In the media or in life, nay instances of violence have been portrayed as a conflict between two opposing males in the society (David Barash, 2002). Most stories of violence is pictured as males as the main culprit in the scenario (Barash, 2002). The incidents of males as the perpetrators of violence in the society is often so taken for granted that violence with males as the instigators are often overlooked, but it is a different story when the culprit is discovered to be female (Barash, 2002).Even in the portrayal of “killers”, the picture is overpoweringly in the favor of the male component of the society (Barash, 2002).
It is not to say that only men or males are capable of violence, but it is seen that the scales are heavily inclined toward the males as the firebrand of the violent acts (Barash, 2002). It is said that the main reason for the violence is that the violence in the society is that men often target other men in the society for the infliction of violence (Barash, 2002). In the violent acts in the urban setting, often males are both inciters and recipients of the violent acts (Barash, 2002).This is not only confined to humans, but in the animal kingdom as well (Barash, 2002).
Biology seems to provide the answer in the definition of what a male and female should be (Barash, 2002). Both male and females have common biological and physical components, but there is a significant difference in the male and female of the species (Barash, 2002). In his article Evolution, Males, and Violence, David Barash (2002) implies it is the gametes of the male and female animals that define the male and females of the species (Barash, 2002).In essence, Barash (2002) defines those that produce sperm as the males and those that spawn eggs as the females (Barash, 2002).
The violence that the male in the species seems to be lying in the colossal amount of the production of the sperm cells (Barash, 2002). The males thus want to impregnate large numbers of females, thus establishing dominance in the herd, in relation to polygamous animals (Barash, 2002). The victorious male would pertain then to the one that can prevail over their rivals (Barash, 2002).Evolution has provided the males with all the weapons to conduct this action for the purpose of establishing dominance (Barash, 2002). Evolution has made the males in the species bigger and armed with more virulent armaments and the accompanying ferocity (Barash, 2002). The hereditary selection process has outfitted the males for combat against fellow males, often resulting in violent confrontation (Barash, 2002).
In the animal kingdom, these weapons are displayed in the mating of male and female (Barash, 2002).The situation is that the dominant males either have all the females, or is defeated for control of the “harem” of the herd (Barash, 2002). This seeming difference in the conduct of females in violent acts has also been born out by studies with respect to the human species (Barash, 2002). As earlier stated, it is expected of females to be less aggressive than their male counterparts (Barash, 2002). This is so because of the voluminous studies done by various authorities in the fields of sociology and anthropology (Barash, 2002).Males are prone to violence even in the smallest of reasons for provocation (Barash, 2002).
In the past, such paltry conflicts often reflect a bigger picture that frames the escalation of the violence by males (Barash, 2002). The histories of such increase in the escalation of violence by males against males reflect the tact that these would affect the preeminence and social ranking of the affected male (Barash, 2002). These small provocations would be tantamount to grave insults to them, hence the resulting violence against the opponents (Barash, 2002).
