"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.
Is it useful to identify crime along gender lines? Is there an action which is a crime for woman but is not a crime for a man?
On another note, it seemed to me that the linked article presupposes that the issue known as masculine crime should be solved on a government level. Would it not be more effective to fight this on an interpersonal level?
The Three E's: Ethics, Empathy, Education. Are these not the only things that really fight crime? If a person is a criminal, I ask: where is their mother? Their father? Their friends? Did no one care enough to stand upon principles, to ostracize or to shun them? We see that governments apathy is really the apathy of the people. The prevalence is because so much of the general populace is accepting of crime. And I know for a fact that the majority of criminals came from single parent households. In this I have to put an onus upon feminists like Obama and Clinton who claim that a single mother is acceptable, desirable even, despite the facts showing that the opposite is true.
Probably because I'm atheist one thing I like to pick on is the christian doctrine of forgiveness leading to families acting as enablers for violent or aberrant behavior. How horrible.
Of course families act as enablers of violence in the home. All institutions enabled the crime of assault in families, thinking it was a private matter and of no concern to the populous. My efforts to get help from my family, resulted in such responses as, "A Denoo is strong enough to take it," or when I stated what happened to my grandmothers and mother and me, I was told, "I know it is rue, we just don't talk about it!"
When I talked to my several ministers, one, Richard C. Halverson, told me when I was beaten, I lived in imitation of the crucified christ and of all women I was most blessed. I was to rejoice in my crucifixion. How sick is that?
The common claim that "the majority of criminals came from single parent households" does not stand up to statical analysis.
A large, national study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on inmates, which includes family background information, has been repeated since 1991. In their report on the 2004 survey, 55% of state and federal prisoners did not “live most of the time while growing up” with both parents. Assuming most of those 55% were living with their mothers, saying a “large majority” is a stretch. If only 55% of this population is from non-married-parents homes, that’s not a very strong case for an independent effect of family structure.
Yes, there is a majority of criminals who live in single moms head of households, however, if one adjusts for factors that the survey also shows single heads of households experienced high rates of poverty, homelessness, substance abuse, physical abuse, and family members’ incarceration.
The popular claim that marriage decline substantially caused the increase in crime in the 1980s and 1990s, does not explain why incarceration crime rates fell. Therefore, I do not agree with your claim "the majority of criminals came from single parent households".
Your statements seem to blame women for the breakup of families without paying heed to the causes of breakups. Family violence is virtually impossible to change if the family is intact. I know from personal experience working in boys ranches and in the state prison systems preparing men to be released back into the public. Incarcerated men tend to have fathers who battered women and children. They express the need to control women and have the authority of society and the church to have dominion over the household. This belief ruptures marriage and parenting relationships.
When I worked in boys' ranches and in the prison system, my responsibility was to teach communication skills, problem solving, conflict resolution, anger management, and effective, mature, adult behaviors. Why is it that incarcerated men do not have these skills as a result of their home life? Fathers and mothers should be teaching their sons these skills. If the father is a brute and the mother is submissive, how can the manchild grow into a responsible adult? Some can; some cannot and I made my living by teaching adults how to be grown-up.
Joan you are right on the money in saying that I "blame women for the breakup of families". 22% of divorces are because of domestic violence (which is 22% too high) . The majority of divorces are no-fault divorces initiated by women . Women almost always are awarded sole custody . But it isn't just this - women are more likely to be violent against their children than men are (even when adjusting for other factors). And all this doesn't even factor that women and men have reduced desire for marriage, creating a de facto broken home from the start.
Joan through your work I'm sure you saw how education could help people to become less violent. You wrote "Why is it that incarcerated men do not have these skills as a result of their home life? Fathers and mothers should be teaching their sons these skills." I've been composing a blog on this topic and you cannot know how much I appreciate and applaud the work you did. I think it is some of the most important work that can be done to better our society.
I don't think it is very much of a stretch to see the link between parents agressing against children and men agressing against women. In both situations there is a power disparity. The difference is of course that adult women can escape, children almost never can. Historically, boys have tended to be more frequently spanked (by their mothers) than girls are . Is it a wonder that in a freudian twist some of those boys become violent toward their future intimate partners?
A few final notes. The study you linked only indicates incarceration percentage not the criminality. The vast majority of crimes do not result in state or federal incarceration. That study also does not delineate between biological and non biological parents. Most of the inmates who reported a two parent household were actually raised at least in part by a step parent, thus being more at risk in many ways, not the least of which is physical and sexual abuse. I read this last year and haven't yet found again the follow up study on this so that I can link it.
 http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml (not the best source sorry. I found sources indicating that the percentage might be as high as 31%)
Thanks for the links Čenek, I will read them and get back to you.
A quick note, it is true that abused wives tend to abuse their children. My father never hit me, my mother used a razor strap and my memory may be blurred, but if I remember correctly, my encounters with the strap probably coexisted with tension between mom and dad.
I appreciate your information and am willing to reassess my opinion.
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.
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.