OMG... WTF

With regards to your son-in-law roadkill, why did he do it?



On the subject of womens perception of immediate violence.. dear god (i'm only 20), but at this age all girls seem to see violence as optional and 'immature', or that's how it feels.

It's either a case of 'He was beaten up - therefore the other guy is a dickhead' or 'He was in a fight and won - He must be a thug'. There are a lot of men that take skewed and misinformed views towards violence, but not on such a universal scale, surely?! And even then.. you don't have to sleep with them afterwards.. (Unless you want to.. )

I hit a guy in a club because he was provoking me by touching me in front of his mates all night. My girlfriends reaction? "Why did it have to be the boyfriend of one of my mates?" She knows this guy is a little dick, but maintains that attitude even now, 4 months on! It was only after watching a video with the Recruiting Sergeant whilst I was taking an entry test to the Army last year that she realised that in a modern battle the people involved are actually trying to take or lose ground rather than just 'killing everybody'. As in: Violence sometimes has a utilisation - it's not just men being men.

I love her dearly, and she's not a stupid girl by any means, but sometimes you do want to tear your hair out on a night out!


EDIT: I'm really sorry, I didn't notice this second page when I posted. I'm taking it that he did get you in the headlock because of the reasons discussed? Well done for having the courage to go and speak to him 1on1, I've had ideas of doing this with some people that are unreasonable to me in social situations, but i've never been brave enough (in terms of humiliating myself).

There's bound to be a whole slew of instincts devoted to violence. Both on the male and female side. More specifically, in primateland violence is extreme bodylanguage. Phrases like "showing him a lesson" or "beat some sense in him" and "teach him some respect" reflect this.

What I've found is that "the uneducated" tend to react to violence as if it was of that type, even if it pure survival fighting with nothing social about it. Men and women. That's what can get you in a lot of trouble when these people are put to the task of second-guessing your actions in a high-stress, emergency situation. Where women tend to enter the picture - and it was pointed out to me that this is a pattern in classic literature and everything - is as "the soothing voice" in moderating violence. Something that could have had obvious advantages in a tribe over time as they might lose less men over stupid shit between tribemembers.

That and the lack of the male form of dueling instinct is probably what's behind how most women seem to treat violence.

Incidentally, I read something a while ago about some study done in schools. Boys had a certain number of fights during a certain time period, and the girls had significantly less. Ok, so many would assume they are less violent. Naah, they just have other ways of violating each other. When asked about how many fights they have had during so and so long, the amount of fights the girls reported suddenly macted more or less the numbers they got off of studying the boys. The girls used all sorts of psychological attacks that would appear to be nothing when a guy looks at it. Just conversation and standing around or whatever. That could also help explain why women seem to have a preference for talking and communication over "body language" to solve confrontations.

What "the uneducated" don't get though is that there should be nothing social about it. Anything in the way of communication is only there because it has a fucntion and purpose, nothing more. The professional approach to violence is more like how you go about dealing with any other safety hazards such as fire, workplace accidents or anything of the sort.

Problems and solutions, that's what it is all about.

Erring on the side of caution. Dealing with potentials more than case by case evaluation. That's generally how safety measures are thought out. Violence is no different. Problem, solution, acceptable safety measures. Nothing social about it so long as the head is kept screwed on tight.

But they can't help but assume it must be about teaching some guy manners because of some hard looks or other forms of primate dominance games. They're a fucking liability in the legal system. IMO only people with plenty of knowledge and experience in the relevant field shoukld be allowed to second-guess people's actions under duress. That goes for men, women, robots, dogs or whatever BTW, but I suppose it is a digression anyway so I'll leave it there. The legal system is what it is and must be dealt with as such. You can count on people to keep being people.

Some very interesting points RichardB

Are you saying that some people don't properly understand what is happening when a fight takes place, and instead try to fit it into their own framework of understanding when it comes to fights; i.e. for women it's always a status thing, and therefore they presume that the one beaten is the one who should have submitted in advance?

(By the way, regarding being 'desensitised' to violence/gore by seeing it in videos, i'm not sure if that works. I remember reading somewhere about US Marines being shown such videos before they were shipped off to Vietnam, in the hope that they wouldn't be affected as much by the horror of it. I remember it being discontinued because something didn't match up.)

Mike2010 wrote:

Are you saying that some people don't properly understand what is happening when a fight takes place, and instead try to fit it into their own framework of understanding when it comes to fights; i.e. for women it's always a status thing, and therefore they presume that the one beaten is the one who should have submitted in advance?

That appears to be the tendency. Primate dominance fights. Men and women alike. The difference is largely how they tend to respond to what they percieve as status fights. Where the female tendency is to try to moderate and limit the fighting. Their preference for more psychological violence also adds to them feeling that physical violence is more extreme than a man would usually think. Very general overwiev of tendencies of course.

Now, desensitization. I'm not sure what the US military did but with them time is a big factor. As a kid when I first watched a clip of some guy being held down and decapitated with a knife, making a small river of blood and some unusually loud gurgle-scream/roaring. I got that stomach-moving sensation. So I saw it again a few times. And a few clips abd years later I've found that progressively I've reacted less and less to all these types of things.

Stuff like the vid in the link below doesn't do anything. I'm fairly sure it would have at least elevated my stress leve somewhat at an earlier time.

http://forum.uncoverreality.com/audio-video/52789-murderers-brutally-kill-man-camera-beware-sickest-thing-you-will-ever-see.html

Desensitization is a big word for gettimg used to something. Doing that takes time. I would chance on a guess that was one of the main reasons the US military ditched it. Especially in the middle of the Vietnam war. And maybe desensitization isn't a priority, more like a semi-chariitable effprt to prevent a problem, but that didn't call for the amount of resources (time) that would be necessary. So long as soldiers follow orders and get results then psychological casualties can be dealt with later. Also, war trauma is about a lot more than just reacting to some blood and gore. The value of desensitization alone for that purpose is probably small.

Firstly,
congrats Roadkill, i was no help...i was holding out till the bitter end for some magical 3rd catagory
where sonny-boy gets a fat lip and daughter adoringly says, "oh father dear, must you be so right...
all the time"
"someone has to be oh faithful offspring"

but really, as the [as Richie implied] alpha lion, more is expected of you. in retrospect, it would imply
son-in-law was some kind of threat [at least to some onlookers, even if that wasn't really it and you were
only having impulse control, the social etiquette unwritten law that we all ascribe to on some level says that if someone
truly is a threat we are to make mince meat of them...otherwise we are to smile and walk away carefree.
the law was made complicated by your healing state, and probably wouldn't even be an issue otherwise...it would
have been a simple matter of 'quick and comical [and gentle] justice. think about it. in the absense of said
healing state, he would have been gently rebuked. where he really f'd up was not remember how he needed
to be careful==probably because you had a good face forward whilst being on the mend. it probably speaks to
how much you've climbed back

yes he should have known, but alcohol probably made him think he was doing some retarded kind of
bonding--with a little help from liquid courage. it seems simpler now, now that you've arrived at the truth,
and also with Richie's help and TNH's.

anyway, sorry it happened, glad it made things probably better still in the days to come. made me think of
DC's national zoo. they always report about the exceptional leadership of the alpha silverback gorilla there.
the staff there comment on how he never abuses his leadership and keeps all behaving and not at each
other. the mark of a true leader, not treating the lackies as peers to be feared. keeping detached and in the role.

SilverBackRoadkill. i'm not there yet i still enjoy the lessor battles. i'm sort of a pugilist hedonist
i'm working on it, following your lead though so ashamed , or am i. yes, i am. or am i. in truth i'm
apt to do the right thing, but come terribly close to doing the indulgent thing. nice to see this thread actually,
on many levels.

RichB,
really cool points, and i think it has to be generally true, the whole 'how girls display violence' vs. 'boys'.
but i have to contribute two examples that i had in my mind, that skew everything.
the girls at the average lower income DC public high school are RUTHLESS and very physical. the boys hold
out like lazy lions waiting for the big fight [my wife taught in these schools, not stats, daily shows]...but the
girls would snatch shirts off, pull hair extensions out, and all round 'fook' each other up. just nasty. and better
skills from an RBSD perspective. just all out what works, no rules and no mercy. okay, that's the first thing.

the other is that i remember [i think] my father talking about the Moors or the Berbers, having absolutely
VICIOUS women war leaders. worse than the men. don't remember anything else. but i was sort of raised on the
idea that in a way, once in place, the women--possibly not enjoy too many freedoms elsewhere or overcompensating
to prove their worth [collectively] or simply more intense war like [who knows] did their jobs and then some.

anyway, some north african pre-arabic culture of fighting female leaders [or several], don't remember the details,
just the anomylous anecdotes.

You mentioned class twice now Russ and I meant to chip in and agree the first time round, women are not necessarily less predisposed to violence than men by nature

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

in domestic violence

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/codes-of-the-underworld.html

in prisons

women can be just as violent if not more so, but class , background, upbringing etc all environmental factors can bring it out or repress it

My experience of women from Liverpool follows the stereotype, compared to girls from my side of the water, they are more savvy (more likely to be shoving you out the club before it goes off than the other way round) but more ....

erm....

volatile.

Training/environment/experience accounts for a hell of a lot.

Russ the Muss wrote:

SilverBackRoadkill. i'm not there yet i still enjoy the lessor battles. i'm sort of a pugilist hedonist
i'm working on it, following your lead though so ashamed , or am i. yes, i am. or am i. in truth i'm
apt to do the right thing, but come terribly close to doing the indulgent thing. nice to see this thread actually,
on many levels.

LOL... I'm not there yet either my friend... Richie made me do it... lol

And this has been a very interesting thread.

RichardB... couldn't agree more on desensitization.

Russ the Muss wrote:

RichB,
really cool points, and i think it has to be generally true, the whole 'how girls display violence' vs. 'boys'.
but i have to contribute two examples that i had in my mind, that skew everything.
the girls at the average lower income DC public high school are RUTHLESS and very physical. the boys hold
out like lazy lions waiting for the big fight [my wife taught in these schools, not stats, daily shows]...but the
girls would snatch shirts off, pull hair extensions out, and all round 'fook' each other up. just nasty. and better
skills from an RBSD perspective. just all out what works, no rules and no mercy. okay, that's the first thing.

the other is that i remember [i think] my father talking about the Moors or the Berbers, having absolutely
VICIOUS women war leaders. worse than the men. don't remember anything else. but i was sort of raised on the
idea that in a way, once in place, the women--possibly not enjoy too many freedoms elsewhere or overcompensating
to prove their worth [collectively] or simply more intense war like [who knows] did their jobs and then some.

anyway, some north african pre-arabic culture of fighting female leaders [or several], don't remember the details,
just the anomylous anecdotes.

Very true. It's why I' was extra careful phrasing it all only as very general tendencies.

I wonder if the reason women are often said to be more vicious fighters than men aren't also coming from the same magic bag of instincts I mentioned above that normally limits violence. Maybe when women go physivally violent, they are less confused by stuff like the male dueling instincts, going more to the heart of the matter and where a man would sometimes recognize sumbission and possibly lay off, women just keep going. Maybe their psychological razor edge makes them more effective at producing fear and pain in the process.

If the school study as well is anything to go by it corroborates what Richie says about domestic and prison violence too. Men and women are more or less similairly inclined to violence, they just normally have different ways of going about it.

roadkill wrote:

Russ the Muss wrote:

SilverBackRoadkill. i'm not there yet i still enjoy the lessor battles. i'm sort of a pugilist hedonist
i'm working on it, following your lead though so ashamed , or am i. yes, i am. or am i. in truth i'm
apt to do the right thing, but come terribly close to doing the indulgent thing. nice to see this thread actually,
on many levels.

LOL... I'm not there yet either my friend... Richie made me do it... lol.

we'll be each other's sponsers then...when we get weak

2am call: "Russ, i really want to pound this pizza delivery guy into the pavement,
he spat on my anchovies and wee'd on my lawn--when i wouldn't tip him for being late"

"Don't worry mate, i know just what to do...take his car and drive it into a lamp post,
rip off his trousers and make him walk home like that, erm, i think we still have a long
way to go"

Richard Grannon wrote:

You mentioned class twice now Russ and I meant to chip in and agree the first time round, women are not necessarily less predisposed to violence than men by nature

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

in domestic violence

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/codes-of-the-underworld.html

in prisons

women can be just as violent if not more so, but class , background, upbringing etc all environmental factors can bring it out or repress it

My experience of women from Liverpool follows the stereotype, compared to girls from my side of the water, they are more savvy (more likely to be shoving you out the club before it goes off than the other way round) but more ....

erm....

volatile.

Training/environment/experience accounts for a hell of a lot.

Tah Richie,
i enjoyed the articles and local insights--sort of feeds into what i always thought when married to my ex.
i used to keep hearing how 'men were pigs' regarding fedelity. and i'd think, "well, maybe my wife is anomylous
but...uhm, i beg to differ i've always felt that women may have a different expression of the same feelings,
but other than that, hmmm, equally fooked and gifted

Yeah, generalizations are always tricky, I suspect we all have abilities inside us associated with 'the human condition', and though we have individual tendencies and attributes, I suspect that environment and upbringing do play a big part .... though not necessarily always in the same direction.
The prison article was interesting - made me wonder about the structure of human groups. Does it point to a 'natural balance' of 'types' in a tribe/community?