And no. Men are more likely because it's more socially acceptable not because they are more capable.

When men define their masculinity as providers and protectors, by definition that gives a green light for a certain level of violence to be developed, honed, and exercised. That means they are less trained to keep the pulse in check and therefore more likely to lose control. Also more excused to have never truly learned control.

Ask any woman if she feels man impulse for violence. If she being honest, she'll say yes. If she's mestrusting or pregnant she's more likely to be honest cause those hormones ... whoo.

Actually, I'm equal amounts nature and nurture. There's definitely overlap and interplay between the two.

That said, I can't get behind "nurture is nature", at least the way most people with this view talk about it. That's because it could only be true as described if nurture took place in nature. And it doesn't for humans. We have removed ourselves from thr pressures of the natural world and crested an environment separate from it, though still dependent on it. It's the equivalent of saying that thr behavior of zoo animals is fairly representstive of and representational of what occurs with their species in the wild. We know this not true. They develop all sorts of problems they don't have in the wild. Likewise, wild animals that have adapted to urban life have adopted morphological an behavioral changes as a result. There was a recent article about the snout length of foxes shortening when they took up city life. Another recent article about mate guarding behavior in pigeons seemed off to me but I haven't had time to look into it. But I wondered if this behavior was observed in captive or urban birds and if there was a data sample from birds not under noise and space duress and if the results would mirror.esch other or not. I bet not.