I have gone back and forward on the question. But about nasty punx grrls, remember that there is selection bias in a) getting interested in punk, then b) sticking around in the scene. Many punk scenes known as very macho cultures, with shouting, mosh pits, fighting and so on. so the women who persist are those who are able to thrive in such an environment.

One friend of mine told me that every woman should try cocaine at least once, so she can know what it feels like to have total confidence and not give a FUCK.

My experience is that when push comes to shove, the men in my life don't have it in them to pull the trigger while the women in my life do.

I would generally agree, that socialization plays the major role. As far as premeditated conscious aggression goes.

In 'The female of the species is deadlier than the male"

Kipling's argument was that a lot of animal species fight duels, but these duels are more or less ritualistic, meant to intimidate and force the other one to back away rather than to cause harm. So there is presumably a phisiological mechanism that prevents males from engaging in actual figthing, and then from going in for the kill in these types of situations.

While females only fight when they are forced too, for prey, self defence, or when defending their young. So there is no reason not to go for the kill.

In a human context, this would probably make a lady commander who was socialized for it, more decisive all things equal.

On the other hand, testosterone meses with stress responses, so the type of stochastic violence when someone suddenly snaps seems more likely to be male regardless of socialization.

i mean this as a genuine clarification question, but why is this a controversial take? "socialization by way of violent unjust hierarchy that privileges men is why men tend to be more violent" seems like pretty clearly correct materialist analysis. i think the more positive inverse of what you're saying is true too: if we broke down the hierarchies of patriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy, we would overall see a more peaceful, gentle, empathetic species across identity lines.

am i misunderstanding your statement? or is this more of a "yeah i think this is intuitively correct, but one of those things that hexbear has kind of a silly kneejerk blindspot around so i tend to play it cool in this particular online social environment" kind of situation?