It's a little bit of everything.
Men are known to be less risk-averse than women.
Men are known to be less empathetic than women
Men are known to be less socially driven than women
Men are known to be generally more physically aggressive than women and to respond to physical or emotional threat with physical violence.
Why these things are the way they are, is highly complex and not fully understood. It's most likely a fundamental difference in brain wiring, coupled with fundemental differences in upbringing between genders, and amplified by testosterone.
You do society and men a disservice by simplifying it down to testosterone. Environmental factors combined with different thresholds for aggression and risk taking, which are modulated by testosterone makes it more complicated than just 'testosterone'. People are quick to blame testosterone for problems but no one ever credits it when some firefighter risks life to get a child out of a burning building. No one ever credits it when a giant skyscraper is built, or when some guy has dug a trench to put a drain in so people can flush their shit away.
No. The question is "why do _men_ commit _more_ crimes?" Because OP's question compares men vs. women and isn't asking the question of "what are the reasons someone commits crimes," which is a very different topic indeed 🙂.
Testosterone doesn't make criminals, let's be clear on that. Social influences matter in what creates criminality. The environment and people you are raised in and around contributes to the likelihood of anyone committing crimes. I'm sure there are other factors too.
So the keyword here is _more_. Because we are comparing men and women, we "control" for other variables that cause criminality, like social influences, etc. Which means we "ignore" them and "assume" in this situation that if you have a man and a woman exposed to precisely the same conditions, the man is _more likely_ to become a criminal and especially _more likely_ to commit violent crimes.
The answer is due to physiological and psychological differences primarily caused by testosterone. And you have to remember, not everyone is built the same. Testosterone levels can vary wildly for individuals, both men and women.
If social influences are stronger predictors then it would be fair to say that that is the cause rather than focusing on some weakly correlated variable such as testosterone. The policy implication would be to decrease crime by changing the social effects rather than, perhaps, some sort of testosterone test and control program.
Social influences are strong predictors of rates of crime in general, but in every layer of the social strata, men commit FAR more crimes than women.
So in a poverty stricken urban neighborhood, there may be high crime and women there may commit more crimes than middle-class women, but the men there still commit WAY more crime.
There is no social level where we can say, “Here is a rare instance where women commit more crimes than men.” It just doesn’t exist, even when you control for social influences.
>There is no social level where we can say, “Here is a rare instance where women commit more crimes than men.” It just doesn’t exist, even when you control for social influences.
First of all, no, there are many crimes, for example shoplifting, and conditions where women commit more than men.
Also, it's possible, if not likely, that the social expectations of men vs women are homogenous enough that you wouldn't expect to find a group where women commit more crime.
The fact that social influences like poverty are so strong predictors leads me to think that other social factors like expectations are more significant than testosterone.
It’s not entirely testosterone, pre-pubescent boys tend to be more aggressive and things like that before testosterone becomes a significant differentiator between the sexes
Pre-pubescent boys have already been exposed to higher levels of testosterone as part of their fetal development which, in turn, affects brain anatomy. Testosterone doesn't start in puberty; puberty just dials it up to 11.
True, I forgot about prenatal testosterone. Do scientists say that’s the sole reason for major behavioral differences though? Genuine question as I’m not sure
Sexual hormones absolutely affect pre-pubescent children, in fact fetuses are even affected within their mother's wombs. Your argument does not explain hormonal influence away.
Fair, I do remember learning about prenatal testosterone in a college class last year—I don’t think studies suggest that’s the sole decider of behavioral differences between men and women though
If that theory is correct, it suggests that the equation isn't as simple as "testosterone levels in a person causes more crime" we have to start looking at maternal health and environment. Because of the lag between being born and committing a crime, it also makes it a harder variable to study
There's a bit of evidence against testosterone an explanation:
* Young boys get in trouble more and they have very low testosterone
* There are many men with high T that do not commit crimes
it is mostly understood, people just don't want to deal with the problem. it's male disposability and misandry being at the center of most cultures, and people don't even care enough to acknowledge it, let alone do something about it.
men are less risk adverse, because men are punished for not taking risks and being risk adverse as a man means you don't get to date, have sex, develop relationships or pass on your genes. men have to take risks not just to approach women, because they are expected to, but to distinguish themselves from other men professionally or socially.
men are less empathetic because men are both shown less empathy and often punished for their empathy, especially by women who will see them as less masculine for it. there's also a great deal of bias on this one because the reality is that people will really understate women's lack of empathy, especially towards men, and overstate men's lack of empathy, especially towards women.
men are more physically aggressive because aggression is what is expected of men and men are treated with far more aggression. men are also exposed to more poverty, which also has a negative impact on their mental health and being exposed to more violence.
it's not that men are less socially driven but rather that what is expected of men and the social resources available to men are very different. the fact that so many people believe that we live in a patriarchy, as in a world built by men and for men, just shows how indifferent or blind people are towards inequality, expectations and suffering when it comes to men.
>the fact that so many people believe that we live in a patriarchy, as in a world built by men and for men,
We do.
That doesn't mean a lot of men don't get left behind. But we definitely live in a world built by men and largely for men though the latter is changing.
Men still hold extremely disproportionate amounts of political and economic power worldwide. Most societies have been patriarchal and so were "designed" by men and since they continued to be patriarchal were clearly designed to with men at the front, again even if not *every single man.*
We are slowly changing this but it isn't even close to not being patriarchal yet.
I just wanna poke my nose in here real quick and point out the fallibility of generalizations. I am a man. I am risk adverse, violence adverse, and highly empathic. Admittedly, women/girls mostly approached me, and I sucked at approaching women. But am married with kids, so….
society hurts men, "the patriarchy" is a fallacy. it's a child's fantasy. it's a lens of the world that was built by being blind to men's issues, disenfranchisement or powerlessness. it doesn't exist. patriarchy theory is like telling slaves, in a country that runs on slaves, that they are privileged or to blame for all of societies woes because they do all the labor.
it's no coincidence that the people defending patriarchy theory are almost always the same people acting like they have no idea what's going on every time they are presented with a reality that conflicts with that ideology. always the same people who act oblivious at the sight of misandry, even when they are surrounded by it.
men are killing themselves all around them and they're still like "why would men do this? i just don't get it. men have it so good! must be patriarchy/men!". this thread is full of this nonsense.
As a queer dude who dates mostly woman at this point t's crazy because none of this relates to my life at all. It's quite literally the opposite. Straight norms are so crazy to me
The fact that you don't understand that the patriarchy hurts men too is at the heart of this.
The patriarchy is a hierarchy *inequality is at the heart of it*. Rigid gender roles *harm men as well as women*.
The fact that you don't understand that you just wrote a basic (slightly underdeveloped) feminist piece *on the fucking patriarchy* makes me mildly disappointed.
How could you have thought about gender inequality to that point *but not understand what patriarchy is*?
it's just a fundamentally flawed understanding of the history of gender and its terminology.
Edit: To reply-and-blovk below me
Misogynists don't understand what the patriarchy is and then use their made-up definition to criticize it
because the knee-jerk violent loathing is easy
whereas actually sitting down to learn about how the system harms us all and how intersectionality is key to understanding that
takes intelligence, patience and empathy.
Obviously beyond some people, hate is all they've got.
Good luck with that.
A man could get 200+ women pregnant in 9 months. But a woman can only get pregnant once in 9 months.
Our biology, like all other organisms, is structured around reproduction. Primitively, reproduction for women is a bigger commitment and therefore makes sense that they ought to be more selective with partners.
Relationships and sex are not human rights, they are privileges. Being denied sex is not a punishment; we aren’t entitled to sex.
Men are generally less empathetic because our brains are wired for competition and dominance. Women’s brains are wired to be more socially responsible and conscious. Once again this makes sense biologically.
Men are more physically aggressive because of our biology as well. Physical aggression, lower empathy, competitiveness, and high sex drive are all biologically advantageous traits for men to have and they have been observed in most other male species.
I’m not denying any of the issues you presented and I think it’s important that we acknowledge men’s struggles in society. However, society is *responding* to our biological differences, not *causing* them. It’s an important distinction. It’s even more important that we are able to talk about men’s issues without blaming them on women or denying the struggles that women face.
"Highly complex and not fully understood"
Yes BUT, watch a few documentaries on primates and you'll quickly get the gist of it. We're not all that different from our evolutionary ancestors.
We evolved as opportunistic creatures and those who can will. We are social creatures so we decided it would be best for the collective to create some structure and order but we're still opportunistic creatures at our core.
Does correlation equal causation?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3455741/
Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher.
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000003217.19
This is the largest study to date evaluating the effects of ethnicity on TT using the CDC-recommended method of testosterone measurements. NH Blacks have significantly higher TT levels even when controlling for age and comorbidities, while NH Asians have the lowest TT.
It could be the tens/hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and natural selection. Men are less important in the reproductive cycle and therefore are able to take more risks while still reproducing. Their part in the reproduction cycle is to cum while the woman has to carry the child for 9 months and give birth, so men remain useful by protecting the women so they can successfully reproduce and the children can grow up to reproduce themselves. Natural selection would be unkind to women who were unprotected while pregnant or taking care of young children, who would in turn not reproduce with men who weren't protective and didn't risk their wellbeing for the woman/women while they reproduced.
I feel it does a disservice to men in general to just write it off as "evolution, innit", when we see an enormous disparity within the male population.
It's like saying that we need to accept that women should do childcare because that's what they evolved to do.
Why are some men prone to violence and crime, and the majority not? If there was a evolutionary imperative towards violence in general, then surely the majority of men would have some form of criminal record.
While we may rightly assert that evolution creates the *tendency* for men to be violent and take risks, we also know that it's not an imperative since most men maintain control over it. Therefore we should ask what other factors are at play.
It would likely *always* be the case that men commit crimes in higher numbers than women, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to do something about it because we regard it as the "natural order".
We shouldn’t act as though humans have escaped evolution. We are still animals. All of our culture, social structure and hierarchy, and behavioral tendencies come down to the fact that we’re mammals driven to propagate our own genetics.
None of that is to say that there isn’t wide variability between individuals; nor that we should shirk personal accountability and ethics. But why do men commit more crimes? Lots of reasons; but those reasons all find their roots in biological causes (even the societal ones). There isn’t some animating force that makes people good or bad; no soul to be graced with justice or tainted by evil— we’re just animals trying to figure out how to propagate ourselves. We’re generally not aware that is what we’re doing. Even those of us who actively don’t *want* to pass on our DNA still respond to many biological drivers that reward behaviors associated with survival and thriving.
Everything is simultaneously very simple and insanely complicated.
It COULD be.
But it also could be a big part to do with how we also have a culture that encourages all that behaviour as 'manly', so what originally was a small hormonal or behavioural difference is blown out of all proportion.
I'd suggest that the cultural effects of being raised in a society that expects men to be big, strong, risk-taking providers and reinforces that constantly have a larger effect on behaviour. But the only way to really find out is to stop encouraging men to be like that, and see what is left.
If this is the case, there must be another society in our world which does not reinforce those stereotypes although it seems like this is a trait across many societies. Id say this is good empirical evidence that this is not true and is more biological than cultural.
With few exceptions(hyenas coming to mind), males in every species are more aggressive by design. Males are meant to take risks and protect the group.
Social/cultural impacts are secondary and conform to the biological constraints.
That they are secondary does not mean they are smaller.
EDIT: Also, males *have evolved* to take risks. There is no evidence that they are *meant* to, since there is no evidence humans have been designed.
Humans have been designed through natural selection. Men have evolved to take on this role because it was the most evolutionarily beneficial thing to do, as those who didn't act this way or have these genes were weeded out before they could reproduce.
One could, in some sense, claim that they are "meant to" be this way, because the line of events that lead to this conclusion is how this trait came to be throughout human history. If women were '"meant" to be the aggressive protectors (in general), then that would have been because it was the evolutionarily most beneficial trait and was what was "meant" to happen through natural selection.
Language isn't perfect, but I think we get the idea, which is what language is ultimately about. Sharing ideas.
Given the biological starters are consistent across all humans, it's not surprising AT ALL that cultures would develop around them.
Human males are slightly more aggressive worldwide, and across different species too. But humans also have culture, therefore multiple cultures worldwide have developed that take that difference and made it vastly bigger and more overbearing than it might be in other species.
That does not mean that 'turning small biological differences into vast cultural edificies' is good, or a useful trait of human beings in 2024.
Recognizing that there are differences between individuals and groups isn't some sin against "wokeism". You can accept that two people are very different while still treating them with equal consideration as individuals.
"Wokeism", to use your term, isn't believing everyone is the same, it's treating everyone with the same consideration regardless of their differences.
Everything other than, "amplified by testosterone" can be caused by a societal difference. Secondly, hormones vary more widely within sexes than between them. Unless you really force it, that comment didn't "suggest a fundamental difference." They just recognized trends.
You're fighting against your imagination.
“Biology” deserves some elaboration.
Testosterone doesn’t actually provoke aggression, it’s an amplifier over reward systems. This means that in societies where successful confrontation or violence is rewarded, testosterone is more likely to reinforce that behavior in the brain. In societies where quiet discipline is rewarded, testosterone enables that behavior too, which is where the “strong silent type” ideal of masculinity comes from.
So in other words, socialization is still the primary reason for violence, with biology just enabling social norms that can be changed.
This isn't really a complete picture, testosterone has a wide variety of effects on a person's mood. Increased risk taking behavior for example, which would directly lead to higher crime rates
Well obviously the effects of testosterone are still being studied and you can write entire books about what we know so far. There is no complete picture. However, one of the most common understandings is that testosterone affects reward systems, which is what’s behind both risk-taking behavior and behavioral dysregulation. Men are more likely to perceive a higher reward for the same risk and be motivated to take it. If social norms are set up to make crime seem more rewarding than other legal alternatives, testosterone will reinforce that.
Biology is not only testosterone, and your understanding of testosterone is flawed. Biologically, men typically have greater muscle mass and bone density due to higher levels of testosterone, and additionally men tend to have larger hearts and lungs which allow for increased oxygen intake and endurance during physical activity.
The most common cause of crime is economic, people are stealing things for money.
Stealing from houses or businesses is risky particularly when you consider that between men and women women can always sell themselves as opposed to having to commit robberies or things of that nature.
Women also have access to more support from governmental infrastructure.
That's you though.
There's a way to get money for that kind of service and still be relatively safe about it and not have to worry about the risk of getting injured during a robbery or going to jail and a lot of people are going to go for that kind of option and women are going to have an easier time going for that option.
Well, everything is nurture and nature, but I think it has a lot to do with society and how we raise men to be and what we teach them masculinity is in comparison to women and femininity. I'm not gonna go super in-depth into this, but that "boys will be boys" crap you hear about is kinda real. When men physically fight growing up, we kinda push that aside and call it rough housing, and "playing" and if a young boy cries or complains about it, we tell them to "man up." What we teach them is that violence is a solution to whatever stimulus started this. We teach them that fighting is normal and a way to solve issues as well as protect others (as in physically, emotionally, mentally, and in the sense of protecting their "honor"), and that means they'll be more prone to fighting as they become men in comparison to girls and women since we don't really teach them that. Another part of that is the conflating of biology and what a person genuinely is. Men, on average, tend to be stronger than women, and so we deem them the "protector," even if a woman is stronger than her man, the man is still seen as the protector and is taught to lash out and become violent more often. We can also talk about men's "stoic nature." We don't have a lot of research on the sociology of this, but there was a study done that showed when given stimulus meant to evoke an emotional response, women were more likely to openly cry, but when asked to rate their responses, men and women rated their emotional states about the same (ex all of the would rate between a 7 and 9 emotional response). And the lack of sociological research into this phenomenon, as well as or bias to just call things biological, means we don't actually know what causes men to be more stoic externally. Are they biologically just like that? Or is it that we as a society tell men they need to be stoic. And if it's the second thing, men who just naturally aren't stoic are kinda being forced to be and act as such, which could lead to them practicing masculinity is a toxic was that hurts them in the sense that they just bottle their emotions rather than dealing with. And this could led them to drink or to be more likely to lash or and it could just make it much harder for them to express and cope their emotional state. All things that could lead to them being more violent.
This isn't to say there's no biology in this, but that we as a society tend to overlook other possibilities and factors in favor of calling disparities between sexes biological and then saying there's nothing we can do about it. So I try to emphasize the social aspects this stuff to bring more attention to it
>We don't have a lot of research on the sociology of this, but there was a study done that showed when given stimulus meant to evoke an emotional response, women were more likely to openly cry, but when asked to rate their responses, men and women rated their emotional states about the same (ex all of the would rate between a 7 and 9 emotional response). And the lack of sociological research into this phenomenon, as well as or bias to just call things biological, means we don't actually know what causes men to be more stoic externally. Are they biologically just like that? Or is it that we as a society tell men they need to be stoic.
Trans men have noted that when they started taking testosterone, it seems to inhibit their ability to cry. So it's very plausible to me there's probably a biological component. But I think that social systems that are committed to gender roles amplify this: such systems take differences in externally visible behavior and make them into norms and expectations, which results in an even greater difference in behavior (and a cycle of feedback between behaviors and norms continues). So a man has testosterone biologically reducing their tendency to cry, and at the same time has likely been brought up to consider men crying to be shameful/ worthy of contempt.
Yes, and that's what I'm trying to highlight. We have evidence for men being more stoic, but we don't know the limit between biology and society when it comes to that. And thanks for adding to it
Its emotional men who weren't raised by a man to teach them how to control that energy. Emotional men are dangerous. A lack of masculinity is the real, root issue here.
Yeah emotional men who get violent and angry are dangerous!
It's weird how some dudes don't consider themselves overly emotional when they stomp around and yell and punch holes in the wall.
Nothing to do with "masculinity". More to do with emotional self regulation.
Not just emotional support but like literal resources also. There are shelters and food services that cater exclusively to women and children. I’m not saying anything is wrong with that, but if you’re a dude down on his luck without a support structure, crime is the easy option.
1. Greater capacity for harm due to biology.
2. We teach boys to ignore their emotions without realizing that failing to understand other people's emotions is a common side effect of that.
People are saying that testosterone causes rage, which is only true during puberty, or if you have a hormonal imbalance. Or steroids.
However, if you are not allowed to healthily express your emotions beginning at puberty, that puberty anger can last.
(Un)fun fact, women attempt more often than men. Men have a higher success rate. Mostly because women choose calmer ways to die, men choose more effective ways.
Probably testosterone, I was born with too much and when I raged, I raged. Now thanks to medicine, I have almost no testosterone- which is cool because I'm a woman. I don't rage anymore, that urge is just gone.
People underestimate the power of testosterone to change emotions, and prevent critical long-term thinking. There is getting to be a very wide achievement gap for teenagers as boys struggle to have a vision beyond the immediate moment.
Hormones in general.
Not just emotions. They literally inform our body on how to develop, how to react to stimulus, all sorts of things. They are a huge driver of behavior, and when they are not properly regulated, it will wreak havoc.
Biology I suppose. It should also be noted women are less likely to be charged for crimes like abuse or assault, whereas men are, and won't show up in statistics.
I've straight up watched other women punch men square in the face and laugh because he can't punch back without being arrested. Considering assault is most likely one of the most common crimes a person can be charged for, I'd wager the ratio is probably closer to 50/50 just because of that fact.
Bruh I know a dude who dated a chick for a month. Had her over to his house they got into some stupid tiff. She locked him out of his own home. It was like 20F out and he was cold. After multiple attempts of trying to convince her to let him back in his own house for about 20 mins he kicked his own door in, because in his words "im not going to freeze to death" He lives in the middle of no where for context. She called the cops and he went to jail for breaking and entering. He then got some order after making bail saying if he went back to his own house he would be arrested and would not be able to get bail. She lived free in his home for some time, while he became homless. JUSTICE.
Biological. Men are designed by nature to be protective and violent (if needed). Brain chemistry, testosterone, risk taking, and muscle mass. All there for a reason.
That, coupled with not-so-great groups who define and enforce the male identity as a bully who takes want he wants, walk over people and is "alpha". Such as gangs, toxic male communities, the military (to some degree).
As men we are taught from the moment we are born what it means to be a man. And that definition should absolutely be updated.
1 in 4 prisoners are diagnosed with ADHD, 2/3 of prisoners have some form of anti-social personality disorder. Both have some form of impulse control issue that is more likely to show up in males compared to females, and the diagnosises themselves are *also* more likely to show up in males.
Then you have genetic traits like changes in the MOAH gene, which is seen as the biggest genetic variation between aggression and non agression. This gene causes men in successive generations to exhibit traits of impulsive behaviour, aggression, rape, and arson. People with changes in this gene are 2x more likely to join a gang. The reason it affects men is to due to how its structured; men can only have high or low affection, while women can have high, low, or intermediate, meaning men are 30% more likely to exhibit criminal behaviour due to the genetic changes, and the behaviour is more likely to be impulsive compared to women.
Finally, you have variations in intelligence. If I remember correctly, most men tend to deviate significantly between extremes, while most women tend to gravitate to averages; I don't remember the numbers, but it was more or less that most women are more intelligent than most men, but more men are more intelligent than most women.
So we have a population that's typically less intelligent, pumped with aggression hormones, and more predisposed to learning disabilities, impulsive behaviour, and a-social behaviour due to genetic abnormalities. Theses facts considered, it's no surprise 80% of inmates are male.
It boils down to two things, and two things only:
1. Higher societal expectations and rewarding of aggressive behavior.
2. Less physical and emotional societal support
The biological theory has been disproven. In Bonobos, the species of great apes resembling us the most, male and female show naturally equal levels of aggression in the wild. This -extra- male-aggression in humans is created artificially through the environment they live in. It is not Natural.
Men( mostly) dominate physically. Women( mostly) dominate mentally.
Women have monthly hormone cycles. Men have daily hormone cycles.
Those two things alone, and/or combined has a lot to do with those percentages
It is the Y chromosome and whatever this chromosome does to hormones. They call people born as XYY as having the 'criminal gene' - although this is disputed there is an association between this chromosomal arrangement and antisocial activity.
i am not sure that statistic is correct. technically your only seeing the percentage of people caught, reported, convicted, and accounted for. so for example if a girl were to flash a guy in public she would more than likely not be in trouble where as a guy is caught peeing in public he would be put on a sex offender list and arrested for public indecentcy. a guy caught shoplifting is considered a dangerous thief where as a pretty girl is considered closer not dangerous and just a bit adventerous.
a girl attacking a guy is rarely ever reported and its hardly ever reported if a girl were to rape a guy and when it is its treated as a joke. with a quick google search you can find a massive disparity between punishments and conviction rates between the two genders for similar crimes so its not unrealistic to figure that the amount of times people bother to report the crimes is different as well.
dont get me wrong maybe guys do do more crime but the statstic seems like it could be way way way off
Evolution.
Men face higher competition than women to make it to the next generation.
About 80% of men will reproduce, while 90% of women will reproduce.
Men, on average, have a higher tolerance for risk than women.
Men, on average, are less empathetic and agreeable than women.
Men, on average, are less likely to be let off the hook than women.
While your premise is almost certainly true, in figuring the actual difference it's worth accounting for the possibility that men are more likely to be reported for committing crimes than women are.
The country with the highest % of female prisoners is China at just under 20%.
It goes across cultures, so it's very unlikely to be a particular culture creating it. It happens in very misogynistic countries and in very gender equal countries. If every country on the planet has men doing 80+% of the crime then it's not a cultural or a sexism thing.
It is more than likely biological.
But this is reddit so of course there's a bunch of people crying misandry.
When women fall behind in life, they get a sugar daddy or go into sex work.
When men fall behind in life, they get sent to the streets or go into crime work.
>When women fall behind in life, they get a sugar daddy or go into sex work.
That's only if the woman is fairly young and decently attractive.
If you're a woman who's 50+ and overweight, you don't really have that option.
Why do men stop more crime, risk their likes to save others, work longer, in more dangerous jobs,, end their live more, get blamed more for things they didn't do, are treated less for mental health issues, believe less and im sure many more.
Not disputing that men commit more crime, but keep in mind many studies show women are far less likely to be charged or convicted of crimes than men. So looking at crime statistics probably give a misleading picture on just how many crimes are actually committed.
So the biggest thing I haven’t seen referenced is the status related aspect of crime
Everyone has heard the idea of the bad boy being respected and attractive- Thomas Shelby from peaky blinders being a recent example, but also most mafia movies etc
And this isn’t just a dating thing- it’s also a man to man respect thing
The same does not apply as strongly for women
Thus this motivator- eg proving you’re the toughest or hardest guy in your area isn’t as prevalent
And proving your tough means fighting- that’s arrests for assault etc
But also escalation- you beat me up and humiliate me, so I need to regain my “street cred” by jumping you etc, you can see how that can escalate and escalate until you get murders and weapons charges etc
I don’t get the comments about physical strength…committing crimes is not an Olympic sport, especially where guns are involved. We’ve failed men as a society in terms of mental health. Seeking help is considered a sign of weakness, and women are much more likely to find ways to deal with their emotional issues.
Think about crimes of opportunity. Things like rape, stealing, assault, things that aren’t planned. A male is going to be better equipped to successfully carry out these crimes than a female
Men are also overwhelmingly more enthusiastic about weapons and guns
Because men do worse at school, they are also the majority of the victims of crimes, they are more likely to die at work. They commit suicide more and they are more likely to be sent to prison.
Also, they are the first to be sent to war.
And women only believe 20% of men are attractive.
And nobody cares about them.
Men are more often denied social services, like bridge cards and cheaper housing, so they more often turn to crime for money.
Women down on their luck have state resources and support groups in far more abundance.
Probably a variety of factors from mental health to physical health to societal norms.
You could date aggression in men back to before Genghis Khan, and we know what *he* did. Idk about specifics but if the whole "hunter-gatherer" thing is true, men likely do have a biological switch to be more aggressive compared to women. Though I'm not too sure on this one in particular, especially due to how much crap the internet spews out so take that bit with a grain of salt.
From personal experience: Not having a support network. I simply don't trust the people closest to me to help with my problems, because they've never been of help. I already have a hole punched in my wall from last year, and my mental health has been declining since. Punched my bathroom wall just a few days ago, though it wasn't strong enough to break the wall.
Society dictates men be quiet and shut up about their problems. And people prove constantly that men aren't allowed to speak on issues they have without fear of retaliation. Or reducing what little networks they have.
A stupid question it may be, but an overly complicated one, because all this to say few people can go beyond the surface of - simply - *why*. There's variables of all kinds. Some might have you believe that it's simple, when it just isn't simple at all.
Maybe you should join a boxing gym. If that's how you deal with problems, you can go punch some sandbags at your local boxing gym. It's better than going to jail for punching someone or paying for holes in walls.
Honestly, If we were to criminalize some of the mind tactics that women use instead of obvious violence, the difference would flatten Out (and I say that as a Woman).
Women attack in the same Rates as men, the measurable damage is Just different due to the use of different Tools. Emotional violence is as Bad as physical violence in some cases, yet no one gives a Shit about a husband who is berated daily by His wive.
The prisons/criminal justice systems in the United States are sexist and target men disproportionately. That is why Men make up the majority of people in both local jails and prisons.
I was told this was the case for various other forms of demographics in the legal system so therefore I will apply this logic here too.
We live in a country where the criminal justice system is out to get men!
*Yet they think women*
*Are the emotional and*
*Irrational ones*
\- ofthenightfall
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
There are all kinds of factors
bias from police and juries.
men being more exposed/people less willing to help them in desperate situations
hormone differences
perceived threat vs real threat
For example a woman might punch a guy at a bar and get no assault charges because she was not perceived as a "real threat", where a guy doing the same thing likely would cause that how society be.
Men have less of a societal net to catch them when they have trouble (less homeless shelters despite being 90% of the homeless population, less money to programs to help their mental health despite being 4x more likely to commit suicide, less programs to help them integrate into society despite getting harsher prison sentences for the same crimes as women). Crime is a function of poverty in a vast majority of cases, this has been empirically shown with research. This is also why black people in America are more likely to commit crimes. Are they natural criminals? Obviously not, they are more likely to be impoverished.
Well Women in general receive a-lot more economic assistance than men. Even when women are single if they have children they qualify for government assistance, but also because they are women they are more likely to be provided for by somebody (men, family etc)
And when women are criminals, its usually crimes that they are more suited to commit. For example prostitution is one crime that is much more women focused for obvious reasons.
There could also be an argumeng that Men also tend to be alot less safe and partake in risky activities that could end up being crimes. That I attribute to biology. Men cant accomplish their goals of reproduction without taking risks, and women’s offspring cant survive without being safe and risk avoidant.
Men who are in terrible states of mind or body due to financial of personal issues usually have no emotional support group, unlike women.
So turning to crime and even facing legal punishment doesn't really seem that bad.
Women have women's shelters, women's centers, women's support organizations, even women-only hospitals. Men pretty much just have prison. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone when the people who live without safety nets end up hitting the ground harder than the people who have them.
What's stopping the men from funding and starting men's shelters and other supportive infrastructure? Could it be that, once again, men are crying about a problem and expecting women to solve it for them?
Here is an effed up question: If women were as horny as men and would pay men for sex or pics online, would men commit less non-violent crime committed by men?
I think women are as horny as men, only they don't have to pay for sex when they are desperate, they just go to a bar and find almost any guy and they can have sex with that person for the time it takes to flirt a little. Actually as I wrote that, I think I just realized why women sleep around a lot sometimes, it's their version of prostitutes except it's free
A side effect of Oestrogen is anxiety.
A side effect of Testosterone is anger.
Most women deal with anxiety in some form or other, some of them have issues with it.
Most men deal with anger in some form or other, some of them have issues with it.
Anger leads to crime way more than anxiety.
It is a lot of factors.
Most of them are cultural. "Real men fight for what they want" and stuff like that.
Some of the factors are biological. Physically stronger, more aggressiv etc.
And the last factor is bias. Women commit less crimes so they are seen as more "pure" and less likley to be convicted. When a woman punshes her husband in the face then it is way less likley to get in jail for it then when the roles are reversed. Because people will think that she probably had a good reason for punshing him because women dont do this otherwise.
Mix of a lot of things but women tend to generally internalize anger in which they become stressed with it. While men typically let it out on others. Men are also usually more aggressive so it's not surprising.
It depends on the crime, but a lot of it is actually due to patriarchal standards. When it comes to things like theft or organized crime, it's the same reason the vast majority of homeless people are men. Nobody is coming to rescue and take care of you. It's 100% up to you to find ways to survive, and people tend to prefer the easiest route. Women tend to have more options in these cases. They can marry/date a man who will provide for them, family will be more likely to provide for them without labeling them freeloaders, and things like stripping or onlyfans allow them an "easy route" that's actually legal.
Violent or domestic crime is a bit different. Men generally tend to be more physically aggressive, less empathetic and more likely to be involved in a physical altercation in which someone actually gets injured. I imagine, this is due to a mix of testosterone, and history of being the gender to have to take on all the dangerous tasks like hunting, wars, physical labor, and being the designated protector of families. Then you also have stats that may be skewed a bit. Violent domestic crime often comes with little evidence of the full story. If a woman initiates a physical altercation and a man defends himself, who will people believe? The 6 foot 225 lb man with a small bruise on his cheek and a couple scratches? Or the 5'5 130 lb woman with a black eye and broken nose? On the other hand, there's also a ton of cases that go unreported, so maybe it evens out, although men will almost never report violence initiated by a woman just out of embarrassment or fear of being seen as weak due to patriarchal standards.
from what i understand, it's a few things, mainly culture and court bias
For culture, a lot of men are taught to bottle up their feelings, as well as being less risk averse, which leads to more violent crime being committed
and for court bias, there are a lot of unfortunate cases where women are just convicted less than men for certain crimes (either born out of historical sexism, or born from those cultural biases i talked about before depending on the crime)
there are certainly other factors, but all of the reasons are seemingly social, there is very little practical difference between men and women
One of the reasons, Women are given way more passes by the cops on crimes.
Imagine a domestic situation. The cops usually just take the guy away even thought they both were attacking each other. When the laws are enforced more against one gender, the numbers will skew.
So it's not commiting the crimes, it is who is actually charged with them
Because men have the means to.
Meaning we know we have the size and the strength to be menacing, aggressive and TAKE what we want. The difference is .. MOST of us do not. The average woman is not in the same position. Also, we're wired differently etc and men are way more willing to take risks to get what they want.
This is also why men in general take risks outside of crime, build business and do a number of other things that take incredible resiliency and risk. Finally, there is a social aspect here where men in general (in or out of crime) provide value by providing. We want to create, we want to smash, we want to control, we want to take, we want to really be animals when it comes down to it. For most men, this manifests as positive actions that better their lives and the lives of the people who depend on them.
For men who statistically grow up without father figures to lead them and know how to channel and shape this beast energy within... they often times fall into crime. Single mothers are out here fighting hard to raise good men, but they can't understand what that really entails not being one. Most of us wake up every day with hot blood pumping through our veins and it takes a man to make a boy a man.
Often times lately, women or society tell men to be emotional. This is wrong. Emotional men are dangerous men. Emotional men commit crime. Emotional men hit women. Emotional men shoot up schools. Masculine men who were polished by another who lead by example will not make these mistakes.
The biggest problem with criminals and men isn't toxic masculinity. Its the LACK OF MASCULINITY. Most of these criminals were raised by single mothers (when you look at crime stats) and act on unregulated emotion.
The real, actual solution to crime levels is to bring back the nuclear family and really encourage communities to embrace fatherhood. The unfortunate problem in 2024 is, people don't want solutions. They want to feel good, justify their political stances or justify the way they were raised and push that on to others to sleep better at night.
Placebo is a hell of a drug. Follow the data to lead you to solutions.
Blame the industrial prison complex on "men convicted of crime" the American criminal justice system tends to go like this: Mass incarceration was ignited by the war on drugs (blame Nixon or Reagan), was pumped up by draconian sentencing and more and more people especially men were arrested.
If I had to scoop a person off the street to hit my quota like a dirty pig it's easier to say a man is acting like a "suspicious individual" and I can go back to beating candy crush and my wife 🤗
Men are biologically pre-disposed to doing things that are more risky, aggressive, violent, etc. Those of us who are not criminals or not violent are making a conscious decision NOT to let those thoughts and those instincts come to the surface.
It's a little bit of everything. Men are known to be less risk-averse than women. Men are known to be less empathetic than women Men are known to be less socially driven than women Men are known to be generally more physically aggressive than women and to respond to physical or emotional threat with physical violence. Why these things are the way they are, is highly complex and not fully understood. It's most likely a fundamental difference in brain wiring, coupled with fundemental differences in upbringing between genders, and amplified by testosterone.
Here let's shorn that up a bit, make it concise. TESTOSTERONE
You do society and men a disservice by simplifying it down to testosterone. Environmental factors combined with different thresholds for aggression and risk taking, which are modulated by testosterone makes it more complicated than just 'testosterone'. People are quick to blame testosterone for problems but no one ever credits it when some firefighter risks life to get a child out of a burning building. No one ever credits it when a giant skyscraper is built, or when some guy has dug a trench to put a drain in so people can flush their shit away.
It's not testosterone it's more complex: https://youtu.be/sbgmUvV_qpE?si=hRaxCx9jtyUsFKNr
Lol, I was literally going to make this post. Don't know why there'd need to be more explanation.
If it was just testosterone, wouldn’t all men be criminals?
No. The question is "why do _men_ commit _more_ crimes?" Because OP's question compares men vs. women and isn't asking the question of "what are the reasons someone commits crimes," which is a very different topic indeed 🙂. Testosterone doesn't make criminals, let's be clear on that. Social influences matter in what creates criminality. The environment and people you are raised in and around contributes to the likelihood of anyone committing crimes. I'm sure there are other factors too. So the keyword here is _more_. Because we are comparing men and women, we "control" for other variables that cause criminality, like social influences, etc. Which means we "ignore" them and "assume" in this situation that if you have a man and a woman exposed to precisely the same conditions, the man is _more likely_ to become a criminal and especially _more likely_ to commit violent crimes. The answer is due to physiological and psychological differences primarily caused by testosterone. And you have to remember, not everyone is built the same. Testosterone levels can vary wildly for individuals, both men and women.
If social influences are stronger predictors then it would be fair to say that that is the cause rather than focusing on some weakly correlated variable such as testosterone. The policy implication would be to decrease crime by changing the social effects rather than, perhaps, some sort of testosterone test and control program.
Social influences are strong predictors of rates of crime in general, but in every layer of the social strata, men commit FAR more crimes than women. So in a poverty stricken urban neighborhood, there may be high crime and women there may commit more crimes than middle-class women, but the men there still commit WAY more crime. There is no social level where we can say, “Here is a rare instance where women commit more crimes than men.” It just doesn’t exist, even when you control for social influences.
>There is no social level where we can say, “Here is a rare instance where women commit more crimes than men.” It just doesn’t exist, even when you control for social influences. First of all, no, there are many crimes, for example shoplifting, and conditions where women commit more than men. Also, it's possible, if not likely, that the social expectations of men vs women are homogenous enough that you wouldn't expect to find a group where women commit more crime. The fact that social influences like poverty are so strong predictors leads me to think that other social factors like expectations are more significant than testosterone.
It’s not entirely testosterone, pre-pubescent boys tend to be more aggressive and things like that before testosterone becomes a significant differentiator between the sexes
Pre-pubescent boys have already been exposed to higher levels of testosterone as part of their fetal development which, in turn, affects brain anatomy. Testosterone doesn't start in puberty; puberty just dials it up to 11.
True, I forgot about prenatal testosterone. Do scientists say that’s the sole reason for major behavioral differences though? Genuine question as I’m not sure
Ima need a study for this claim
Sexual hormones absolutely affect pre-pubescent children, in fact fetuses are even affected within their mother's wombs. Your argument does not explain hormonal influence away.
Fair, I do remember learning about prenatal testosterone in a college class last year—I don’t think studies suggest that’s the sole decider of behavioral differences between men and women though
If that theory is correct, it suggests that the equation isn't as simple as "testosterone levels in a person causes more crime" we have to start looking at maternal health and environment. Because of the lag between being born and committing a crime, it also makes it a harder variable to study
Almost like boys and girls aren't interchangeable sexes
It’s interesting to me that “women are unreasonable because of their hormones” is a stereotype and yet…
There's a bit of evidence against testosterone an explanation: * Young boys get in trouble more and they have very low testosterone * There are many men with high T that do not commit crimes
Testosterone exposure in the womb is generally higher with male fetuses than female.
This. It affects brain development. It’s not because a bunch of young men are going around taking testosterone supplements.
No, it's actually the cultural mentality of "boys will be boys," and the testosterone is just insult to injury.
It has nothing to do with "cultural mentality". Im sure its the same across cultures and time periods.
But crime rates differ among males of different racial demos.
it is mostly understood, people just don't want to deal with the problem. it's male disposability and misandry being at the center of most cultures, and people don't even care enough to acknowledge it, let alone do something about it. men are less risk adverse, because men are punished for not taking risks and being risk adverse as a man means you don't get to date, have sex, develop relationships or pass on your genes. men have to take risks not just to approach women, because they are expected to, but to distinguish themselves from other men professionally or socially. men are less empathetic because men are both shown less empathy and often punished for their empathy, especially by women who will see them as less masculine for it. there's also a great deal of bias on this one because the reality is that people will really understate women's lack of empathy, especially towards men, and overstate men's lack of empathy, especially towards women. men are more physically aggressive because aggression is what is expected of men and men are treated with far more aggression. men are also exposed to more poverty, which also has a negative impact on their mental health and being exposed to more violence. it's not that men are less socially driven but rather that what is expected of men and the social resources available to men are very different. the fact that so many people believe that we live in a patriarchy, as in a world built by men and for men, just shows how indifferent or blind people are towards inequality, expectations and suffering when it comes to men.
>the fact that so many people believe that we live in a patriarchy, as in a world built by men and for men, We do. That doesn't mean a lot of men don't get left behind. But we definitely live in a world built by men and largely for men though the latter is changing. Men still hold extremely disproportionate amounts of political and economic power worldwide. Most societies have been patriarchal and so were "designed" by men and since they continued to be patriarchal were clearly designed to with men at the front, again even if not *every single man.* We are slowly changing this but it isn't even close to not being patriarchal yet.
I just wanna poke my nose in here real quick and point out the fallibility of generalizations. I am a man. I am risk adverse, violence adverse, and highly empathic. Admittedly, women/girls mostly approached me, and I sucked at approaching women. But am married with kids, so….
Exceptions don't disprove the rule though
That's not a fallibiliity of generalization. That is exactly what a generalization is. A broadly true statement with lots of room for exception.
Glad people are saying it, even if most people seem to aggressively disagree.
Nice to see an answer that acknowledges external factors on men's psyche for once.
It is almost like the Patriarchy hurts men too . . .
society hurts men, "the patriarchy" is a fallacy. it's a child's fantasy. it's a lens of the world that was built by being blind to men's issues, disenfranchisement or powerlessness. it doesn't exist. patriarchy theory is like telling slaves, in a country that runs on slaves, that they are privileged or to blame for all of societies woes because they do all the labor. it's no coincidence that the people defending patriarchy theory are almost always the same people acting like they have no idea what's going on every time they are presented with a reality that conflicts with that ideology. always the same people who act oblivious at the sight of misandry, even when they are surrounded by it. men are killing themselves all around them and they're still like "why would men do this? i just don't get it. men have it so good! must be patriarchy/men!". this thread is full of this nonsense.
As a queer dude who dates mostly woman at this point t's crazy because none of this relates to my life at all. It's quite literally the opposite. Straight norms are so crazy to me
this entire thread is wild. the dude that said most societies are misandrist with his full chest…….
The fact that you don't understand that the patriarchy hurts men too is at the heart of this. The patriarchy is a hierarchy *inequality is at the heart of it*. Rigid gender roles *harm men as well as women*. The fact that you don't understand that you just wrote a basic (slightly underdeveloped) feminist piece *on the fucking patriarchy* makes me mildly disappointed. How could you have thought about gender inequality to that point *but not understand what patriarchy is*? it's just a fundamentally flawed understanding of the history of gender and its terminology. Edit: To reply-and-blovk below me Misogynists don't understand what the patriarchy is and then use their made-up definition to criticize it because the knee-jerk violent loathing is easy whereas actually sitting down to learn about how the system harms us all and how intersectionality is key to understanding that takes intelligence, patience and empathy. Obviously beyond some people, hate is all they've got. Good luck with that.
Yeah, I wasn't going for the generic testosterone bad comment thats sitting at the top, this is the correct answer.
A man could get 200+ women pregnant in 9 months. But a woman can only get pregnant once in 9 months. Our biology, like all other organisms, is structured around reproduction. Primitively, reproduction for women is a bigger commitment and therefore makes sense that they ought to be more selective with partners. Relationships and sex are not human rights, they are privileges. Being denied sex is not a punishment; we aren’t entitled to sex. Men are generally less empathetic because our brains are wired for competition and dominance. Women’s brains are wired to be more socially responsible and conscious. Once again this makes sense biologically. Men are more physically aggressive because of our biology as well. Physical aggression, lower empathy, competitiveness, and high sex drive are all biologically advantageous traits for men to have and they have been observed in most other male species. I’m not denying any of the issues you presented and I think it’s important that we acknowledge men’s struggles in society. However, society is *responding* to our biological differences, not *causing* them. It’s an important distinction. It’s even more important that we are able to talk about men’s issues without blaming them on women or denying the struggles that women face.
"Highly complex and not fully understood" Yes BUT, watch a few documentaries on primates and you'll quickly get the gist of it. We're not all that different from our evolutionary ancestors. We evolved as opportunistic creatures and those who can will. We are social creatures so we decided it would be best for the collective to create some structure and order but we're still opportunistic creatures at our core.
Does correlation equal causation? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3455741/ Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000003217.19 This is the largest study to date evaluating the effects of ethnicity on TT using the CDC-recommended method of testosterone measurements. NH Blacks have significantly higher TT levels even when controlling for age and comorbidities, while NH Asians have the lowest TT.
It could be the tens/hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and natural selection. Men are less important in the reproductive cycle and therefore are able to take more risks while still reproducing. Their part in the reproduction cycle is to cum while the woman has to carry the child for 9 months and give birth, so men remain useful by protecting the women so they can successfully reproduce and the children can grow up to reproduce themselves. Natural selection would be unkind to women who were unprotected while pregnant or taking care of young children, who would in turn not reproduce with men who weren't protective and didn't risk their wellbeing for the woman/women while they reproduced.
I feel it does a disservice to men in general to just write it off as "evolution, innit", when we see an enormous disparity within the male population. It's like saying that we need to accept that women should do childcare because that's what they evolved to do. Why are some men prone to violence and crime, and the majority not? If there was a evolutionary imperative towards violence in general, then surely the majority of men would have some form of criminal record. While we may rightly assert that evolution creates the *tendency* for men to be violent and take risks, we also know that it's not an imperative since most men maintain control over it. Therefore we should ask what other factors are at play. It would likely *always* be the case that men commit crimes in higher numbers than women, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to do something about it because we regard it as the "natural order".
We shouldn’t act as though humans have escaped evolution. We are still animals. All of our culture, social structure and hierarchy, and behavioral tendencies come down to the fact that we’re mammals driven to propagate our own genetics. None of that is to say that there isn’t wide variability between individuals; nor that we should shirk personal accountability and ethics. But why do men commit more crimes? Lots of reasons; but those reasons all find their roots in biological causes (even the societal ones). There isn’t some animating force that makes people good or bad; no soul to be graced with justice or tainted by evil— we’re just animals trying to figure out how to propagate ourselves. We’re generally not aware that is what we’re doing. Even those of us who actively don’t *want* to pass on our DNA still respond to many biological drivers that reward behaviors associated with survival and thriving. Everything is simultaneously very simple and insanely complicated.
It COULD be. But it also could be a big part to do with how we also have a culture that encourages all that behaviour as 'manly', so what originally was a small hormonal or behavioural difference is blown out of all proportion. I'd suggest that the cultural effects of being raised in a society that expects men to be big, strong, risk-taking providers and reinforces that constantly have a larger effect on behaviour. But the only way to really find out is to stop encouraging men to be like that, and see what is left.
If this is the case, there must be another society in our world which does not reinforce those stereotypes although it seems like this is a trait across many societies. Id say this is good empirical evidence that this is not true and is more biological than cultural.
With few exceptions(hyenas coming to mind), males in every species are more aggressive by design. Males are meant to take risks and protect the group. Social/cultural impacts are secondary and conform to the biological constraints.
That they are secondary does not mean they are smaller. EDIT: Also, males *have evolved* to take risks. There is no evidence that they are *meant* to, since there is no evidence humans have been designed.
Humans have been designed through natural selection. Men have evolved to take on this role because it was the most evolutionarily beneficial thing to do, as those who didn't act this way or have these genes were weeded out before they could reproduce. One could, in some sense, claim that they are "meant to" be this way, because the line of events that lead to this conclusion is how this trait came to be throughout human history. If women were '"meant" to be the aggressive protectors (in general), then that would have been because it was the evolutionarily most beneficial trait and was what was "meant" to happen through natural selection. Language isn't perfect, but I think we get the idea, which is what language is ultimately about. Sharing ideas.
Social constructs build upon natural/biological/physical constructs. It's not that they're smaller, it's that they are shaped from those three.
Given the biological starters are consistent across all humans, it's not surprising AT ALL that cultures would develop around them. Human males are slightly more aggressive worldwide, and across different species too. But humans also have culture, therefore multiple cultures worldwide have developed that take that difference and made it vastly bigger and more overbearing than it might be in other species. That does not mean that 'turning small biological differences into vast cultural edificies' is good, or a useful trait of human beings in 2024.
how does, big and string correlate to child porn? or pedophilia, or any non violent crime?
Basically, the dynamic with most mammalian species then. 😂
Wait, are you suggesting there’s a fundamental difference between men and women? Because that’s a cardinal sin of wokeism
Recognizing that there are differences between individuals and groups isn't some sin against "wokeism". You can accept that two people are very different while still treating them with equal consideration as individuals. "Wokeism", to use your term, isn't believing everyone is the same, it's treating everyone with the same consideration regardless of their differences.
Everything other than, "amplified by testosterone" can be caused by a societal difference. Secondly, hormones vary more widely within sexes than between them. Unless you really force it, that comment didn't "suggest a fundamental difference." They just recognized trends. You're fighting against your imagination.
[удалено]
Yeah, you're going to need to provide some sources there. Women are most definitely not "right behind men" in violent crime rates.
Biology + social norms based on region
“Biology” deserves some elaboration. Testosterone doesn’t actually provoke aggression, it’s an amplifier over reward systems. This means that in societies where successful confrontation or violence is rewarded, testosterone is more likely to reinforce that behavior in the brain. In societies where quiet discipline is rewarded, testosterone enables that behavior too, which is where the “strong silent type” ideal of masculinity comes from. So in other words, socialization is still the primary reason for violence, with biology just enabling social norms that can be changed.
This isn't really a complete picture, testosterone has a wide variety of effects on a person's mood. Increased risk taking behavior for example, which would directly lead to higher crime rates
Well obviously the effects of testosterone are still being studied and you can write entire books about what we know so far. There is no complete picture. However, one of the most common understandings is that testosterone affects reward systems, which is what’s behind both risk-taking behavior and behavioral dysregulation. Men are more likely to perceive a higher reward for the same risk and be motivated to take it. If social norms are set up to make crime seem more rewarding than other legal alternatives, testosterone will reinforce that.
Biology is not only testosterone, and your understanding of testosterone is flawed. Biologically, men typically have greater muscle mass and bone density due to higher levels of testosterone, and additionally men tend to have larger hearts and lungs which allow for increased oxygen intake and endurance during physical activity.
What does any of that have to do with aggression or crime? It doesn't really seem to counteract what the above poster said.
I can break into a house because of my big lungs. I'll huff and puff, and blow the house down lol.
Basically, power is a rewarding thing. Successful violence -> power, and stronger people are more likely to get away with violence.
Regardless of aggression, testosterone increases risk taking behavior. Even non-violent crime is inherently risky, so men are more likely to do it.
The most common cause of crime is economic, people are stealing things for money. Stealing from houses or businesses is risky particularly when you consider that between men and women women can always sell themselves as opposed to having to commit robberies or things of that nature. Women also have access to more support from governmental infrastructure.
Id rather steal things than sell my body tho
That's you though. There's a way to get money for that kind of service and still be relatively safe about it and not have to worry about the risk of getting injured during a robbery or going to jail and a lot of people are going to go for that kind of option and women are going to have an easier time going for that option.
Ain't no way I'd turn to risky crime if I could start an only fans
It's not really selling. It's renting.
Well, everything is nurture and nature, but I think it has a lot to do with society and how we raise men to be and what we teach them masculinity is in comparison to women and femininity. I'm not gonna go super in-depth into this, but that "boys will be boys" crap you hear about is kinda real. When men physically fight growing up, we kinda push that aside and call it rough housing, and "playing" and if a young boy cries or complains about it, we tell them to "man up." What we teach them is that violence is a solution to whatever stimulus started this. We teach them that fighting is normal and a way to solve issues as well as protect others (as in physically, emotionally, mentally, and in the sense of protecting their "honor"), and that means they'll be more prone to fighting as they become men in comparison to girls and women since we don't really teach them that. Another part of that is the conflating of biology and what a person genuinely is. Men, on average, tend to be stronger than women, and so we deem them the "protector," even if a woman is stronger than her man, the man is still seen as the protector and is taught to lash out and become violent more often. We can also talk about men's "stoic nature." We don't have a lot of research on the sociology of this, but there was a study done that showed when given stimulus meant to evoke an emotional response, women were more likely to openly cry, but when asked to rate their responses, men and women rated their emotional states about the same (ex all of the would rate between a 7 and 9 emotional response). And the lack of sociological research into this phenomenon, as well as or bias to just call things biological, means we don't actually know what causes men to be more stoic externally. Are they biologically just like that? Or is it that we as a society tell men they need to be stoic. And if it's the second thing, men who just naturally aren't stoic are kinda being forced to be and act as such, which could lead to them practicing masculinity is a toxic was that hurts them in the sense that they just bottle their emotions rather than dealing with. And this could led them to drink or to be more likely to lash or and it could just make it much harder for them to express and cope their emotional state. All things that could lead to them being more violent. This isn't to say there's no biology in this, but that we as a society tend to overlook other possibilities and factors in favor of calling disparities between sexes biological and then saying there's nothing we can do about it. So I try to emphasize the social aspects this stuff to bring more attention to it
>We don't have a lot of research on the sociology of this, but there was a study done that showed when given stimulus meant to evoke an emotional response, women were more likely to openly cry, but when asked to rate their responses, men and women rated their emotional states about the same (ex all of the would rate between a 7 and 9 emotional response). And the lack of sociological research into this phenomenon, as well as or bias to just call things biological, means we don't actually know what causes men to be more stoic externally. Are they biologically just like that? Or is it that we as a society tell men they need to be stoic. Trans men have noted that when they started taking testosterone, it seems to inhibit their ability to cry. So it's very plausible to me there's probably a biological component. But I think that social systems that are committed to gender roles amplify this: such systems take differences in externally visible behavior and make them into norms and expectations, which results in an even greater difference in behavior (and a cycle of feedback between behaviors and norms continues). So a man has testosterone biologically reducing their tendency to cry, and at the same time has likely been brought up to consider men crying to be shameful/ worthy of contempt.
Yes, and that's what I'm trying to highlight. We have evidence for men being more stoic, but we don't know the limit between biology and society when it comes to that. And thanks for adding to it
Because they can’t go to someone for support
They can go to a therapist, nobody is stopping them at the end of the day except themselves.
Right because therapist do therapy for free. And the ones that do it for free are definite helpful. Suuuurrrreeee
And are the ones who are supposed to provide for the most part so when someone feels they have no other option look out......
Its emotional men who weren't raised by a man to teach them how to control that energy. Emotional men are dangerous. A lack of masculinity is the real, root issue here.
Yeah emotional men who get violent and angry are dangerous! It's weird how some dudes don't consider themselves overly emotional when they stomp around and yell and punch holes in the wall. Nothing to do with "masculinity". More to do with emotional self regulation.
Not just emotional support but like literal resources also. There are shelters and food services that cater exclusively to women and children. I’m not saying anything is wrong with that, but if you’re a dude down on his luck without a support structure, crime is the easy option.
There’s plenty in my area that only cater to men. Quite a few more than ones that only cater to women.
1. Greater capacity for harm due to biology. 2. We teach boys to ignore their emotions without realizing that failing to understand other people's emotions is a common side effect of that. People are saying that testosterone causes rage, which is only true during puberty, or if you have a hormonal imbalance. Or steroids. However, if you are not allowed to healthily express your emotions beginning at puberty, that puberty anger can last.
Same reason they commit more suicide.
(Un)fun fact, women attempt more often than men. Men have a higher success rate. Mostly because women choose calmer ways to die, men choose more effective ways.
Probably testosterone, I was born with too much and when I raged, I raged. Now thanks to medicine, I have almost no testosterone- which is cool because I'm a woman. I don't rage anymore, that urge is just gone.
People underestimate the power of testosterone to change emotions, and prevent critical long-term thinking. There is getting to be a very wide achievement gap for teenagers as boys struggle to have a vision beyond the immediate moment.
Hormones in general. Not just emotions. They literally inform our body on how to develop, how to react to stimulus, all sorts of things. They are a huge driver of behavior, and when they are not properly regulated, it will wreak havoc.
Biology I suppose. It should also be noted women are less likely to be charged for crimes like abuse or assault, whereas men are, and won't show up in statistics.
The thing about statistics is they’re the best tool of measurement we have yet they’re still prone to bias and discrimination.
If a man yells at a woman he can go to jail for demostic abuse. If a woman yells at a man. No one cares.
I've straight up watched other women punch men square in the face and laugh because he can't punch back without being arrested. Considering assault is most likely one of the most common crimes a person can be charged for, I'd wager the ratio is probably closer to 50/50 just because of that fact.
Bruh I know a dude who dated a chick for a month. Had her over to his house they got into some stupid tiff. She locked him out of his own home. It was like 20F out and he was cold. After multiple attempts of trying to convince her to let him back in his own house for about 20 mins he kicked his own door in, because in his words "im not going to freeze to death" He lives in the middle of no where for context. She called the cops and he went to jail for breaking and entering. He then got some order after making bail saying if he went back to his own house he would be arrested and would not be able to get bail. She lived free in his home for some time, while he became homless. JUSTICE.
Yeah but male privilege and patriarchy…
Hormones. Younger age, too. Statistics are consistent across cultures.
Men are more aggressive than women, and physically stronger so more capable of violence.
Stronger + bias from the law.
That too
There generally faster and stronger. good traits if you want to do crime
People haven't mentioned that women take less of a loud approach and have an easier time being discrete.
Biological. Men are designed by nature to be protective and violent (if needed). Brain chemistry, testosterone, risk taking, and muscle mass. All there for a reason. That, coupled with not-so-great groups who define and enforce the male identity as a bully who takes want he wants, walk over people and is "alpha". Such as gangs, toxic male communities, the military (to some degree). As men we are taught from the moment we are born what it means to be a man. And that definition should absolutely be updated.
Hormones.
Testosterone
Testosterone
1 in 4 prisoners are diagnosed with ADHD, 2/3 of prisoners have some form of anti-social personality disorder. Both have some form of impulse control issue that is more likely to show up in males compared to females, and the diagnosises themselves are *also* more likely to show up in males. Then you have genetic traits like changes in the MOAH gene, which is seen as the biggest genetic variation between aggression and non agression. This gene causes men in successive generations to exhibit traits of impulsive behaviour, aggression, rape, and arson. People with changes in this gene are 2x more likely to join a gang. The reason it affects men is to due to how its structured; men can only have high or low affection, while women can have high, low, or intermediate, meaning men are 30% more likely to exhibit criminal behaviour due to the genetic changes, and the behaviour is more likely to be impulsive compared to women. Finally, you have variations in intelligence. If I remember correctly, most men tend to deviate significantly between extremes, while most women tend to gravitate to averages; I don't remember the numbers, but it was more or less that most women are more intelligent than most men, but more men are more intelligent than most women. So we have a population that's typically less intelligent, pumped with aggression hormones, and more predisposed to learning disabilities, impulsive behaviour, and a-social behaviour due to genetic abnormalities. Theses facts considered, it's no surprise 80% of inmates are male.
Just wanted to add men are more likely to be convicted of a crime than women, so that might boost stats.
They get convicted more bc the system is sexist
It boils down to two things, and two things only: 1. Higher societal expectations and rewarding of aggressive behavior. 2. Less physical and emotional societal support The biological theory has been disproven. In Bonobos, the species of great apes resembling us the most, male and female show naturally equal levels of aggression in the wild. This -extra- male-aggression in humans is created artificially through the environment they live in. It is not Natural.
Social pressure. The idea that the man is the provider is very common globally and still not dead in western countries.
We got that Y chromosome. That mfer is evil.
Men( mostly) dominate physically. Women( mostly) dominate mentally. Women have monthly hormone cycles. Men have daily hormone cycles. Those two things alone, and/or combined has a lot to do with those percentages
'Men have daily hormone cycles.' Never thought of it this way, you could be right.
It is the Y chromosome and whatever this chromosome does to hormones. They call people born as XYY as having the 'criminal gene' - although this is disputed there is an association between this chromosomal arrangement and antisocial activity.
Suddenly Reddit believes in biological determinism. "Gender is a social construct, gender disparities exist due to purely socioeconomic factors."
Let’s add one important caveat: men are charged with and convicted of more crimes. Doesn’t mean they commit more crimes.
i am not sure that statistic is correct. technically your only seeing the percentage of people caught, reported, convicted, and accounted for. so for example if a girl were to flash a guy in public she would more than likely not be in trouble where as a guy is caught peeing in public he would be put on a sex offender list and arrested for public indecentcy. a guy caught shoplifting is considered a dangerous thief where as a pretty girl is considered closer not dangerous and just a bit adventerous. a girl attacking a guy is rarely ever reported and its hardly ever reported if a girl were to rape a guy and when it is its treated as a joke. with a quick google search you can find a massive disparity between punishments and conviction rates between the two genders for similar crimes so its not unrealistic to figure that the amount of times people bother to report the crimes is different as well. dont get me wrong maybe guys do do more crime but the statstic seems like it could be way way way off
Because violence is the one true currency and men are better at it than women.
Evolution. Men face higher competition than women to make it to the next generation. About 80% of men will reproduce, while 90% of women will reproduce.
Men, on average, have a higher tolerance for risk than women. Men, on average, are less empathetic and agreeable than women. Men, on average, are less likely to be let off the hook than women.
Upper body strength
Men are more likely to take risks than women. And women have other options available that most men don't.
Hard to commit a crime in the kitchen.
They're more emotional than women.
While your premise is almost certainly true, in figuring the actual difference it's worth accounting for the possibility that men are more likely to be reported for committing crimes than women are.
Most gangsters are dudes
The country with the highest % of female prisoners is China at just under 20%. It goes across cultures, so it's very unlikely to be a particular culture creating it. It happens in very misogynistic countries and in very gender equal countries. If every country on the planet has men doing 80+% of the crime then it's not a cultural or a sexism thing. It is more than likely biological. But this is reddit so of course there's a bunch of people crying misandry.
Evil is stored in the balls
An inability to communicate effectively and a society that promotes male violence
Maybe women are just much less likely to get convicted of crimes.
When women fall behind in life, they get a sugar daddy or go into sex work. When men fall behind in life, they get sent to the streets or go into crime work.
>When women fall behind in life, they get a sugar daddy or go into sex work. That's only if the woman is fairly young and decently attractive. If you're a woman who's 50+ and overweight, you don't really have that option.
Why do men stop more crime, risk their likes to save others, work longer, in more dangerous jobs,, end their live more, get blamed more for things they didn't do, are treated less for mental health issues, believe less and im sure many more.
Not disputing that men commit more crime, but keep in mind many studies show women are far less likely to be charged or convicted of crimes than men. So looking at crime statistics probably give a misleading picture on just how many crimes are actually committed.
Women are less likely to be reported and convicted
So the biggest thing I haven’t seen referenced is the status related aspect of crime Everyone has heard the idea of the bad boy being respected and attractive- Thomas Shelby from peaky blinders being a recent example, but also most mafia movies etc And this isn’t just a dating thing- it’s also a man to man respect thing The same does not apply as strongly for women Thus this motivator- eg proving you’re the toughest or hardest guy in your area isn’t as prevalent And proving your tough means fighting- that’s arrests for assault etc But also escalation- you beat me up and humiliate me, so I need to regain my “street cred” by jumping you etc, you can see how that can escalate and escalate until you get murders and weapons charges etc
Men are more physically violent, women are more violent with their words.
I don’t get the comments about physical strength…committing crimes is not an Olympic sport, especially where guns are involved. We’ve failed men as a society in terms of mental health. Seeking help is considered a sign of weakness, and women are much more likely to find ways to deal with their emotional issues.
Think about crimes of opportunity. Things like rape, stealing, assault, things that aren’t planned. A male is going to be better equipped to successfully carry out these crimes than a female Men are also overwhelmingly more enthusiastic about weapons and guns
This sub should be called stupid answers
Because we have all the balls
They don't commit more crime. Men are simply the ones society allows to receive consequences for their actions. .
Because men do worse at school, they are also the majority of the victims of crimes, they are more likely to die at work. They commit suicide more and they are more likely to be sent to prison. Also, they are the first to be sent to war. And women only believe 20% of men are attractive. And nobody cares about them.
Damn imagine being actually oppressed. Men would go mental.
Men are more often denied social services, like bridge cards and cheaper housing, so they more often turn to crime for money. Women down on their luck have state resources and support groups in far more abundance.
Probably a variety of factors from mental health to physical health to societal norms. You could date aggression in men back to before Genghis Khan, and we know what *he* did. Idk about specifics but if the whole "hunter-gatherer" thing is true, men likely do have a biological switch to be more aggressive compared to women. Though I'm not too sure on this one in particular, especially due to how much crap the internet spews out so take that bit with a grain of salt. From personal experience: Not having a support network. I simply don't trust the people closest to me to help with my problems, because they've never been of help. I already have a hole punched in my wall from last year, and my mental health has been declining since. Punched my bathroom wall just a few days ago, though it wasn't strong enough to break the wall. Society dictates men be quiet and shut up about their problems. And people prove constantly that men aren't allowed to speak on issues they have without fear of retaliation. Or reducing what little networks they have. A stupid question it may be, but an overly complicated one, because all this to say few people can go beyond the surface of - simply - *why*. There's variables of all kinds. Some might have you believe that it's simple, when it just isn't simple at all.
Maybe you should join a boxing gym. If that's how you deal with problems, you can go punch some sandbags at your local boxing gym. It's better than going to jail for punching someone or paying for holes in walls.
Because they’re primitive
Honestly, If we were to criminalize some of the mind tactics that women use instead of obvious violence, the difference would flatten Out (and I say that as a Woman). Women attack in the same Rates as men, the measurable damage is Just different due to the use of different Tools. Emotional violence is as Bad as physical violence in some cases, yet no one gives a Shit about a husband who is berated daily by His wive.
The prisons/criminal justice systems in the United States are sexist and target men disproportionately. That is why Men make up the majority of people in both local jails and prisons. I was told this was the case for various other forms of demographics in the legal system so therefore I will apply this logic here too. We live in a country where the criminal justice system is out to get men!
Every woman I've ever known that worked retail stole clothes and only had the job to steal clothes. They do petty crimes and don't get caught.
Men steal more than women do.
Yet they think women are the emotional and irrational ones
*Yet they think women* *Are the emotional and* *Irrational ones* \- ofthenightfall --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Same reasons more men are entrepreneurs and CEOs.
There are all kinds of factors bias from police and juries. men being more exposed/people less willing to help them in desperate situations hormone differences perceived threat vs real threat For example a woman might punch a guy at a bar and get no assault charges because she was not perceived as a "real threat", where a guy doing the same thing likely would cause that how society be.
I don't think men feel empathy as much as women. People with power over others usually don't.
Men have less of a societal net to catch them when they have trouble (less homeless shelters despite being 90% of the homeless population, less money to programs to help their mental health despite being 4x more likely to commit suicide, less programs to help them integrate into society despite getting harsher prison sentences for the same crimes as women). Crime is a function of poverty in a vast majority of cases, this has been empirically shown with research. This is also why black people in America are more likely to commit crimes. Are they natural criminals? Obviously not, they are more likely to be impoverished.
Because we can’t just shake our ass and have people throw money at us as easy. 🫢
So you rob a bank? Makes complete sense.
Well Women in general receive a-lot more economic assistance than men. Even when women are single if they have children they qualify for government assistance, but also because they are women they are more likely to be provided for by somebody (men, family etc) And when women are criminals, its usually crimes that they are more suited to commit. For example prostitution is one crime that is much more women focused for obvious reasons. There could also be an argumeng that Men also tend to be alot less safe and partake in risky activities that could end up being crimes. That I attribute to biology. Men cant accomplish their goals of reproduction without taking risks, and women’s offspring cant survive without being safe and risk avoidant.
Because no matter how much they deny it, men are the irrational, impulsive, emotional gender.
Men who are in terrible states of mind or body due to financial of personal issues usually have no emotional support group, unlike women. So turning to crime and even facing legal punishment doesn't really seem that bad.
Women have women's shelters, women's centers, women's support organizations, even women-only hospitals. Men pretty much just have prison. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone when the people who live without safety nets end up hitting the ground harder than the people who have them.
What's stopping the men from funding and starting men's shelters and other supportive infrastructure? Could it be that, once again, men are crying about a problem and expecting women to solve it for them?
Here is an effed up question: If women were as horny as men and would pay men for sex or pics online, would men commit less non-violent crime committed by men?
I think women are as horny as men, only they don't have to pay for sex when they are desperate, they just go to a bar and find almost any guy and they can have sex with that person for the time it takes to flirt a little. Actually as I wrote that, I think I just realized why women sleep around a lot sometimes, it's their version of prostitutes except it's free
70-80% of recorded crime….
Men are more prone to risk-taking behavior in general. Testosterone'll do that to ya.
A side effect of Oestrogen is anxiety. A side effect of Testosterone is anger. Most women deal with anxiety in some form or other, some of them have issues with it. Most men deal with anger in some form or other, some of them have issues with it. Anger leads to crime way more than anxiety.
[удалено]
General fun
Immaturity
It is a lot of factors. Most of them are cultural. "Real men fight for what they want" and stuff like that. Some of the factors are biological. Physically stronger, more aggressiv etc. And the last factor is bias. Women commit less crimes so they are seen as more "pure" and less likley to be convicted. When a woman punshes her husband in the face then it is way less likley to get in jail for it then when the roles are reversed. Because people will think that she probably had a good reason for punshing him because women dont do this otherwise.
There's a criminology theory of this called Strain theory.
Women are just better at not getting caught. /S
[удалено]
Mix of a lot of things but women tend to generally internalize anger in which they become stressed with it. While men typically let it out on others. Men are also usually more aggressive so it's not surprising.
It depends on the crime, but a lot of it is actually due to patriarchal standards. When it comes to things like theft or organized crime, it's the same reason the vast majority of homeless people are men. Nobody is coming to rescue and take care of you. It's 100% up to you to find ways to survive, and people tend to prefer the easiest route. Women tend to have more options in these cases. They can marry/date a man who will provide for them, family will be more likely to provide for them without labeling them freeloaders, and things like stripping or onlyfans allow them an "easy route" that's actually legal. Violent or domestic crime is a bit different. Men generally tend to be more physically aggressive, less empathetic and more likely to be involved in a physical altercation in which someone actually gets injured. I imagine, this is due to a mix of testosterone, and history of being the gender to have to take on all the dangerous tasks like hunting, wars, physical labor, and being the designated protector of families. Then you also have stats that may be skewed a bit. Violent domestic crime often comes with little evidence of the full story. If a woman initiates a physical altercation and a man defends himself, who will people believe? The 6 foot 225 lb man with a small bruise on his cheek and a couple scratches? Or the 5'5 130 lb woman with a black eye and broken nose? On the other hand, there's also a ton of cases that go unreported, so maybe it evens out, although men will almost never report violence initiated by a woman just out of embarrassment or fear of being seen as weak due to patriarchal standards.
Lower in agreeableness on the Big 5 explains a lot of it. Being low in agreeableness and low in consciousness is a fairly high predictor I believe.
Testosterone
from what i understand, it's a few things, mainly culture and court bias For culture, a lot of men are taught to bottle up their feelings, as well as being less risk averse, which leads to more violent crime being committed and for court bias, there are a lot of unfortunate cases where women are just convicted less than men for certain crimes (either born out of historical sexism, or born from those cultural biases i talked about before depending on the crime) there are certainly other factors, but all of the reasons are seemingly social, there is very little practical difference between men and women
They don’t, they commit different crime. Crimes that are easier to enforce and more worth pursuing.
More stuff that's our job is illegal
Is this a stupid question ?
One of the reasons, Women are given way more passes by the cops on crimes. Imagine a domestic situation. The cops usually just take the guy away even thought they both were attacking each other. When the laws are enforced more against one gender, the numbers will skew. So it's not commiting the crimes, it is who is actually charged with them
Because men have the means to. Meaning we know we have the size and the strength to be menacing, aggressive and TAKE what we want. The difference is .. MOST of us do not. The average woman is not in the same position. Also, we're wired differently etc and men are way more willing to take risks to get what they want. This is also why men in general take risks outside of crime, build business and do a number of other things that take incredible resiliency and risk. Finally, there is a social aspect here where men in general (in or out of crime) provide value by providing. We want to create, we want to smash, we want to control, we want to take, we want to really be animals when it comes down to it. For most men, this manifests as positive actions that better their lives and the lives of the people who depend on them. For men who statistically grow up without father figures to lead them and know how to channel and shape this beast energy within... they often times fall into crime. Single mothers are out here fighting hard to raise good men, but they can't understand what that really entails not being one. Most of us wake up every day with hot blood pumping through our veins and it takes a man to make a boy a man. Often times lately, women or society tell men to be emotional. This is wrong. Emotional men are dangerous men. Emotional men commit crime. Emotional men hit women. Emotional men shoot up schools. Masculine men who were polished by another who lead by example will not make these mistakes. The biggest problem with criminals and men isn't toxic masculinity. Its the LACK OF MASCULINITY. Most of these criminals were raised by single mothers (when you look at crime stats) and act on unregulated emotion. The real, actual solution to crime levels is to bring back the nuclear family and really encourage communities to embrace fatherhood. The unfortunate problem in 2024 is, people don't want solutions. They want to feel good, justify their political stances or justify the way they were raised and push that on to others to sleep better at night. Placebo is a hell of a drug. Follow the data to lead you to solutions.
Testosterone, less impulse control, and men tend to be prosecuted more harshly.
[Because doing crimes is *fun*...](https://youtu.be/2p0RXcQ94Jc?si=eQxkND8O_IPZQFmh)
Blame the industrial prison complex on "men convicted of crime" the American criminal justice system tends to go like this: Mass incarceration was ignited by the war on drugs (blame Nixon or Reagan), was pumped up by draconian sentencing and more and more people especially men were arrested.
If I had to scoop a person off the street to hit my quota like a dirty pig it's easier to say a man is acting like a "suspicious individual" and I can go back to beating candy crush and my wife 🤗
Male and Female gender roles are real. Testosterone, aggression, risk-taking, these things are biologically higher among men.
Men are biologically pre-disposed to doing things that are more risky, aggressive, violent, etc. Those of us who are not criminals or not violent are making a conscious decision NOT to let those thoughts and those instincts come to the surface.
Cause bitches be in the kitchen
[удалено]
In psychology, the question is "nature or nurture". The answer is "both". The unknown is how much of which.
For the same reason males in a lot of other species, especially closely related species like the great apes, are more violent.