Why do men commit most of the crime?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm 56. My penis and testicles are the same size as they were when I was 30.

Why would a woman commit a crime if she can just get a man to do it?

Again, I really think this is biological.

Guys are supposed to be out and enterprising. It's partly from being the hunters for hundreds of thousands of years as well as the defenders and warriors. Guys are more active, somewhat less social aside from team leadership/coordination and more 'things' oriented, hence they're generally looked at to prove their worth through their activity. If they're given no opportunity to express that need in a healthy way and their desire to do something gainful is met with really unfertile soil they're left with pathological expressions/applications of that same both instinctual and culturally prescribed behavior.

Women seem to have plenty of their pathologies but they're just different and while it's not impossible for their pathologies to include violence that particular pathological expression is less frequent.

This all just gets to look really one-sided because we're picking at a particular expression that's particularly more male. If we wanted to talk hypergamy, manipulation, or distorted applications of empathy that either impede justice or even obfuscate a culture's ability to address problems for what they are (ie. protecting/defending the aggressors as if they're the victims) - it would sound like we were picking on women more exclusively. If we're talking about violence, sex drive or dominance related crimes such as rape, tunnel-vision myopia, etc..that's more to the male side.

The percentage of women who commit crimes has gone up considerably recently.

It's not because of sudden increased criminality in women. It's because of less "societal restraint."

Here is some interesting information ...

Mayo Clinic:
"as men get older, their testosterone levels decline about 1 percent per year after age 30
http://www.healthline.com/health/low-te ... age#aging4
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20045728

The lower production of testosterone should result in smaller testes, and fewer erections.

Fewer erections means there will be gradually decreasing blood flow to the penis, which results in "shrinkage".

Nope...not for me. The figures don't apply to me.

It's not because I'm "virile" or something. It just is. Maybe I got lucky

I still get erections at inopportune times, just like I did when I was 15. And they could be almost painful.

My testosterone level is in the "average" range (yes, it was checked during a routine examination).

I'm sure you would, but seeing as that's not what I said, I shan't be providing it. I merely pointed out that the waters get a bit muddied with regards to things like motive when men do most of the killing both for themselves and for women. I'm pretty sure sicking others to kill in your stead makes you quite guilty as well, but even that degree of separation may make the connection difficult to prove, which would impact the sentencing data.

As for other violent crime, the same basic idea applies. The phrase "are you going to let him speak to me that way?" comes to mind.

As for the indirect methods; women use poison as a murder weapon 7 times as often as men do. link. Seeing as this is out of confirmed and convicted cases, it stands to reason that a portion of unsolved cases and cases where the poison went undiscovered would have, if discovered, yielded a number of additional female perpetrators.




Got a problem with Men's Rights? I don't like all of them, but a lot of them have perfectly valid points. Also, why would I use a blog as a source for anything?





Why do I need to explain that? Why would you expect that?

^


If men and women were exactly the same then it would be equally easy for a man to induce a woman into committing crimes in behalf of the man, as it would be for a woman to persuade a man to do crimes in her behalf.

So why is that not the case?

And BTW you seem to be confused about the question, and seem to be assuming that the OP is indicting men as being less moral. The question has nothing to do with the relative morality, or lack thereof of the two genders.

Come to think of it:

Charles Manson DID get a mostly female gang to do conduct a mass murder for him. But he seems to be the only man in history who ever accomplished that feat! Lol!

I'll admit the questions in the OP confuses me a bit. I just wanted to adress that rather dubious statistics being thrown around.

But why would men and women acting in different ways disprove free will? We are a sexually dimorphic species, that includes both external and internal differences as well as behavioural differences. We can have free will even if we are influenced by external (and internal) forces. Our minds do not exist in vaccuums.

I agree with that. That its neither here not there on the question of "free will".

People who are born in China are more likely to become fluent in Chinese than folks born in Michigan. So does that "disprove free will"? Lotsa things correlate with certain subgroups of humanity more than with other subgroups.

Probably because whenever the fact that men commit more violent crime than women do, someone inevitably blurts out that, "Sometimes women get men to commit violent crime for them!" and I would just like to know how that's even remotely relevant.

Men still commit the majority of violent crime, and I see no evidence that a significant portion of that is being done at the behest of women.



I find most of them as stupid as I find feminists.