Log In | Register
From football thugs clashing on the terraces to soldiers killing each other on the front line, most conflict can be blamed on the male sex drive, a study suggests.The review of psychological research concludes that men evolved to be aggressive towards ‘outsiders’, a tendency at the root of inter-tribal violence.It emerged through natural selection as a result of competition for mates, territory and status, and is seen in conflicts between nations as well as clashes involving rival gangs, football fans or religious groups, say the researchers.
'Male sex drive to blame for most of world's violence' whereas women tend and befriend,' claims study | Mail Online
Seeded on Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:58 PM EST
Article Source: the Mail online
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (60)
In contrast, they add, women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully. They are said to have been programmed by natural selection to ‘tend and befriend’ to protect their children.
- 2 votes
#1 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:00 PM EST
Obviously, they also need to do separate studies on the number of people who have been harmed by women (either physically, or verbally) during:
1. That time of the month
2. While experiencing the hot flashes & mood swings of menopause.
3. Any time there is a sale. (Especially on Black Friday.)
Tend and befriend, my arse!!! :-)
- 5 votes
I agree with you, Kyle! Testosterone can get in the way of logic sometimes, but estrogen/progesterone imbalances can be mania!!
- 5 votes
women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully.
Except for the women in my office... :-)
- 3 votes
#2 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:18 PM ESTHi there Star... long time no see..
Lol, oh well, there's an exception to every rule. :)
I'm guessing there might be a few divorced men that will disagree with that statement, too!
- 3 votes
True, always an exception to a rule but it's probably a correct generalization.
Some of these women are suspected of eating their young for breakfast... :)
- 3 votes
I'm guessing there might be a few divorced men that will disagree with that statement, too!
Oh, damn! How did I forget to add that to my list??? Downright vicious!
- 2 votes
This is the important part:
Males evolved to be 'aggressive to outsiders',
and it's very true. It's seen in the animal kingdom all the time. Females tend to become aggressive if/when home, hearth or loved ones are endangered. The "mother bear" example applies, lol. But, males are biologically predisposed to be insanely territorial. Maintaining a territory for the "group" meant access to food and water sources, shelter, females, etc. Unfortunately with the population being soooooo huge in the world, there isn't the vat amounts of territory to be had there once was way way waaaaay back. This leads to clashes because it is in the instinct of men to obtain as much territory as possible.
When two "groups" are living side by side with a common boarder to their territories.....and those territories are easily crossed in terms of distance and time...then bad bad things are due to happen as instinct to expand one's own territory kicks in. Most "groups" (A) want to make sure other "groups" (B) know who the hell is in charge in an effort to ensure that other "group" (B) doesn't contemplate taking any part of an established territory by group (A).
Human beings are extremely aggressive and territorial by nature. The higher the population the less territory each group can claim and the closer in proximity to each other the groups become. The males are genetically imprinted with the predisposition to claim, advance, protect territory. It boils down to survival of one group predominately over another. Now with higher population and the speed and ease of travel.....territorial issues are rising at a fevered pace.
Gawd, I loved my studying all this when in pursuit of my psych degree at university. Fascinating stuff. With all our alleged "modernization"....we are still driven by those very base motivations of "us" over "them".
- 2 votes
#3 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:18 PM ESTAll good to point out, mrsr. I agree it's fascinating, and the "us" v. "them" keeps us in suspense, sometimes.
Even down to the tiniest critters (squirrels, chipmunks), they are so adamantly territorial. Nice to see you again!
- 2 votes
There has been what I consider to be a "balanced" discourse on this thread so far. I'm glad...I'm exhausted from trying to mount a central counterpoint to some pretty polarized viewpoints on other threads.
I feel the "average" "true female" is slow to anger and very impressive if someone DOES anger her.
The human males do all kinds of stunts designed to impress mainly females and primarily others. The "gym rats" are what I consider to be the urban equivalents of gladiators as focusing on buffness does nothing for a marriage but seems much more oriented towards self-admiration and supposedly having all kinds of sexual access due to body musculature. Well, the biggest and meanest thing in the wood is a bear...and we sell licenses and game manage them as they would otherwise be hunted to extinction.
If the males is doing a good job he is working for the relationship and not just himself. I find a male is pretty lucky if his mate is doing the same thing.
The animal kingdom has many displays of basic animal behaviors. We have cerebrums and so-called "higher intelligence" which makes it easier to fool ourselves when we are not succeeding in fooling others.
Summary, we have animal instincts BUT can choose to either act on an instinctual level or to think things out and act more like human beings instead.
- 2 votes
#4 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:48 AM ESTHi US... Yes, there is still an evolutionary biological, behavioral difference between men and women.
What stood out for me in the article is what we have always known through the ages:
men have sought to get their way by initiating violence.
They fight for what they want, need...what is important to their culture, society and survival, going all the way back to the Greeks and their use of homosexuality to boost their militaries.
They prefer group-based hierarchies and are identified more strongly with their own groups than women.
At a basic level, such ‘tribal’ aggression helped men in a group to obtain more females, increasing their chances of reproduction.
So, here again, we're exposing that basic masculinity and aggression is identified and enhanced with the group, as seen in sports or the military, but also aid in reproduction.
Violence and aggression are inherently natural to males.
Thanks for stopping, US!
- 3 votes
It is the way men are made and have evolved. That's really comforting and very nice to know. I am certainly glad we have that little fact on paper now.
Since we now know that men just are built that way - it's in their genes, you know - there is now no reason for us to worry about it or expect any better from those genetically controlled men.
- 1 vote
#6 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:43 AM ESTA good point grump.
I was ______— as a kid so now I can do anything and I'm not responsible for it... anyone else doing anythig was _____— too as a kid, they are just blocking it out. ;-/
- 3 votes
The Dali Lama is a man. According to this article, he has:
"evolved to be aggressive towards ‘outsiders’, a tendency at the root of inter-tribal violence. It emerged through natural selection as a result of competition for mates, territory and status, and is seen in conflicts between nations as well as clashes involving rival gangs, football fans or religious groups..."
I remember in the 1950's and 1960's when many anthropologists were studying various indigenous cultures around the world. As a theoretical framework they would use the teachings of Freud to describe their observations. What a load of crap that was - and even at the time anthorpologists who were not Freudians were dismissing their work as flawed.
This literature survey, I would think, had a goal in mind before it even began. This is just more man hating/they can't help themselves drivel.
Women are really very nice creatures. Men are horrible. There you go. Believe it if you wish.
- 2 votes
This literature survey, I would think, had a goal in mind before it even began. This is just more man hating/they can't help themselves drivel.
Lol, I didn't take the article that way at all. As long as the aggression is used for self-defense or other logical/mandatory (e.g. sports, job) conclusions, physical strength is a plus.
- 1 vote
Aggression and territoriality certainly have roots in biology. When you examine our behaviors as human at the base, we're scarcely different from other animals. Men posture to show their strengths to other men and to impress women. Women are inherently more nurturing and passive, in general. However, culture certainly plays a big role in our behavior as well. Men are taught to defend themselves and their masculinity to avoid being seen as weak or sissies. Women are taught that it is not ladylike to be aggressive and it is only really appropriate if we are threatened. However, men seem predisposed to being physical to resolve disputes, display anger, etc. But women, generally speaking, could be viewed as much more mentally/emotionally manipulative and deceptive as a way to express their anger or displeasure.
Of course, we have the "intellect" to think up all kinds of reasons we should be angry at someone else and be violent with them. Our cultural civilization has created problems that no other animal has to deal with and we are at constant odds with other people, groups, and countries over something.
- 1 vote
#7 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:58 AM ESTThank you for stopping by to read and comment! I agree with your thoughts.
- 1 vote
This explains why Mother Earth has endured our bullchit this long!!!!!!
#8 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:31 PM ESTYep, continued aggression toward "outsiders" and being competitive prevails.
I always thought adrenaline had something to do with it, not just testosterone, but maybe not.
I must confess, that I'm not surprised by the findings, but as Grump says, good to have it official! :-)
Thanks for the seed, CL.
#9 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:39 PM ESTbut as Grump says, good to have it official!
Of course, he thinks this is just about 'man-hating' --lol-- nope, just 'programming.'
Thanks for visiting, etva!
- 1 vote
#10 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:01 PM ESTCL, no, no. I think if one was into man hating this is a perfect article to support that position.
But, let us remember, according to this literature survey, men are horrid creatures and they can't help it -- no matter how hard they try they are horrible.
- 1 vote
grump, ..Well, I can kinda sense a tinge of a negative tone, too, now that you mention it - though it didn't register with me at the time I seeded the article. I still don't see it as a *big* stand-out, probably because a man commented:
Professor Mark van Vugt, of Oxford University’s Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology...
I took the article as a scientific study in the field of Evolutionary Anthropology. Also, I don't find most men to be aggressive, so I don't apply the premise of the article to everyday life, rather, to specific natural events.
"horrid creatures" ---nope, not even an iota. :)
- 1 vote
I am a guy. I don't tolerate horrid guys around me. There aren't really that many horrid guys out there, I think. There are many, many very goofy guys I know and like. I even know some cranky guys who would give you a kidney tomorrow if you needed one.
I really don't think men are that much more aggressive than women. Humans are very aggressive animals, both male and female, and most of us have learned to sublimate that aggression into productive, pro-social activities.
- 1 vote
I agree. The article perspective seems to point more to biological origin, tribalism and natural selection in traits for attracting mates, territory, et al.
- 1 vote
Another point on your bringing up female aggression, "protecting" can bring out aggression in females just as much as it can in males. Whether that was an evolution from protecting one's children from predators in ancient times, or a result of the many negative influences in modern times (also predators), I don't know, but I imagine adrenaline has something to do with it, as much as natural instinct.
- 1 vote
women tend and befriend ?
LMAO..how many women get along with each other ?
- 1 vote
#11 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:42 PM ESTLOL... good point!
While the men were out hunting for food, were the women socializing while 'gathering' smaller items, sticks for fires, tending to children, doing laundry, cooking or...? Perhaps.
VS, Do you know any women who get along with each other? And, if not, why not?
Sure. In tribal photos we see them together sewing, or doing laundry in a river, or involved in other crafts together.
A lot depends on if they -have to- work together as a unified whole in order to survive. When group survival is no longer an issue, individuals or family units will take on the aspects of being their own "group" with heir own territory etc. The more individualized groups become the less cohesion the group as a whole has. Once cohesion is gone, other groups who -are- still large and cohesive units can come in a decimate the individualized one. Once any group starts breaking up into "me me me" that loss of unity makes the entire group vulnerable to takeover by other still-unified groups.
- 1 vote
Yes, true.
I'm thinking about the photos in the local museums displaying the ancient Indian tribes in my area.
I was going to say photos are but a brief moment in time right before the claws came out... but a drawing... hmm ... nah, same issue. :)
LOL, well, you have me wondering how accurate those paintings, prints and "drawings" are. :)
VS, Do you know any women who get along with each other? And, if not, why not?
LOL. u are kidding right ?
- 1 vote
#12 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:14 PM ESTDepends on a lot of things. Who knows back then, but women get along today. They face competitive pressures like men, so that does make a difference.
- 1 vote
I think women and men are different genders and think and observe differently. I feel that pettiness is ingrained in a woman's mindset. Sure men can be petty too but the kind of detail oriented petty thinking that women have is unrivalled in men... and for this reason women make life miserable for other women much more than men.
- 1 vote
VS, I definitely agree on the generally 'greater' petty nature of women vs. men. Perhaps their mean-spiritedness is a sublimation of physical prowess.
In contrast, they add, women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully. They are said to have been programmed by natural selection to ‘tend and befriend’ to protect their children.
This is another goofy statement from the article.
It appears to me that the males hunted and protected the tribe from other encroaaching tribes or predatory animals. Is that violence? Perhaps it is. Women, (since they have boobs, and boobs are nice and comfy) were, of course, nurturing and charged with caring for children by protecting them and making sure they were fed and clothed. Is that the opposite of violence as defined in the article? Perhaps.
Nearly all mammal males are larger, stronger and more ferocious than the females. It just doesn't matter if the males get eaten by a lion or gored by a rhino during the hunt. It doesn't matter if he is killed by a member of a tribe that is taking over the spring where water is found.
Women must be protected at all costs if the tribe is to survive. Men are a dime a dozen, women are not. The tribe needs the women to bring children into the world.
- 2 votes
#13 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:38 PM ESTTrue. Even if all of the men were "eaten or gored," as long as they kept atleast one man back at the camp(:), their tribe could still flourish; he'll be busy, but their community won't perish. Reversed, one woman left could jeopardize the group's survival if something happened to her.
The "tend and befriend" makes sense in aiding survival of the group, as well.
- 2 votes
Women may have the tendency to ‘tend and befriend’, but from what I have seen, there are women that are right in your face ready for a brawl and are proud of it. The stories my sons have told me...ugh.
- 1 vote
#14 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:27 PM ESTI don't doubt that, at all.
In thinking about and analyzing your point, perhaps that phenomena could be the result of loss of a specific community or tribe. Our (in the US) new 'tribe' isn't based on the necessity that a specific group of people survive, which, imo, is good. I'm not suggesting that I value mixing genetics at all, rather, we are 'one' as American citizens... it's "America" that needs to survive--not a 'specific' tribe or ancestory. So, where does that leave women in an American culture? Does "tend and befriend" one another support the survival of our nation? Some might say so, but I think it depends on if they are only supporting 'their' group for self-interest of the group, or if they are tending and befriending American citizens that support common values and interests that promote an "American" identity.
On the other hand, what your sons have relayed to you could be based on simple competition and jealousies for the attention of your sons?
- 1 vote
CL1
Yes, you are correct about the competition and jealousies for the attentions of my sons. Just a thought I added :). They are adults anyway and they handle their own load.
If our country is not worrying about 'tend and befriend' anymore as a role or instinct of the woman for survival of the children (I take it to mean life & death), then, in my opinion, the question this article seems to pose is more a political question than a question of science. I feel the younger women in our country (USA) are more ready, will and sometimes, would rather be the fighter. I have also seen where our younger men would rather just sit back and let the woman do the fighting. The woman is ready to get in there and rumble; the man is ready to be passive. As to the reason why, I am not sure if this is due to science, the women's movement, or other social influences.
Someone has to 'tend and befriend' if any culture is to survive with the teaching and passing on of ideas, common values & interests whether it is men or women who do it. Many men can 'tend and befriend' as well and sometimes better than women. We have seen the escalation of role reversals of men and women over the years, so to ask where that leaves a women somewhat baffles me. We all fit in where we can and as with anything else having to do with genetics and evolution, natural instincts that are no longer needed will eventually become downgraded in our urge to act upon them and, sometimes, to the point of becoming extinct. Just being around and living in a certain culture, children will automatically learn some common values and interests through school, television, web, folklore, or nationally advertised traditions along with any group-specific interests.
I am not sure if I am understanding this article. My comment is only my opinion to what my interpretation is of your question. I think the article is twofold. On one hand, I think the article is talking about the possible change in the natural instincts & attitudes that men and women are born with. On the other hand, I think the article is asking how do men and women fit in our society today.
PonGoad
- 2 votes
That was a well-reasoned and thoughtful reply, PonGoad, "Thank you."
I thought the article's primary point was to point out what they see as the basic differences between men and women, in general, and how they relate to survival of the 'group.' ..i.e: re..men..
They prefer group-based hierarchies and are identified more strongly with their own groups than women.
The substantiation they were using was looking into the study of tribal existence (to include such things as sports and religion), the aggressions, goals and competitions necessary to maintain the group's integrity and survival.
You brought up several points of interest to me that I have addressed in other articles or comments, particularly the emasculation of men, and I do blame much of it on both social conditions and the women's movement.
I agree that "someone" has to pass the torch with national values and interests, and role-reversal is often necessary, perhaps a better alternative at times (no 'fixed' answer on that), and yes, the political implications were there with my comments. I also agree that the article was "two-fold" in pointing out genetic tendencies and why they were valued, while simultaneously causing us to address the dissenting views resulting from the paradigm of those tendencies in modern times.
Thank you, again, for a very good comment.
- 2 votes
I am evolving out of gender, and my borders are becoming sphere like. Starting to rotate from greater axises. My integrity is squeezed to solid mass. Could I be a planet in the making?? Oh!...these grumbling sounds of volcanic pressure pushing my gender to surface. Male!
- 1 vote
#15 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:44 PM ESTthese grumbling sounds of volcanic pressure
..Could be your stomach (hungry) or lower intestines... lol
- 1 vote
Women tend to befriend? Has anyone been in a workplace full of women?
For all us men on the grid iron or front lines there are always pretty cheerleaders pushing us on.
And look at Maggie Thatcher, Evita Peron, Cleopatra, give women power and they get just as mean.
- 2 votes
#16 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:05 PM ESTSo, in your opinion, this isn't about testosterone, or about men having 'group' values moreso than women? Does a 'powerful' woman have group goals or is she more about 'personal ego,' self-esteem (image) regarding inter-group goals, in your opinion? Or in other words, what motivates her as a leader, do you conclude?
- 1 vote
I do not think that all strait guys are a bunch of drones who sole motivation for anything is about getting laid, which this article suggests. I also do not think all guys are knuckle dragging morons, and all women are nurturing angels, another thing this article suggests. Yes historically men fought in wars, but this is changing. Also in the workplace women are starting to outnumber men, and women are increasing in the prison population. The roles between the sexes are changing, but testosterone and estragen aren't. Guys and gals are different, no doubt, I just think this article is to black & white, there is more grey involved.
Also consider gays and lesbians, from this little piece they should all be prefect angels. Never caring for wealth and power, except maybe to empress themselves. I don't think this is true, do you? Also consider how many gay men in history volunteered for and fought in military duty, why if they didn't need to impress women. Another thing this article fails to consider.
- 1 vote
I agree that the basic premise of emotional/physical-makeup is not as black & white as suggested, but I do consider the statements regarding group values being 'more' of interest to men, to be interesting.
Or in other words, women in power, imo, are drawn to a 'cause' and want to be associated with 'fixing' or problem-solving, whereas, men look to the 'group' as the main reason for existence, and will go the extra-mile to do whatever it takes to preserve that group. I don't see the same basic motivations in men and women of power relating to survival, and I don't think that will ever change.
Thank you for commenting again.
(I just noticed your 16.3, that was not there when I made this comment.)
- 1 vote
I don't think that a gay/lesbian perspective was considered in the article's premise.
As for wealth and power, and how those relate to the different genders and/or sexual preferences, I'm not sure if we can generalize those issues.
I don't think the article was suggesting "perfect angels" --rather, natural tendencies related to survival for a woman after giving birth, and for a man that is part of a 'group.'
As for the military, I don't see any correlation with trying to "impress" anyone--rather, simply doing a job as a service to our nation. I didn't think the article was pointing to specific jobs, per se, but more to the basic tenets of survival.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
