Are men inherently violent?
Men often become wom-iolent in societies that (1) have adequate amounts of food, (2) have adequate amounts of water, and (3) perceive themselves as isolated from attack. For example, the Tahitian men, the Minoan men on Crete, and the Central Malaysian Semai were nonviolent during the period in their history- when all three of these conditions prevailed.27
When men were not needed to kill, women were less likely to select men who killed and men were less likely to kill. (Choosing men who killed was no more women’s fault than killing was men’s fault — both were necessary to survive.)
The beautiful princess rarely married the conscientious objector. Why? Few societies could afford to give their highest reward to a man who wouldn’t kill. If men were inherently violent, there would be no need to create a social structure bribing men to be violent.
The ability to kill always required the vulnerability of being exposed to being killed. Male eligibility was created by vulnerability masked as invulnerability. Men have been both violent and vulnerable, but they are neither inherently violent nor inherently vulnerable. For the first time in human history a "family man" no longer has to be a "killer man."