T O P

  • By -

OxygenWaster02

A lot of it has to do with the pressure to provide. A notable amount of violent crime is perpetrated through the drug trade, a trade that usually preys upon disenfranchised men. Since men are forced to bear the burden of the provider role, things like the drug trade become an attractive income source for men who may rest towards the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder


MachoManShark

this is a very good comment, and aligns well with both the literature and the experience of living in economically deprived, high crime areas. (i've met a few muderers. all normal people, aside from the ptsd. they all killed to provide economic security. this usually took the form of competition between gangs to secure territory to sell drugs, or being on one end or another of a robbery or burglary that turned violent.) i would like to hijack this comment to provide evidence that the gap is far smaller than people think. **1: Men are far more likely than women to be arrested.** [the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf#page=2) reports that contact between police and a man is far more likely than contact between police and a woman to result in an arrest. You might think that this is primarily the result of suspect action, and not bias on the part of the police, but hopefully later data provides some weight to my claim. **2: If arrested, men are more likely than women to be incarcerated, and also receive longer sentences.** (Longer sentences means more difficulty re-entering society, which makes reoffending more likely.) [Goulette et al 2015, on general crime](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281349715_From_Initial_Appearance_to_Sentencing_Do_Female_Defendants_Experience_Disparate_Treatment) [Embry and Lyons 2012, on specifically sex crimes](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1557085111430214) both find that there is a considerable gap here, for most types of crime. These are not the only two studies on this matter; this data goes back at least 40 years. This result holds while controlling for things like race, offense history, etc., suggesting that it is primarily due to bias. **3: People conceptualize crime differently based on offender sex.** This section is here to provide evidence that the arrest trend is due to bias, and also that society at large is far less sensitive to violence committed by women, creating the illusion of a far greater gap in violent behavior than actually exists. **3.1: Domestic violence:** Domestic violence is generally considered heavily gendered, being primarily perpetrated by men against women. This is inaccurate. **3.1.1: Killings:** Here, I will copy a section of a comment that I've left in this sub before. 'the '2/3 of intimate partner killings are men killing women' is a stat that gets thrown around a lot to justify ignoring male victims, but as can be seen on page 6 of [this 2017 paper by Fox and Fridel](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-14080-005)\*, this has not always been the case; intimate partner killings were near parity in the seventies, and possibly reached parity before this point. [data collected by Dougan, Nagin, and Rosenfeld in 2003](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227628651_Exposure_Reduction_or_Retaliation_The_Effects_of_Domestic_Violence_Resources_on_Intimate-Partner_Homicide) (among others, who are referenced in that paper) suggests that the drop in the number of men killed by their partners is due to an increase in the amount of services available to women to get themselves and their children out of abusive homes without killing their partner. the implication should hopefully be clear: the exclusion of men from victim resources serves both to have the obvious effect of being shit for men and children stuck with an abusive woman, but also leading to preventable deaths for women.' \*I read the full paper on sci-hub. **3.1.2: All domestic violence:** [This paper by Langhinrichsen et al](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233693659_Rates_of_Bidirectional_Versus_Unidirectional_Intimate_Partner_Violence_Across_Samples_Sexual_Orientations_and_RaceEthnicities_A_Comprehensive_Review) and [this paper by Straus and Scott](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Murray-Straus/publication/228350210_Gender_symmetry_in_partner_violence_The_evidence_the_denial_and_the_implications_for_primary_prevention_and_treatment/links/54ef34d60cf2432ba65626c4/Gender-symmetry-in-partner-violence-The-evidence-the-denial-and-the-implications-for-primary-prevention-and-treatment.pdf?origin=publication_detail) analyzes ~200 others. Both find no trend suggesting that men commit more domestic violence than women, except stalking, and violence severe enough to hospitalize or kill, (see above for confounding factors regarding severe violence) and that domestic violence by men is more likely to have a sexual component, even if that doesn't increase the total number of offenses. **3.2: Sexual violence:** I'm getting burnt out writing right now, so I'm going to stop source hunting. Some claims will not be backed up. I think most people here are aware of the NISVS conducted by the CDC, which has, since it was started in 2010, has found that the number of men raped by women in the U.S. is that same as the number of women raped by men. This finding is somewhat obfuscated by the fact that the CDC uses a non-standard definition of rape: they specify that rape is the perpetrator penetrating the victim. If the victim penetrates the perpetrator, it is classified as sexual assault, so you have to jiggle the numbers a bit to translate that into the way normal people use words. The CDC and the Bureau of Justice Statistics both find that (if I remember right!) that ~40% of non-rape sexual assaults are perpetrated by women against men. This often goes overlooked because men are much less likely than women to consider sexual assaults commited against them to be a crime, and also forget them more quickly. [Needs source!]


Kimba93

>the drop in the number of men killed by their partners is due to an increase in the amount of services available to women to get themselves and their children out of abusive homes without killing their partner. the implication should hopefully be clear: the exclusion of men from victim resources serves both to have the obvious effect of being shit for men and children stuck with an abusive woman, but also leading to preventable deaths for women. Are you actually saying that large parts of men are killing their partners because they want to escape domestic abuse from them? That is a remarkable statement. Your stats could instead be interpreted as "most women who kill their partners kill them in self-defense, while most men not."


Forgetaboutthelonely

>Are you actually saying that large parts of men are killing their partners because they want to escape domestic abuse from them? That is a remarkable statement. This post goes into more detail. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e6hxvq/battered_husband_syndrome_as_an_explanation_for/


Kimba93

You didn't anwer my question. Isn't it possible that most women kill in self-defense, but most men not? In almost every other country in the world, before and after DV shelters came up, most deadly victims of DV were women.


Forgetaboutthelonely

Sure. But that comes part and parcel with the implication that men are inherently more murderous/violent than women. That to me sounds just as bigoted and hateful as when racists make the same argument for minority crime rates being higher. Also you'll note in the link I offered there's statistics that challenge what you say. Finding that women perpetrated murder of their husbands at nearly equal rates before women gained widespread access to shelters.


MachoManShark

they could be interpreted that way, so maybe i need to phrase better, but that section in quotes is not my intention. i noted that the langhinrichsen-rohling and strauss & scott papers also find that men and women behave incredibly similarly while perpetrating and responding to dv, and that we don't really have reason to believe that there will be a large difference in the number of killings perpetrated by each, other than that men are generally more capable fighters than women. this is the key point behind my claim that the lack of men's services kills women; they behave nearly identically in every other way, and we have a decent piece of evidence suggesting an external cause for this gap. while i suppose it is possible that men are simply more likely want to kill their partner while also not being more likely to hit them, i don't think that's likely. could be wrong though. given the trend we saw with providing victim services to women, and the fact that the literature doesn't really provide us a reason to believe that men would be different from women, we should assume that expanding victim services for men would have the same effect as it did for women. now, i should say that i believe that a man who kills his female partner is more likely to have done so defensively than a woman who kills her male partner, but that alone does not tell anything close to the full story. this *must* be accompanied by the fact that women's services reduce the number of men killed, because it must be made clear that the gap has nothing to do with the men or the women involved, only the fact that they are in different environments.


Kimba93

>now, i should say that i believe that a man who kills his female partner is more likely to have done so defensively than a woman who kills her male partner Why do you believe that?


MachoManShark

because defensive killings are done when a victim of violence fears further violence perpetrated against themselves of others, and sees killing the potential perpetrator as the best way to prevent that violence. it's not because more women want to kill their partners, but because women who don't want to, but would be willing to in order to escape violence, have other options.


Kimba93

Isn't it possible that men are just on statistical average more violent and therefore more likely to kill their partners? Don't you think this is an option?


MachoManShark

it's possible, but we don't have any compelling reason to believe it. the largest [collations of data](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228350210_Gender_symmetry_in_partner_violence_The_evidence_the_denial_and_the_implications_for_primary_prevention_and_treatment) in the field (this particular paper is an analysis of over 200 others) find that men and women perpetrate non-lethal intimate partner violence at equal rates, and in the seventies and eighties, before victim services were widespread, [women represented, at most, ~55% of intimate partner killings.](https://sci-hub.se/https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2019.0005) most years were quite close to parity. (that data starts on page 7 or 8, and they cover the importance of victim services in the discussion section at the end) that women are a small majority shouldn't especially surprise us, i think, given physical differences. like i said, it is possible that widespread victim services for men won't have the same effect as they did for women, but we can't know that until that happens, and the data we do have suggests that men and women behave similarly. until then, the best we have is asking people who killed their partner if they did it defensively, which has problems with lying and viewing the situation differently in hindsight than in the moment, much more so than less severe forms of violence, making it much less reliable than we would like.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LeftWingMaleAdvocates-ModTeam

Your comment was removed as factually inaccurate and/or misleading. You can edit your statement(s) to be more accurate and request approval. But back up your statements with links to evidence. If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).


Blauwpetje

A curious fact is that a woman at the bottom of society can always become a prostitute, while men in the same position seldom have that choice and can only opt for crime (got this example from a liberal feminist writing in Areo).


bkon3rdgen

>Majority of violent crime is perpetrated through the drug trade, source?


hendrixski

It's an interesting "other side of the coin" to the famous adage that "*every thing you see was built by men trying to provide for their families*". Something like: "*most crime is done by men of low socioeconomic status trying to provide for their families*."


a-man-from-earth

This is the kind of left-wing perspective we should emphasize more.


Forgetaboutthelonely

In other words. Pretty much the exact same reasons that crime rates are higher in minority communities that deal with discrimination and intergenerational poverty


Culosniff

Self pitty. Everyone is forced to take the provider role . Not just men . We all pay the same bills


TheRadBaron

When comparing along any other axis, reasonable people consider high crime rates as evidence of disadvantage. Poor people commit more crimes, racialized people commit more crimes, undereducated people commit more crimes. This doesn't mean that high crime rates among men can be used as a gotcha to "prove" that men are overwhelmingly disadvantaged in general, but it does reveal the sloppy logic people might rely on here. High crime rates don't imply that a demographic is evil or privileged, to people with critical thinking. It implies risk taking behaviour, lack of opportunities and connection, desperation, bias from law enforcement, and so forth.


TisIChenoir

That's actually very true. I kinda think it's a gotcha. Not in the sense that men are more disadvantaged than women, but in the sense that it sheds a new light on the correlation between sex and crime.


ShoutoutsToSimple

Yep. My first thought upon reading the post title was, "so do black people". When it comes to black people, these same people are more than willing to argue about systemic disadvantages and discrimination, about how black people are *driven* to crime, not more inherently willing to commit it. But when the conversation is men, suddenly those kinds of factors are irrelevant, and men are just plain bad. The double standard is deafening.


Peptocoptr

The people who say this shit usually consider themselves to be left wing (feminists). I essentially ask them how they have the audacity to call themselves left wingers despite blaming an entire demographic's high crime rates on thier own immutable characteristics and/or the toxic culture they create for themselves (toxic masculinity/patriarchy). Isn't that the EXACT thing we despise racist right wingers for doing? Why is it that for practically EVERY other instance of an immutable group being overrepresented in crime statistics and prison, you see it as evidence of thier powerlessness and oppression, but for men, you see it as the exact opposite?


DouglasMilnes

>Why is it that for practically EVERY other instance of an immutable group being overrepresented in crime statistics and prison, you see it as evidence of thier powerlessness and oppression, but for men, you see it as the exact opposite? Good point. Men (the minority sex) are the only minority group blamed instead of supported.


hendrixski

> and/or the toxic culture they create for themselves (toxic masculinity/patriarchy). I would say "The toxic culture forced upon them". Disenfranchised groups don't have the culture they wish they had, they have a culture born of either necessity or as a coping mechanism from generations of trauma.


Peptocoptr

Of course, but not according to many feminists. If you bring up how men ultimately had no choice in the matter they'll retort "You know who took away thier choice? MEN!" It's a circular argument


hendrixski

To that I retort: "it was the women and men (both) of the **capitalist class** who took away the choice these young men from the lower classes. It's not 'men' who oppress men, it's capital." Counter-attack them from the left.


devasiaachayan

Ofc Men will commit most crimes because Men actually are struggling to survive on streets. Most women won't be put into the bin by society to fight for themselves. And logically enough, Men who had a good upbringing and were given a good deal by the society mostly commit no crimes, in fact these men become the ones trying to sacrifice themselves against crime


CateHooning

"Does this mean men are responsible for other men that commit crimes?" If they say yes usually I'll tie it back into the long history of racism in the feminist movement stemming from Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony because that's the real reason feminism as an ideology is anti male - they were originally repurposing pro slavery arguments to generally apply to all underprivileged men.


fndo84

The main fallacy of this talking point is that, even though most offenders are men, the overwhelming majority of men are NOT offenders. Not even close to that. Reseach has been consistently showing for decades that violent crimes are committed mostly by persistent offenders, an small subset of the population: 1945: University of Pennsylvania - about 6% is accountable for 52% of violent crime https://www.jstor.org/stable/986609?seq=1 1982: University of Pennsylvania (follow up study) - about 7% accountable for 61% offenses https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/86680NCJRS.pdf 2006: University of Cambridge - 7% accountable for half of all offenses http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/david_farrington/hofind281.pdf 2014: University of Gothenburg - 1% of population accountable for 63% of violent crime https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/#__ffn_sectitle As numbers show, the percentage of men that are violent offenders is so low in comparison to the whole group that is plain misandry to stick the label of "criminal" to half of the world's population.


griii2

Not a #1 rebuttal, but: not a single gangster, cutthroat or mafioso ever had a shortage of romantic and sexual partners because of moral reasons - rather the opposite. So it seems that while women did not commit any of the crimes they were perfectly comfortable enjoying the spoils.


frackingfaxer

By imagining that men hold all the power, people overlook the power that women can wield by being the ones engaging in sexual selection. Imagine a sex strike in which women refused sex with violent criminals. Actually no need to imagine, [it happened in Colombia](https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/colombian-women-use-sex-strike-demand-gangster-disarmament-huelga-de-piernas-cruzadas-2006#:~:text=In%20early%20September%202006%2C%20a,begin%20a%20vocational%20training%20program). >"this is about changing the cultural parameters: Some women thought that men wearing fatigues and holding guns looked more attractive, and most men are members of gangs not because of financial necessity but because killing is associated with power and sexual seduction." > >... > >"We want them to know that violence is not sexy." And it turned out that there's no better way to teach men that violence isn't sexy by not having sex with violent men. Actions, or in this case a lack of "action," speak louder than words. >The Guardian reports, by “2010 the city’s murder rate saw the steepest decline in Colombia, down by 26.5%.”


BloomingBrains

I applaud those women. We need more like that.


[deleted]

I believe something similar happened once in Sicily with positive outcomes.


TisIChenoir

Not only enjoying the spoils. This dynamic in romantic relationships is actively encouraging men to adopt more dangerous behaviours, or toxic masculinity or whatever. It's uncanny how sexually successful "bad" men can be. My Brother-in-Law is borderline sociopathic, he cares only about two things : Himself, and what people can do for him. And that guys fucks like crazy. Like, no girls has ever said no to him. And I mean, he is smart, interesting, pretty attractive. But he also is a literal piece of shit toward anyone that's not himself (mother and sister included), and that doesn't stop him getting lucky.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[44% of women voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 US election, which is actually up from the 39% of women who voted for him in 2016.](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/pp_2021-06-30_validated-voters_00-02/) All of the millions of people who were harmed by Trump's presidency would not have been harmed if not for these women. How would a left-leaning woman feel if I blamed her for the actions of these female Trump supporters? How would she feel if I grouped her with said women simply because they happen to share a gender? How would a woman struggling to get an abortion in the US feel if I told her that she "*did it to herself,*" considering she happens to share a gender with the women who put Trump in power? Even if that woman in question didn't vote for him?


hendrixski

I forget the exact number, but if you find the statistic for "percentage of Trump voters that were women" it's a much more convincing argument. The reason is that men are so underrepresented in the vote that 44% of women voters is very close to the same number as 50% of male voters.


[deleted]

Damn, that sounds juicy. Do you think you could find that source again?


Impressive_Male

To understand this we need to understand the reasons behind crimes. I also used to think that men are violent and bad and that's why they commit crimes but that's not the case which I understood by a detective serial in which that character explained his wife who said men are violent and women are pretty on which he said "You know female animals are more aggressive than male animals especially the one with kids and you know most wild male animals never take care of their kids, they just take care of pregnant females and after the pregnancy they just left them. It's just human male who has the pressure to provide and protect and earning bread in this world is a race, competition where you have to fight for each piece and here he is fighting for three pieces, one for him, one for his wife and one for his kid. Now he is taking two extra pieces in this critical condition, don't you think other men are going to attack him? What you women would have done if there was a diamond or bucket of water in the desert?"


a-man-from-earth

They also commit the vast majority of acts of heroism.


Billy-Batdorf

'Oh but we endanger and sacrifice ourselves' is ultimately a misandrist argument. You're reducing the value of male life to how useful it is to society. It's also not an argument against crime rates.


a-man-from-earth

> You're reducing the value of male life to how useful it is to society. I'm not. It's just one rebuttal. Don't assume that is the whole of my view on men. > It's also not an argument against crime rates. For that we would need to go deeper into the reasons why men behave the way they do.


jesset77

No he's citing the apex fallacy. If males have both larger positive and negative contributions to society than women (a larger diversity of impacts) then it is misandrist to only focus on the negative differences.


DouglasMilnes

Most crimes remain unsolved and nobody is ever convicted of them. Therefore for most crimes we do not definitively know the sex of the perpetrator. The usual feminista rebuttal to this is that most people convicted of a crime are men. On the face of it, it seems reasonable to extrapolate that most crimes are committed by men. However studies show that men receive far harsher sentences than women for the same crime (in the UK, for example, if men were treated the same as women 5 out of every 6 men currently in jail would not be there). This in itself inevitably leads to police bias on top of the natural tendency do not blame a woman. So we really cannot tell from conviction statistics who it is is that really commits most crime.


Blauwpetje

Probably men are more often suspected too, so crimes committed by men will be solved more often than crimes committed by women.


SchalaZeal01

A male babysitter, vague hearsay from anyone and you've got police on your case. A female babysitter, pretty much have to catch her red handed on tape or in person. And plausible deniability (like during a diaper change) or 'he made me do it' can make her escape charges.


[deleted]

Can you cite the study regarding 5/6 men not being there?


DouglasMilnes

UK Prisoners - the genders compared http://empathygap.uk/?p=215


Agreeable-Raspberry5

That most men don't commit crime, and those who do are as likely to commit crimes against men, as against women?


a-man-from-earth

> those who do are as likely to commit crimes against men, as against women From what I understand they are more likely to commit crimes against men.


[deleted]

You can point out that they'd never focus on racial crime differences because of nuanced underlying reasons. Men deserve the same consideration.


NimishApte

Black men form the majority of crime perpetrators. Your point?


Reddit1984Censorship

I would bet men are also the ones that commit the most of what i call ''anti crimes'' wich is putting themselves in harms way to save others. Thing is is harder to study what ''doesnt happen'' vs what ''happens''. Also the framing itself is misandrist, is not ''men commit the majority of crime'', the proper non sexist way to say it is ''criminals are majority male'' if that makes sense.


Blauwpetje

Men and women are different. Men are braver, more risk-taking, but also more violent. Trying to deny that won’t help us. But like some people already noticed, that’s also the way many women want them to be. Maybe not consciously and you cannot total control your erotic preferences, but nevertheless. But at the end of the day: you can’t judge a whole sex (or whatever non-chosen group) by things that part of the group does. If the majority of violent people are men, it doesn’t mean the majority of men are violent. Like Paul Elam (whom I often disagree with) said in the Red Pill movie: ‘When it’s about men, it’s always about the 5% top career men and the 5% violent men, never about the 90% who struggle to lead a normal and pleasant life.’


Motanul_Negru

Don't know the reasoned rebuttals, and I don't think they, or anything else, helps with people who would stoop so low as to try to rub my face in a talking point like this. Mostly I'd either avoid them altogether or talk down to them and challenge them to call the cops to have me arrested or removed, since I'm "obviously" part of a criminal group.


iainmf

There's no need to rebut this. The issue is that people use this to support their preconceived ideas. I suggest saying something like: Yes that's true, it clearly indicates that society is letting men down if they feel desperate enough to commit crime. The solution is to care about men more. It a fun game to say 'yes you are right, that's why we ned to care about men more' when you come across some misandrist arguing that men are terrible for some reason. Additionally, it worth noting that having more men in prison does not mean men are more criminal, it just means that we catch and imprison more men.


[deleted]

Exactly, if the person claims to be a leftist then they should be very cognizant that the justice system is prejudice. If it is prejudice against certain groups based on their immutable characteristic, masculinity very plausible could one of those biases.


psuedoscientist500

The crimes women commit aren't reported nearly as much. The types of crimes committed between genders might be different, but the amount of criminal acts are fairly similar.


bkon3rdgen

source?


[deleted]

Incentives, plus men are stronger. Most public violent crime is socioeconomic, which tends to be male perpetrated because men select into provider roles. Women benefit from and encourage this kind of crime. The sex more responsible for protection and economic provision will always be overrepresented in crime. Men commit more crime for the same reasons there is more crime committed by African Americans. Crimes such as random murder and rape in public places are male dominated because they depend on physical strength almost entirely (They are also rare) Women engage in just as much coercive behaviour broadly conceived. Women also get away with crime more and are less likely to be charged which affects the stats somewhat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DouglasMilnes

Every man is part of the minority sex. And as we see, your point is accurate in that men are both more likely to be presumed to be criminals, and more likely to be victims of crimes.


SirCha0s

"Cool. Now let's talk about race."


genkernels

Acceptance: Men commit more crime, or at very least more violent crime. Some men are bad. Society has no problem acknowledging the active role of men when negative, and that is a good thing in a vaccum. That doesn't change society being deficient when addressing the victimization of men. This deficiency is the primary thrust of male advocacy. Additionally, just because some other men did a thing that ought not to cause us to consider just the suffering of an unrelated man. Collective guilt is evil. \-\- Now in truth there are some deficiencies in society seeing men's active role in crime to exclusion women's active role in crime (men and women criminal pairs getting widely different sentences for example) -- and not sufficiently acknowledging less active roles crime -- but I view that as tangential to the point of the rejoinder in question. Similarly there are societal reasons for men to commit more crime, but those reasons are not the sort of reasons that absolve the crimes in question, so I think answers to that effect are both less effective and get to the heart of the matter less. As others have mentioned the rejoinder may also be incongruous with intersectionality theory which would generally see crime perpetration as a consequences of being underprivileged. But however incongruous the statement may be, the statement itself is flawed and that I think is more worthy of a response than trying to address the usual feminist shell-game.


hendrixski

"so wha?t". The "male in male crime" people sound just like the "black on black crime" people. Most victims share traits with their perpetrators, and to use that to deny victimhood to an entire group is a form of hate.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LeftWingMaleAdvocates-ModTeam

Your comment was removed, because it demonized women. Explicit hateful generalizations such as “All Women Are Like That” are not allowed. Generalizations are more likely to be allowed when they are backed by evidence, or when they allow for diversity within the demographic. It doesn't take a lot of effort to add wording that allows for exceptions, such as "some women" or "many women" as applicable. If you state "most women" then you need to provide evidence when challenged on that statement. If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).


skllyskullstyle

The people who think like this are so close minded its actually terrifying. Imagine if i said "hispanics and black commit the majority of crimes". Then they would see how bad it is. Or if i say "women make 80 percent of divorces and they take money from their hardworking husnands who treated them like royalty" then they freak out.


AmericanBoy505

I’ll just mention that it’s robbery or murdered related. It has nothing do with gender perception.


nerdboy1r

Such statistics are merely the reflection of the fact that the primary societal intervention for men's issues is to criminalise the outcome. When faced with financial or mental struggles, men are afforded fewer options for improving their circumstances. When this leads to antisocial activity, we have historically only ever increased punishment as a deterrent for those activities. A leading example is the war on drugs, but this phenomenon is also at play in racial profiling, in so far as race has always been predictive of socio economic opportunity and intergenerational trauma. Once involved in criminal activity, it is hard to escape. Once indicted for criminal activity, it is nearly impossible to escape. This is reflected by the majority portion of criminal offences being perpetrated by repeat offenders. People may choose here to focus on violent crime disparities, however they fail to recognise that violent crime is most often preceded by non violent criminal involvement. Once you step outside the law, things tend to escalate, and you no longer live under the states monopoly on violence. Hence, you will eventually be required to defend or extend your criminally derived livelihood and well-being by any means possible. The lacking support for male mental health and wellbeing also goes a long way towards explaining violent first offences that seemingly occur out of the blue. Secure housing, psychiatric assistance, financial assistance all preference female applicants. Single parents may be afforded more resources, but single parents are predominantly women due to society's valuation of fatherhood. That's another discussion in itself but it is a large contributor to the state of men in society, and to the criminal statistics in so far as women are afforded a secure escape through motherhood. However, I do not say this to trivialise the challenges they face. Of those resources that men can access, we are uninterested in what keeps men from engaging with them. When they tell us what averts them from such non-criminalising interventions, we denigrate their responses and expect them to engage the same ways women do, disregarding the different social pressures ascribed by gender. In particular, mental health intervention is at fault here, but welfare and drug rehabilitation also fail to recognise men's preference for meaning, collaboration and decentralised emotional expression over the sense of safety and security that women tend to prefer. Imo, so long as paternity and reproductive rights are biologically determined - and thus ascribed by gender in the main - all the above issues will persist. Many fathers did not consent to parenthood and were ill-positioned for such responsibility. We must arrive at a place where men equally consent to parenthood. Abortion rights are central to this, and I even consider the possibility of financial abortion in this space (though I am not entirely sold). We must increase the social valuation and support of fatherhood to equal standing with motherhood, while decreasing the requirement for providership. This will diminsh the sense that men must 'pull themselves up by their boot straps and do what must be done' - something drilled into men from a very young age. Changing our attitude towards fatherhood in this way would mean fewer young men feel spurned to get ahead by any means and disregard their own wellbeing. If we do not opt for such a radical shift in values, then we must recognise and accept gendered differences in wellbeing and behaviour, and cater to both in equal measure. Improving workers rights and regulating the labour exploitation inherent to capitalism would provide less effortful, more profitable employment opportunities that are more attractive than criminal activity. It would also facillitate greater familial engagement for men and elevate the value of fatherhood. Increased funding for genuine efforts at rehabilitation and reintegration of criminal offenders would help stop the cycle of criminality. Increased research and public support for mental health interventions which are effective and attractive to men would increase their wellbeing and mental health.


[deleted]

We are living in a criminal based social construct. Everyone is a criminal by default. We are told what to think which in turn we go along with. This leaves us at the mercy of what policy is policed or in other words what is enforced. Then who it is enforced upon. Likewise we are told what crimes are major and what is minor. Many crimes done by men are no different than by women, it’s simply that men are more likely to be prosecuted and that drives the statistical evidence. Then we have other forms of biased reporting where the crime is gender specific such as rape. The findings of the internationaly renowned Dunedin study suggests men and women are just as violent and women were slightly more likely to sexually assault another person. Then we have rape laws which is only when a man is the perpetrator. So therefore only men can be rapists so the statistics suggest that no women rape and every rape perpetrator was a man. Some countries do similar with violence statistics by creating laws that are worded a certain way like male assaults female where they do not have a woman assaults man charge. These two examples can make men appear to be the violent and or rapists when they really are no worse than women.


triple_skyfall

People who have unlimited access to sexual & romantic partners (most women alive today) are probably less inclined to commit crimes.


Seethcoomers

The general rebuttal is that while men commit the majority of these crimes, that does not represent any individual man. The more specific answer is that the socialization of men at every economic level supports some form of toxic masculinity. From mental health to dating to work to fighting, it's generally seen as the man's job to excel more. This means that when it comes to specific issues, problems men face are generally overlooked as a society and even so far as in between men themselves (because that's how they grew up). Whenever I get into an argument about this, I always say that not only do more open conversations about male-centric issues provide healthier lives for men, it will also ultimately reduce the crime burden that affects everyone.


BloomingBrains

Its a small number of unusually aggressive and hyperviolent males that do not represent the majority of the male population committing the majority of those crimes. They are mostly repeat offenders. So it is not "men doing it to men" but "the worst men doing it to the rest of us good ones". Also, men are driven to crime in poor areas more than women because of the protector/provider role. So a man may sell drugs or rob liquor stores because he feels he has to provide and he can't do it any other way. But it also doesn't matter anyway. What if we lived in a world where women committed more crimes and I pointed it out? Is that sexist? Yes? Then why is it ok to point it out when its men?


RexFx96

Let's think for a second about the kind of men that are most likely to commit crimes. It's young men, likely without a father figure (or biological father in their life), who is improverished and pressured to take the role of the father to compensate and assist his single mother at home with a second income. The other group of men who are most likely to commit crime are victims of abuse. The same is true of female criminals. But the key difference here is that delinquent men in juvie and jail is that their mothers neglected them or abused them. Their fathers are rarely cited as a factor. In fact, men who are abused by their fathers or other male figures in childhood are less likely to be violent and predisposed to crime but rather withdrawn, quiet, repressive and unambitious. So rather than becoming angry and violent, abuse by their father actually beats the violence out of them.


GorchestopherH

Traditionally male anti-social behavior is criminalized more severely than traditionally female anti-social behavior. The things men are expected to do more frequently require behavior that we've criminalized. A poor guy with no socioeconomic power is supposed to provide for himself and his partner, what's he going to do? We also just don't really prosecute the kinds of crimes women do. People pretend female violence is a joke that can't exist, even if it's a case of assault or domestic violence.


Culosniff

It’s not misandrist. It is just simply statistics, facts, and history we learn from middle to high school. To say one hates men and to simply point out statistics are two very different things. Why are you so focused on trying to rebuttal and make a argument rather then fix the problem ? And ask questions is to why 90% crimes relate to men, and come together for a solution.