Violence

[verybaddmom]

I have been watching my sister's kids for the past few months beat on each other continuously. they have taken virtually every possible innocent piece of landscape and turned it into a weapon of sorts: sticks are swords, lawn tools are guns, etc. They are five.
I wonder, why? and so i think.
when my son was little i restricted his tv to only non violent programming; he wasnt even allowed to watch power rangers or own water guns, but yet, he was exactly the same way. i never did figure out where he learned it, nor did i figure out why that stuck so tight to him. but, he's always had a fascination with weapons of all sorts. show him a knife store in the mall, and we could be there all day, oohing and aahhhing over swords and things with serrated edges.
it seems to be the accepted thing nowadays. violence pervades everywhere. is this a social thing? a cultural thing? a biological thing? a boy thing? what?
any ideas?

[imthefoolonthehill]

it is natural for boys to be violent because it is natural for men to be violent.

Many psychiatrists believe that men are prone to violence because the see it as a way of testing how they will react to their perceived 'final test' of death.... don't worry... for centuries little boys have simulated war with wooden swords, capguns, sticks... whatever was available (obviously not capguns before certain times but you get my meaning)

[fayefaye]

hehe. Violence...

Apparently people have an innate 'kill' sense- the thanatos. Suppressing it too much could be unhealthy.

[simon]

I think we use violence as a rebell against death. The utimate unknown is death and violence often brings people to the brink of it. Perhaps through violence we are just trying to get closer to knowledge of what the end will feel like.

[emily655321]

Or, rather than trying to make our bad feelings dissipate by analyzing them, we turn them outwards and hurt other people to try to make them go away.

Which doesn't work, by the way. Probably not a good idea to make a habit of it.

[Lolita]

'Lord of the Flies'

It's human nature to use violence. Where do they get it from? Or rather, what encourages it? I hate to blame the media, but that's probably the truth. Kid's cartoons use violence. Although they usually use comedy to play it down, the kids, no, we, become desensitized to it. Seeing it on TV in news, documentary, film and even cartoon on a daily basis sub consciously hammers it into our mind, until we don't become as phased by these issues.

Now I find myself confused. I watched Michael Moore's 'Bowling For Columbine' and decided that it was wrong to blame films, and rock music (Marilyn Manson an axe murderer? No, it's not his style). But then what is to blame? Original sin? I can't believe that. Something has to get into one's brain. 'I blame Itchy and Scratchy' *lol*

And... speaking of television, I have been totally distracted by Kat Slater's dilemma in 'Eastenders' and have now lost my trail of thought.

You get the general idea though. I hope.

[WX6[ck]]

I agree with the media desensitizing and all that. I know because now im desensitized :D. But seriously you can be brought up knowing all sorts of violence but still thinking it's wrong. Then you can be brought up knowing all sorts of violence and purposely not care and then bring harm to others.

[emily655321]

Or No.3, and most common: know it's wrong, and still do it to others when you lose control.

[imthefoolonthehill]

so Lolita... how do you explane the Roman tikes who fought with play swords? this 'violence' is essential in a child who must someday become a man- not a Christopher Lowe. (or however you spell the last name of the famous interior decorator)

[Lolita]

How do you explain your poor spelling?

I'm guessing the Roman kiddies learnt from the people around them. They see guys fighting. They get taught by the people around them that they will have to become men and fight, so they are encouraged to start learning young.

However, we are talking about contemporary issues, not Roman history.

[Lolita]

Originally posted by WX6[ck]
I agree with the media desensitizing and all that. I know because now im desensitized :D. But seriously you can be brought up knowing all sorts of violence but still thinking it's wrong. Then you can be brought up knowing all sorts of violence and purposely not care and then bring harm to others.

I think if people have it within them to harm with intent, then, you know, they have a problem. I cannot believe that the two 10 year olds that tortured and murdered 2 year old James Bulger saw 'Child's Play' and said "Hey, that looks fun. Let's go kill people."

People argued that, at 10 years old, they did not know right from wrong. I personally think that is bull****. I think the reason they carried their act through was probably to do with the way they were brought up. I haven't read into the story enough to know where they lived (i.e council flat), but one can only assume they were brought up in a working class area, where unemployment was high and kids had nothing better to do than to bully others and go around causing mayhem.

If we were to sit down and watch the 'Scream' trilogy, I doubt very much we would be inspired to go and by a ghostly mask, a black cape and a knife, with the sole intention of murdering people. Of course not.

I don't know where I'm going with this, so I shall stop typing.

[WX6[ck]]

Originally posted by Lolita
If we were to sit down and watch the 'Scream' trilogy, I doubt very much we would be inspired to go and by a ghostly mask, a black cape and a knife, with the sole intention of murdering people. Of course not.

Not we, just me ^^

[imthefoolonthehill]

Lolita... you cannot dismiss history by saying we are discussing contemporary issues. Are they not the same issues? Has it changed that much? I don't think so.

Yes, the Roman tikes did learn from watching older men... but how did the first men become violent? Did they go against their nature or not? If they did, then how did it spread? Did people idolize those whoe went against their nature? If they did, then was it against their nature to idolize those people? We cannot have the whole of society going against its nature without creating a new nature.... I realize I am saying nature alot, but it is at the center of this... It is man's nature, his inner instinct, to be violent... To prohibit this, to stop this, is to create a gigantic pressure, much greater than repressed sexual nature, but similiar in quality. To repress violent nature creates force. This force WILL come out in some way, shape, or form. Have you ever noticed the most calm, controlled people are the most terriying when they finally snap? Whereas people who are easily excited into anger usually aren't as bad when they snap... they are already releasing that force, that energy.

[amuse]

i think it's funny to assume that only unemployed, working class blokes murder people.

[simon]

In response to Fool and Lolita's comments the Romans were constantly at war, as they were expanding thier empire. Part of their daily life was fighting and the "tikes" were raised to fight. But that doesn't mean they were necissarily violent in war, according to them the Gods kept them in check and if they showed hubris, or arrogance, excessive violence in killing someone, then the gods would punish them. Yet even with this restraint, just another kind of regulation than the ones used today, the Romans ocassionaly showed hubris. But looking at voilence as a purley comtemporary problem is incorrect since all civilizations have established rules and regulations to deal with this scary form human expression.
It seems that there is also a difference in the violence between males and females. Lolita have you ever read the book John Dollar? It is the same idea as Lord of the Flies, except with a bunch of girls on an island. I recomend it.

[emily655321]

Maybe we should establish which type of violence each of us is talking about? I mean, children killing other children requires nature and nurture to be so out of whack as to make the mind screwed up enough to actually go that far. Plenty of kids play-fight and push each other on the ground to prove their toughness or because they don't know better. It takes a genuinely disturbed mind pushed to the breaking point by an awful upbringing to cause a child to murder. Working-class or wealthy, June Cleaver didn't raise these kids.

Then there is the type of violence that is only the product of a disturbed mind; serial killers and torturers. They can have wonderful, loving families and still grow up with a drive to do horrible things, but they don't usually murder till they're older.

Ordinary violence, like people who get in bar fights all the time, is the product of a normal person who is selfish and arrogant, and wasn't taught to control themselves as children. Usually they saw violence in their own homes growing up. Even if they know it's wrong, when they're intoxicated or very angry it comes out, because the only way they've learned to deal with anger is to let it out.

It's not true that repressing anger and stewing in it is the only alternative to lashing out. Those are two very unhealthy extremes. You have to express how you feel somehow, but you can go off by yourself and cool down, go running, punch a punching bag. Then sit and think through the situation, and figure out what made you angry, how much of it was the other person's fault, how much was your fault, and go back and tell them what upset you and you can both fix the problem together. Or sometimes it's best just to forget it altogether, and "pick your battles;" swallow your pride and only argue about stuff that is really important to you. Especially if you can't keep from getting angry when you talk to the other person about it.

I know that sounds really Brady Bunch, but it can be done to a greater or lesser extent. My point is, lashing out or not dealing with your anger at all are definitely not your only options. Keeping most of it inside doesn't mean it will build up until you explode -- that only happens if you haven't learned any other ways of dealing with it.

[Lolita]

i think it's funny to assume that only unemployed, working class blokes murder people.

It's the media's stereotypes.

[emily655321]

I blame the media! :p Wolf Blitzer is responsible for all my flaws.

[amuse]

and mine. :D

[kilted exile]

I disagree with the idea that because young people are surrounded by violence, they will become violent themselves. I grew up in a pretty violent city (Glasgow (http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk)) and was surrounded by violence at school and on the streets, however, myself and my friends were/are not what I would call violent people.
The reasons children become violent are far too complex to be explained by statements like that.
The movie Scream was mentioned earlier & to quote from that: "Horror movies don't create psychos, they just make psychos more creative."

[emily655321]

That was my point, though. It takes a naturally violent person, plus a violent environment, to produce a person who is violent on a regular basis. It takes an abnormally weak mind to become violent just because you're surrounded by violence.