Violence is Okay Because it is ‘Manly’?

Violence is Okay Because it is ‘Manly’? January 21, 2019
Screen cap from the Gillette ad

A very short post today. This popped up on my Facebook the other day in response to The Transformed Wife Lori Alexander’s complaining over the Gillette ad we’ve talked about several times now. From one Vaughn Ohlman,  the author of that silly courtship book ‘What Are You Doing?’, blog filled with bad marriage advice and attempted marry them off seminar. He is reacting to the Gillette ad now with this:

How is this even slightly socially acceptable? Hitting the wife? Killing an intruder? Violence is wrong. Self defense violence has no place being glorified, even if it has a place. This seems to be a feature, not a bug in the more conservative versions of Christianity, this love of violence as manly.

He is openly excusing domestic violence and spousal abuse as an acceptable exchange for protection. Vaughn minimizes the violence to support another type of violence. Intimate partner violence is never acceptable. It cannot lead anywhere positive.

But it makes me wonder about Vaughn’s intimate relationships and the possible levels of violence.


Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy! Commenting here means you agree to abide by our policies.

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and Patheos.com

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

Check out today’s NLQ News at NLQ Newspaper

Contact NLQ at SuzanneNLQ@gmail.com

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

I Fired God by Jcoelyn Zichtermann

13:24 A Dark Thriller by M Dolon Hickmon

About Suzanne Titkemeyer
Suzanne Titkemeyer went from a childhood in Louisiana to a life lived in the shadow of Washington D.C. For many years she worked in the field of social work, from national licensure to working hands on in a children's residential treatment center. Suzanne has been involved with helping the plights of women and children' in religious bondage. She is a ordained Stephen's Minister with many years of counseling experience. Now she's retired to be a full time beach bum in Tamarindo, Costa Rica with the monkeys and iguanas. She is also a thalassophile. She also left behind years in a Quiverfull church and loves to chronicle the worst abuses of that particular theology. She has been happily married to her best friend for the last 32 years. You can read more about the author here.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Kit Hadley-Day

    speaking as a Brit, when are these cavemen going to get it through there thick skulls that robbery is not a capital crime, certainly not in america, and if the state doesn’t think someone should lose their life over an offence why should they get to say different? I find a man in my house i protect the things that matter, me and my family, insurance can cover the rest. I am truly terrified that this knumbskull thinks a human life is worth the cost of a tv.

  • Phil Rimmer

    Note to American (male) readers- trying to kill or maim intruders will more often get you and your family killed or maimed.

  • CS

    Yeah, and women being confident and outspoken can lead to both them standing up to their fathers and husbands and them standing against someone who is trying to sexually groom their children. Women being independent and self-sufficient can lead to them having careers and making their own decisions, or it can lead to them being able to support their family through tough times. And yet I doubt Vaughn is in favor of women being confident, outspoken, independent, and self-sufficient, or even accepts female impertinence as a necessary drawback to having women who can and will protect their families.

    I’m guessing that Vaughn doesn’t actually believe that just because a trait can be positive, it should be accepted even in its negative forms. My guess is that he doesn’t see male violence and absenteeism towards their families as truly negative, so the actual comparison he thinks he’s making is that people should stop complaining about what’s at worst a mild problem of something positive.

  • igotbanned999

    Intimate partner violence is never acceptable. It cannot lead anywhere positive.

    What about BDSM?

  • Anri

    To men who feel that violent traits are good: My apologies for civilization making upper body strength and reactive violence less and less relevant as time goes by. Let me suggest to you that after 10,000 or so years it’s pretty much time to get over it.

  • Saraquill

    BDSM is big on consent and safety, things Ohlman likely calls acts of the devil.

  • Saraquill

    Ohlman, after your attempts to pair barely pubescent girls with spouses I refuse to take you seriously.

  • SAO

    So, he justifies domestic violence on the grounds that a wife-beater is more likely to shoot first, ask questions later of a possibly innocent person. Vaughn just proves there is no God, because if God existed, he’d dispatch Ohlman to hell with a lightening bolt.

  • Friend

    Well, we do have a few more guns over here, so our fears are different, even in an era of less crime. But anybody can reduce the chance of property crime. Good locks, a burglar alarm, and a dog will do a lot of good. Personal alarms can make noise and call the police. To thwart “porch pirates,” people are getting doorbell cameras. Package tracking has been around for decades. Heck, the Postal Service will send you daily preview images of envelopes, free of charge.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Entirely different due to that thing called consent.

  • Friend

    A gun in the home is more likely to be used in suicide, or by tragic mistake, than on an intruder. I do think people should be allowed to own guns, and I hope sometime we will be able to move past the talking points to pass a few laws that the public supports.

  • Friend

    The same competion that leads men to not spend enough time with their families can lead them to support their families through horrendously difficult times.

    Assuming he means “competition” (because “compassion” just doesn’t fit, y’all), a highly competitive jackwagon of an absentee husband and father is not exactly the guy I’d consider reliable in the next Great Depression.

  • Mel

    VO has some of the worst logic skills I’ve ever seen.

    His argument is “We need an active criminal to protect us against a theoretical scary criminal that hasn’t harmed anyone yet!”

    On that logic, I should be able to steal from his bank accounts to prevent white collar fraud at the local bank. Give me your account numbers, Vaughn.

  • Mel

    Did not work well for my grandmother who lost her mom when Grandma was 5 and her dad was an absentee wastrel during the Great Depression. Great-great Grandma Amy raised her five orphaned grandkids on a small farm as a widow. She was kept afloat by her adult step-daughters from her husband’s first marriage who would come down to Ohio from Chicago with clothes, shoes and produce for the kids.

    Men in our family have been more stand-up guys since then – but we’ve passed on the stories of how a bunch of single women kept a bunch of young, orphaned kids alive by working together.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    fair enough, the guns is another issue where i just don’t get it, however the principal doesn’t change, if these dip shits thought they could actually win a physical altercation do you think they wouldn’t stand by their right to kick a person to death over the cost of a TV?

  • Friend

    People did face some horrendous choices. They were more likely to expel the non-productive family members than to rely on them or try to protect them. There was no good treatment for alcoholism, so families threw out alcoholics. It was hard to institutionalize the mentally ill, and a lot of them ended up homeless as well.

  • Phil Rimmer

    I do think people should be allowed to own guns

    And I’m happy, in the UK, their ownership is heavily restricted and regulated.

    Schizotypal episodes can strike anyone at some time or another and 1% of the population are certain of psychoses. Most psychiatric care in the US is supplied by prison services. Ordinary folk have little access to it.

    “Insane”, Alisa Roth.

    In a country almost demented in its punitive stance, locking up fully a quarter of all the world’s prisoners, unable to see its hyper-individualism denying society’s complicity in crime, the criminal manufacturing of its shameful inequality and zero-tolerance policing getting 12 year olds started early with prospect-shriveling rap sheets, the $100 dollar gun, wielded by these kids, already thrown away by society, irreparably corrodes it in the ensuing arms race. Band-aiding not curing.

    “On the Run” Professor Alice Goffman, for more details.

  • AFo

    They’re still harping on this commercial? Do any of these people have anything actually productive to do with their time?

  • Friend

    The mentality is something like this: If you break into a home, you deserve whatever you get. It’s related to “driving while _______” and “how were we to know he was a good guy with a gun?”

    ETA: I can’t stand the mentality. Just describing it.

  • Saraquill

    Congratulations, you cleared his accounts, all 10 cents of it.

  • Friend

    I support more gun regulation. However, my small family has been on the receiving end of two gun crimes, committed by conventional criminals. I don’t think it should be impossible for people to own guns.

    Incarceration is a somewhat easier topic for the public and lawmakers. Mental health care should clearly be a higher priority. I don’t see much appetite for repealing the Second Amendment. Public support for registration and closing the gun show loophole has not led to much legislation.

    Thanks for the research recommendations, which I will check out.

  • Tawreos

    They just haven’t found something new to get all in a panic about yet. Give them an hour or two now that the big storm has passed and they will have something new.

  • Tawreos

    I think you under-estimate how much money there is in peddling religious hate and fear.

  • Friend

    They’re already moving on to the victimization of Catholic boys by a good guy with a drum.

  • Phil Rimmer

    I appreciate the USA is starting from a difficult place and that any transition away from facilitating easy killing of others will require huge investment elsewhere.

    It will take generations and great investment to fix, to ease people back from the edge and start them trusting to leave law enforcement to the experts. Stopping this relentless shuffle toward the edge would be a start.

    The tragedy of home armaments, quite apart from the risks you rightly outlined are the psychological harms of successfully using them. In WWII 75% of all shots fired were intentionally non-harming and against orders. We are mostly wired not to kill. Later the US army overcame this reluctance through desensitising training. The result was a huge upsurge in PTSD. Some Joe or Jane Public having successfully killed or maimed an intruder will most probably be scarred for life. Not too obvious but probably haunting.

    Amendments are amendments. Americans are too often albatrossed* by scripture, thinking it gospel.

    *Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner…

  • Nightshade

    So it’s okay for a man to hit his wife, as long as he protects her from anyone else who might abuse her. Riiiiiight.

  • Mel

    A side project of mine – on hold for a bit – is researching the life trajectories of people who were ‘inmates’ or ‘paupers’ at Poor Farm for my county. The Poor Farm was a place for people with disabilities without families, elderly people who needed more care, orphans, abandoned newborns (one census entry was for a 6 month old who was listed as Johnny (Last Name:Unknown), people with epilepsy, people with mental illnesses, and people suffering from catastrophic illnesses or injuries. Kind of a hospital-orphanage-adult-foster-care-shelter.

    Did it work? Kind of. Kids were placed with families if they were abandoned or their parent was dying. Some of the placements seemed good because the kid used the adoptive family’s last name or had an adoptive family member witness their marriage or named a child after someone in the adoptive family. Others were clear that the kid was treated as servant in return for room and board. Many people with cognitive disabilities or epilepsy or depression lived at the Poor house for years or decades. Quite a few outlasted the families who acted as Keepers – so I hope that the Farm became a home for them. At the same time, some of the issues the people were facing had no good solutions. There was no good treatment for TB or dementia or farm accidents that paralyzed. People were at the mercy of the waxing and waning cycles of other mental illnesses. I know that the people had access to food, shelter, work (if they could do it) and company of others; I can only hope that there was kindness there too.

  • Friend

    Once every few years, somebody comes by at night and steals items from unlocked cars in my neighborhood. A resident might get away with shooting these thieves. My thoughts: 1) lock the car, and 2) let’s continue living in a place without justifiable shootings.

    There was plenty of PTSD after our Civil War, I believe, though many deliberately missed the foe. It has many causes…

    If the Second Amendment were repealed, folks would have a technique and incentive to target other amendments. I favor legislation, not repeal.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Leaving aside gun control or any question of what is or is not reasonable force, how does being uncontrollably angry make you in any sense more likely to successfully defend your home? If you completely lose your sh*t when faced with nothing more stressful than having to interact in an adult fashion with your own wife, there is no way you are going to be anything other than useless, and probably an outright dangerous liability when faced with an actual real threat. This man is such a toxic man-child that he thinks his violent toddler temper tantrums somehow make him superman.
    Likewise, being ultra-competitive at work as a trait is more likely to make you take risks trying to get rich than stick with less glamorous but more secure employment, exactly the wrong approach to securing your family’s welfare when times get tough. (They also tend to make the pushy a-hole redundant first during lay-offs.)
    At the risk of diving into clichés, the “manly” traits you’ld be looking for in the “home invasion” scenario would be focused calmness in a crisis and personal physical bravery (not required to beat up your wife), not a violent temper, and for providing in “hard times” stoicism and self-sacrifice, not pushy selfish competitiveness.
    I am guessing Vaughn Olman lacks both.

  • Nightshade

    True. I’m quite OK with others practicing BDSM, as long as everyone participating is fully consenting and aware of what they are getting into. Safe, sane, and consensual!

  • Friend

    He’s accidentally describing a jealous abuser.

  • Samantha Vimes

    What gets me is the underlying message that women and children should be grateful to be abused because the man will possibly protect them from someone worse, in a situation that might occur once in a lifetime.
    Gurl, no. You get the hell out of there and buy a security system and a big dog if you’re scared of intruders. Your abusive husband is WAY more likely to kill you.

  • Samantha Vimes

    A gun in the same home as a guy who hits his wife is probably going to be brandished to threaten her. Maybe worse.

  • HematitePersuasion

    Speaking as a Yank … it’s complicated. Although I agree with you, far too many of my fellow citizens don’t, for a variety of reasons, some more valid than others.

  • Astreja

    Don’t expect to find anything in Ohlman’s Moral High Ground Savings account — I think it’s overdrawn.

  • Brian Curtis

    On a larger scale, this is also an excuse for pre-emptive war.

  • Brian Curtis

    “Sex is like boxing; if one person didn’t consent, the other one is committing a crime.” –John Oliver–

  • SAO

    There’s history. Some of it makes for stupidity, but I must say, I found some of the policy dilemmas of the UK to be unfathonable until I had a better grasp on past policy, promises or failures.

  • katiehippie

    They lose their shit watching a Gillette ad.

  • Emersonian

    Note to British readers: Vaughn Ohlman is dangerously insane.

  • smrnda

    I would wager that the ability of a man to support his family probably has much more to do with education, training and job skills (along with the state of the economy) than any sort of ‘competitive’ nature. It takes drive to get into some professions, but being average in a well paid line of work is a valid strategy.

    Supporting a family in difficult times sounds more like ‘putting in long hours at a shitty job’ – and most such jobs provide few opportunities for the working stiffs to ‘stand out’ or ‘compete.’ In fact, a reason why some people fail at supporting their families is their competitive streak. They can’t be bothered with the daily grind, they want something special that will elevate them beyond their peers, and fall victim to MLM or other bad business schemes.

  • smrnda

    Domestic violence is a relatively good indicator of other violent tendencies. Perhaps a guy who gets angry and beats his wife is just an all around no-goodnik? Maybe that is the type of guy who breaks into homes?

    And on breaking into homes, thieves prefer the easiest job possible. They prefer to break into homes when nobody is around. I can get some people feeling a need for a gun if they fear violence from someone specific, like someone who has a restraining order against them.

  • smrnda

    A few ‘good guys with a gun’ have been surprised to have been charged with crimes after doing things like, chasing after a fleeing thief and shooting them in the back. But that depends a great deal on the state. Some states (like Florida) are infamous for their ‘stand your ground’ laws but others are much more strict when it comes to what can be done in the event of a home invasion. The US might generally be absurd when it comes to guns, but its absurdity varies.

  • Sleven

    None of what he said has anything to do with protecting someone you love. It refers to protecting property. A bit disingenuous to claim an intruder will be more dangerous for a woman than living with a violent, angry, controlling man every day.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    cultural differences are always going to be complicated, but the arguments made in support of manly violence never seem to hold up, other than with appeals to history.

    Having someone tell me that it is fine for them to shoot someone over the cost of a tv or a novelty Elvis statue is never going to be anything other than horrifying

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    true, but stand your ground laws are the ultimate in stupid pandering to toxic masculinity, the more sensible thing to do would be to give judges more leeway in sentencing, then if someone is truly in fear of their life, and that fear was reasonable, they could get a much lesser sentence to reflect their actual danger to the community. I mean they are guilty if they shot someone, however, as in all things, context is important.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    which dilemmas, not saying i won;t agree but as i live that history i many not have thought about it the same way

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    fair, nice to know it;s not just me that doesn’t get it

  • SAO

    It’s been a long time since I lived there, but I remember thinking co-pays for the NHS was a no-brainer. I remember liking some policy of UKIP, before I knew their history of racism, so I didn’t know why people reflexively dismissed all their ideas. I liked the Tories, because while Blair was in power, all they did was criticize his dumb ideas, like using the Twin Towers as a good day to bury bad news. Once the Tories started actually suggesting their own policies, I liked them less, although Brown was so awful — nothing that came out of his mouth was anything other than bland, meaningless blather.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    Co pays for the NHS fundamentally goes against the point for free a point of need health care, that way lies insurance and the madness of the american health care ‘system’, I never took the time to look at UKIPS manifesto as there overt racism, anti intellectualism and petty minded little englander attitude meant that i was never going to vote for anyone who would stand under there banner.

    Opposition parties always look better because they are currently not responsible for the countries problems, i hated blair, bloody second hand car salesman, I am fiscally a conservative but the Tories are far to socially conservative, they have always represented the landed gentry and fail the common man at every step.

  • Friend

    I don’t think it’s about “the cost of a TV” when somebody breaks into an occupied dwelling. If you come home after work and the TV is gone, you can say it was just an object, glad nobody was hurt, let’s fix the door.

    Knowingly breaking into an occupied dwelling is not TV theft. It’s home invasion. Often the burglars are armed because they know people are home. They are probably not after a couple of appliances. They might actually intend to harm the occupants.

    If you woke up to the sound of someone breaking in, I assume you’d call the police. What else would you do? What if you heard them go into your child’s bedroom? What do you think people should have the right to do?

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    I have no problem with people defending themselves and their families, but you do that best by barricading yourself in a room and phoning the police, not by trying to be a hero with an unknown number of unknown people.

    If someone is actively attacking one of my family member’s then all bets are off, i fully subscribe to the theory that if i am going to start a fight i make damn sure i finish it, but it finishes when the other guy can’t continue. I see too many comments about how people who think there is an intruder would go hunting them ‘make them pay’ rather than protecting the things that matter.

    Why is it that people on line assume that someone with respect for human life has to be a pacifist? I would kill if the situation warranted it, but why kill if i can immobilize? why risk a fight if i don’t need to? once someone is dead it’s hard to take that back if you made a mistake, that ‘home intruder’ might just be your kid getting home drunk. and like i said, unless you are defending an actual person then the person you are killing is worth more than whatever it is that you are defending, people are unique and irreplaceable, even the criminals, TV’s are not.

    We allow the state to decide what punishment to alot to criminals so that it is applied (in theory) equally to all, all extra judicial punishments should be treated as the crimes they are, the social contract eixsts to allow us to function as a society. As have said elsewhere, if you want to allow judges to have much more leeway in sentencing to take into account extenuating circumstances then fair enough, up to and including have the someones criminal record purged and no time to serve, but if you kill someone, and you are not an officer of the law, then you should be breaking a law and should be held accountable for your actions.

  • Friend

    Thank you, Kit and all who are participating here. I appreciate the chance to have a thoughtful discussion about this.

    The “make them pay” mentality could be a fantasy informed by movies. In real life, I think most people resort to fight/flight/freeze reactions and don’t think coolly. Americans definitely do try to prevent crimes, and many of us would rather hide or escape than confront.

    Lifelong pacifists have had a lot of practice in governing their anger. They might be the calmest allies during a crime. Personally, I would take pacifist as a compliment! (There is a lot of confusion between “pacifist” and “passive,” so bear that in mind…)

  • Friend

    novelty Elvis statue

    Careful now… somebody will propose a Novelty Elvis Statue Statute! 😉

  • Friend

    Hmm, shall we offer British readers perspective? Kray twins with a cross? Less sociopathic than that?

  • Russala

    The thing is…if someone has broken into my house I have no way of knowing why they’ve done so. It might just be for my tv, or it might be with the intent to cause me harm in some way. Ideally one should try to get out but I don’t think using force (even lethal force) to defend oneself is wrong.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    I would be the first to admit that i do not know how i would react in the event of someone breaking into my house while i was there. i like to think i would be calm and rational and protect the things that matter, but adrenaline and fear do weird things. but that is also why it must be crystal clear that even if you are angry and scared killing someone who is not an active threat to you or anyone else is not going to be ignored.

    I think we need to be clear on the word pacifist, It is usually used to describe someone who has sworn of violence in all circumstances, including self preservation, I am not one but i often get accused of such (or accused of being a coward) because of my standpoint on violence in the defense of property. I respect someone who has made that moral choice, but they can only exist because other people will make sure they stay safe.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    viva las vegas

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    Completely agree, however in either case barricading yourself and your family in a room and phoning the police is still going to be the most prudent action to take, if you can get out of the house then all the better, make a run for it, if practical. in an unknown situation the last last thing you want to do is escalate the threat to yourself by going looking for trouble, if trouble comes looking for you that’s a different story.

  • SAO

    I didn’t look up UKIP, either, I just read a few ideas in the paper, without knowing the history or other ideas.

    At the time I liked the ideas of co-pays, in America, they were a few bucks. I thought a pound or two would inject needed cash in the system, discourage unnecessary care and not cause any harm. I still don’t think it is a slippery slope to the American health care ‘system’.

    But, yeah, there’s a lot of history that shapes a population’s ideas and from the outside, some sacred cows just look loony and you can’t fathom why people don’t do the sensible thing like ban guns or implement a small co-pay.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    UK have introduced some payments in the healthcare system, dental care has a cost, unless you are in a special group (young, old, unemployed, pregnant) as do prescriptions (with exceptions for the same groups), but the whole idea of a free at point of need system is in the name, you want people to go and get help early because that is cheaper in the long run than them hanging on till the care becomes urgent. in real terms you are better raising a tax, so the burden is carried by those that can afford it.

  • Friend

    A retort for those confused about pacifism: “Last time I checked, I wasn’t Amish.” 😉

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    That’s one thing I love about being here. As a foreigner I am paying copay like prices for health care as the whole payment, and filing later with my insurance. It’s costing a lot less than in the states. Example: Drs visit in the States is a 35 dollar copay. Here the entire visit is 30 and the reimbursement rate is 25 dollars. I can live with 5 dollars out of pocket instead of 35 much easier.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    It is a scary thing to happen. Happened to me about six years ago. I had just come home from work and was sitting on the sofa when our front door was forced open and a wild eyed Hispanic man was in my living room. I asked him what he wanted and told him to get out. He just stood there glazed eyes staring at me right until I picked up my sewing scissors. He ran out of the house and fell down the porch steps. I did call the cops from my bedroom, several locked doors between me and him. Turned out the guy was merely drunk and in the wrong neighborhood. He lived two streets behind me. Declined to press charges, but it was a scary moment, but a scary moment that could have been a tragic one had I owned a gun.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    There are plenty of people who would maintain that you should have just shot him and would have been right to do so (or attacked him in some way), and that would have turned a drunken, stupid act into a tragedy. Your response was completely understandable and appropriate, once you where not in immediate danger, you secured yourself and contacted the police. I hope he paid for your door.

  • 24CaratHooligan

    I’m not completely sure of the definition of co-pay, but surely our prescription charges are a form of co-pay? (Although I live in Wales where we don’t pay those either…) Dentistry also incurs charges even for NHS patients unless you’re exempt for some reason

  • B.E. Miller

    Well, it’s past Christmas, so they can’t harp on about the Starbucks cups anymore….

  • Mimc

    A similar thing happened to us. People kept telling us we should get a gun. I’m like “what about this situation would have been better with a gun?”

  • Mimc

    I’ve heard that in ” stand your ground” states male gun owners are more likely to die in break ins.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Didn’t have him charged. He hurt himself falling about on our property and could have sued. We decided to not press charges if he didn’t sue for messing up his leg falling off the porch.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    i have not seen that, but is stands to reason, if you are intent on breaking into a possibly occupied house and you know the occupant can legally shoot you, the only sane thing to do is shot first. that is why, in uk, so few criminals go armed, there is no need to escalate the potential costs of getting caught.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    what sort of messed up system allows him to sue you for drunkenly falling off your porch when he was trespassing in the first place?

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    ‘Murica, that’s who..

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    so you could have shot him dead and had no repercussions, I a beginning to see the point to the stand your ground laws

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Not sure I could have lived with myself if I had killed him. I didn’t want him dead. I just didn’t want him busted into my house.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    My darling, welcome to banned. We do not tolerate personal attacks and you, very sadly, violated that rule the minute you called our readers ‘dopes’ in your sadly weirdly capitalized way. Come back after you’ve managed to improve your English. Welcome to Jerks 4 Jesus too.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    the last comment was mostly a joke, i don’t know how i would deal with killing someone, even if i felt completely justified in doing so, and people who are gung ho about it just scare me because either they lack empathy or they are too stupid to be able to consider the ramifications, in both cases not people who should ready access to lethal weapons

  • JohnEngelman

    Men are frequently violent because during most of human evolution men who killed their enemies usually had more children who survived and reproduced than men who did not.

    In a civilized country violence is usually dysfunctional. It lands one in prison. In a civilized country men attract women if they have well educated, high grade intelligence, and the prosperity that goes with that. Machismo is no substitute for succeeding in a prestigious and lucrative profession. .

  • Iain Lovejoy

    “Men are frequently violent because during most of human evolution men who killed their enemies usually had more children who survived and reproduced than men who did not.”
    That’s macho BS, unless you have any actual evidence to back it up with. The evolutionarily advantageous trait is surviving fights, not starting them. Frequently violent men die more quickly and often than those who avoid getting into fights in the first place. If I were to take a guess at it, in so far as men getting involved in fights more often than women is not simply a cultural trait, it may be because they are aware they are stronger and more able to take physical injury.

  • JohnEngelman

    Napoleon A Chagnon, who made a career of studying the Yanamamo Indians in the Amazon rain forest reported that Yanamamo males who killed enemies averaged three times as many children as Yanamamo men who had not killed enemies.

    https://www.amazon.com/Yanomamo-fierce-people-Napoleon-Chagnon/dp/0030710707

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Yeah, the book you reference was written in 1967 and has since been widely panned as both wrong and unethical by more recent anthropologists, in particular your statistic about violence and reproduction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Chagnon
    In any event the whole point if the study concerned (if true, which is apparently highly debatable) was its thesis that the Yanamano were a uniquely violent group and entirely atypical, so extrapolating that to the entire of humankind’s evolution would be extremely silly.
    Besides which, I am not disagreeing that bring successfully violent is better than being unsuccessfully violent in a very violent culture: it’s just completely irrelevant to why a culture would be keen on engaging in violence in the first place.

  • JohnEngelman

    The only thing that is unethical in science is refusing to accept the truth.

    Fossil evidence and accounts by literate observers of primitive societies demonstrate that before the development of civilizations humans were extremely violent. A high percentage of males died in wars between hunting bands and tribes. The males who killed them had more than one wife and more sons who inherited their violent aptitudes and inclinations.

    Violent men thrived in primitive societies. They have usually been killed by criminal justice systems in civilized societies. Their crime genes died with them.

    This is why races that have practiced civilization the longest have lower crime rates than races that have been more recently introduced to civilization. It is why social reform and social welfare spending did not reduce the crime rate during the 1960’s, but the tripling of the prison population that began with the Reagan administration has reduced the crime rate.

    The way to fight crime is not to fight poverty; it is to fight criminals.

  • JohnEngelman

    Life has always been a struggle for scarce resources. The achievement of civilization has been to de emphasize the importance of fighting ability in the struggle while increasing the importance of intelligence.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    That’s the thing, you see. There are morons out there who, because they are morons, think that their being unable to control their temper and / or liking to hurt people somehow equates with them being good at fighting. The inability to control one’s temper makes one bad at fighting, which requires the ability to retain a cool head and rationally assess the tactical situation in stressful violent situations, and the willingness to pointlessly beat up people weaker than yourself because it makes you feel better is not a survival skill. Physical strength and toughness are useful things (albeit often less useful nowadays), but a socially inadequate man who resorts to violence to cover his inadequacies is not thereby made any physically stronger or tougher, nor does it give him any increased ability to fight should there be a need to do so.

  • Mimc

    I think it’s manly that in states with no duty to retreat men stand there ground when it would be much safer not to.