patriarchy, says Rich, is a ‘concrete, identifiable sexual hierarchy parallel and interconnected with those of race and class’.
TBC

Speaking of which, do I want to replace patriarchy with matriarchy? Do I want eight thousand years of a different system of inequality, this time with periods? What I’m on about is how social systems perpetuate dysfunction to which most of us remain oblivious. If it were up to me I’d opt for forms of democracy that foster the best of human traits rather than rewarding the worst. We teach children to consider the feelings of others and behave compassionately; why not governments?

But I digress. According to God’s Word (as interpreted by the self-appointed Fathers), Woman must be morally supervised, made to do as she’s told, kept under control at all times and treated with suspicion, while Man gets on with recreating Paradise. Patriarchal Authority is about controlling others, particularly women. By nature, it says, women cannot be trusted to control themselves.

Patriarchal Authority tells its sons that if they’re not constantly winning they must be losers.
It tells the rest of us we don’t count.
It blames its own victims for their misfortune, which it says follows naturally from their moral weakness.
It wounds particularly deeply the sons with the greatest capacity for empathy, sensitivity and creativity, and it crucifies those who turn uppity—for the ‘greater good’.
It damages, destroys or enslaves anything that threatens to interfere with the unlimited expansion of its domination and wealth.
It never owns up to its mistakes and never says sorry.
Patriarchy creates social divisions and says everyone deserves what they get. The lower level thinks it’s not smart enough to get an education; for solace, it rubbishes the upper tier for being afraid to get its hands dirty.
Patriarchy is no less than institutionalised hazing—from boot camp to boardroom, public house to public service.

TBC

violence in the Indigeneous, gay and I suspect Muslim communtity is at much higher rates than that of the rest of society. In America it is much higher among African Americans. Seems to me that this article simply fits Andee's warped little narrative. Blame never goes where it should. It will however win approval among 'regressives'.

Suse, we don't talk about men being the main perpetrators of family violence because it's the wrong way to look at the issue, women are just as violent as men and they initiate violent confrontations far more often than men do.
There's no scientific data to back the theory that family violence is a gendered issue, all the data suggests that mutual combat is the norm, the only difference is in the rates of injury and fatality, though that too is debatable when suicide and other forms of premature death in men are taken into account.
Being in a violent relationship is a road to an early grave for both men and women.
We know also that nearly all the violent crime in society is committed by a hard core 5-6% of men who are repeat offenders and that from medical examinations of prisoners the majority of these men have acquired brain injury of one form or another.
These facts have been posted so many times on this site that you'd assume that the patriarchy conspiracy theories would be laughed off like all the other nutball posts, not so it seems.

<describes patriarchy as the power of the Fathers. It works—by direct force or pressure,
<influence, law, tradition, customs, etiquette, education and the division of labour—to
<determine what part women shall or shall not play.

Posted by imho,

One of the problems we face today, is that we are judging the past by todays standards, this leads to a values conflict.

If we look at tribal law/rituals some of these were necessary for the survival of the tribe. For example our aboriginal people, would pack up and leave a campsite when someone died. Certain areas were known to have bad spirits (causing death and sickness).

Even in our own christian culture when the Jews were on their epic trip, there were a number of laws/rituals designed to keep them healthy, such as using separate plates for meat and veggies. (Helps prevent cross contamination)

Everyone from children to adults had defined roles, and expectations, to learn the skills necessary for survival. Sure there were restrictive gender roles, Whilst us so called modern people from our lofty high moral grounds pass judgement on the past behaviours, it wasn't until relatively recently when writing and literacy became common.

And even more recently have we had the time and luxury to be self indulgant in navel gazing and reflection. So there is thousands of years, where there is blank slate on how people felt, their reasons for doing what they were doing.

Different tribal groups, depending on the dangers of the area in which they lived would have had different laws/rituals and men as well were subject to a hierarchal structure.

So depending on which way you want to spin bias, by using anthological data. The past can be presented from a negative perspective or perhaps more realistically from a combination of both a positive and negative perspective.

Anthological data on our fore bearers , I believe is extrapolated from looking at the tribal behaviour of the current hunter gathers. There is danger in this, as not only there the researcher bias, but also the gender bias of our modern society, that will colour interpretations.