There is so much crap in this thread it's difficult to wade through.

There are basically two arguments going on here. One is that male violence is a natural tendency and that all or most men are violent as part of their nature. The second is that men are violent, but not as a result of any biological influence but gender roles and societal pressures.

Both ignore the valid aspects of the other entirely.

There is no denying that sexual dimorphism exists and that male/female hormones and chemistry have an impact on behaviour. That is about as firmly established in science as anything could be. The specifics are mostly unknown, but there are some general things we know quite well. Mainly we know that testosterone has a pretty major impact on risk taking and aggression. What u/Andrea__Dworkin is ignoring is that aggression and risk taking are not negative behaviours, nor are they positive as a rule. Both can lead to great creativity and innovation if channeled correctly. They are also ignoring the fact that a very small percentage of men are actually violent. The vast majority of men are not violent and violence, at least with the right conditioning, is not inevitable for all or even most men.

On the other hand, biology can't be ignored and it's not enough to say "men are simply socialized differently". That ignores the negative effects of male biology when mixed with the right social conditions. It's a half dozen of one and 6 of the other. To ignore either requires a dismissal of most of the available study on the subject in favour of one of two extreme and equally wrong explanations.

I am so very tired of the polarized way in which gendered behaviour is discussed.