3 ms·

What point are you making?

lotsofpulp 4y ago
In nature, might makes right. It makes sense to me that men reap the “lion’s share of power and resources” simply because they can take them from women, not because of men taking more risks (which I am not sure how one can make that statement anyway since men and women are exposed to very different risks that are not easily comparable in magnitude).
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I think it's fair to say that for whatever reason (biological, cultural, or otherwise) men are exposed to greater risk since they die at a higher rate for every age group (just based on the graph in the article).
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    That is just mortality risk. There are other myriad other risks in life that I would not classify as being a "lesser" risk, such as the risk of having to live your whole life being abused by a spouse.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- danwills 4y ago
  I've read that males have a different risk to reward ratio (not in every species but in many, including humans) especially in terms of reproduction. One male can in-theory have many more offspring in the same time period than one female, and any gene encouraging that kind of behaviour in the past would probably have been naturally-selected-for amongst our ancestors. Of course the welfare of the offspring will likely be lower in that case but evolution still seems to have still left human males with remnants of a strategy of reproductive risk-taking.
chaostheory 4y ago
Men are stronger and inherently more violent then women. We commit most of the crime especially violent crime. Brutal but it helps with resource and power accumulation
- CapstanRoller 4y ago
  >inherently more violent then women This isn't true. Women just express violence in different ways (many of which are not seen as typically 'violent' because the benchmark is based on the sort of violence men do). Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    > Women just express violence in different ways Can you expand on this because it sounds completely baseless > Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait While committing violence isn't exclusive to males, males are statistically and historically much more prone to violence than females regardless of culture or race. There's plenty of data to back this up.
    - CapstanRoller 4y ago
      The ways in which we classify violence is itself often sexist and reinforces toxic gender stereotypes. Many of the violent things women do are normalized in society because they're not seen as 'real' violence and diminished solely by virtue of having been committed by a woman (e.g. intimate partner violence against men in heterosexual relationships, intimate partner violence against women in lesbian relationships, or child abuse especially against girls and & gender-conforming children), often seen as not 'worthy' of the same types of classification or intervention as violence perpetrated by men. This is the flip side of the stereotypes we typically associate with misogyny, and a form of benevolent sexism[0]: "women are weak" -> "women can't be violent" -> "women can't be soldiers" -> "women can't be abusers or criminals". As for psychological violence, the subreddit /r/RaisedByNarcissists is full of women talking about living with the aftermath of abusive mothers. If one believes in "the radical notion that women are people" then it stands to reason women can fully embody the totality of the human experience, which includes a certain capacity and propensity for violence. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism

In nature, might makes right. It makes sense to me that men reap the “lion’s share of power and resources” simply because they can take them from women, not because of men taking more risks (which I am not sure how one can make that statement anyway since men and women are exposed to very different risks that are not easily comparable in magnitude).

DangitBobby 4y ago
I think it's fair to say that for whatever reason (biological, cultural, or otherwise) men are exposed to greater risk since they die at a higher rate for every age group (just based on the graph in the article).
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  That is just mortality risk. There are other myriad other risks in life that I would not classify as being a "lesser" risk, such as the risk of having to live your whole life being abused by a spouse.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
danwills 4y ago
I've read that males have a different risk to reward ratio (not in every species but in many, including humans) especially in terms of reproduction. One male can in-theory have many more offspring in the same time period than one female, and any gene encouraging that kind of behaviour in the past would probably have been naturally-selected-for amongst our ancestors. Of course the welfare of the offspring will likely be lower in that case but evolution still seems to have still left human males with remnants of a strategy of reproductive risk-taking.

chaostheory 4y ago

Men are stronger and inherently more violent then women. We commit most of the crime especially violent crime. Brutal but it helps with resource and power accumulation

CapstanRoller 4y ago
>inherently more violent then women This isn't true. Women just express violence in different ways (many of which are not seen as typically 'violent' because the benchmark is based on the sort of violence men do). Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  > Women just express violence in different ways Can you expand on this because it sounds completely baseless > Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait While committing violence isn't exclusive to males, males are statistically and historically much more prone to violence than females regardless of culture or race. There's plenty of data to back this up.
  - CapstanRoller 4y ago
    The ways in which we classify violence is itself often sexist and reinforces toxic gender stereotypes. Many of the violent things women do are normalized in society because they're not seen as 'real' violence and diminished solely by virtue of having been committed by a woman (e.g. intimate partner violence against men in heterosexual relationships, intimate partner violence against women in lesbian relationships, or child abuse especially against girls and & gender-conforming children), often seen as not 'worthy' of the same types of classification or intervention as violence perpetrated by men. This is the flip side of the stereotypes we typically associate with misogyny, and a form of benevolent sexism[0]: "women are weak" -> "women can't be violent" -> "women can't be soldiers" -> "women can't be abusers or criminals". As for psychological violence, the subreddit /r/RaisedByNarcissists is full of women talking about living with the aftermath of abusive mothers. If one believes in "the radical notion that women are people" then it stands to reason women can fully embody the totality of the human experience, which includes a certain capacity and propensity for violence. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism