The origins of violence against women by men are not biological. If that were the case, it would exist in every culture. And it doesn't exist in every culture.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Violence against women in all its forms is a human rights violation. It's not something that any culture, religion or tradition propagates.
Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.
As women are empowered, violence can come down, for a number of reasons. By all measures, men are the more violent gender.
The violence in the world comes about because we human beings are forever creating barriers between men who are like us and men who are not like us.
The more potent, unasked question is how society at large reacts to eager, voluntary violence by females, and to the growing evidence that women can be just as aggressive as men.
By all measures men are the more violent gender.
Perhaps the strongest evidence that women have as broad and deep a capacity for physical aggression as men is anecdotal. And as with men, this capacity has expressed itself in acts from the brave to the brutal, the selfless to the senseless.
We live with a distinct double standard about male and female aggression. Women's aggression isn't considered real. It isn't dangerous; it's only cute. Or it's always self-defense or otherwise inspired by a man. In the rare case where a woman is seen as genuinely responsible, she is branded a monster - an 'unnatural' woman.
I have never seen a connection between cinematic violence towards women and actual violence towards women in society.
I've never seen a world where only men were responsible for the violence, and the women were innocent. They go together. Men and women are a violent mixture.