Excuse the provocative title, but I think the recent discussion about so-called male violence is one-sided and dishonest.

I'm certainly not seeking to excuse violence. I'm not a violent person and have a secure enough ego that I walk away from violence when it's optional. I also don't want to demean or minimise the experiences of women (and men) who have been victims of violence. Violence is very rarely required or excusable, and it often has debilitating life-long consequences.

No doubt violence has been present and necessary for all of human history, and the responsibility for wielding such violence has largely fallen on men. I'm sure this responsibility hasn't always been welcomed, but without it, we would not exist today. Violence is in a way a consequence of volatile emotions, and as such it often becomes maladaptive, and exercised against the wrong targets. Members of the in-group have been beaten up because members of the out-group must be killed. Again, I don't seek to excuse unnecessary violence, but to understand why it still exists. It's a part of human nature, and will always arise given certain conditions.

Having said that, I feel that the talk about "male violence" is overblown and highly politicised. I can accept that the majority of serious violence is committed by men; we are simply more capable of doing serious harm, and are generally more inclined to do such violence - or at least, some of us are.

Nonetheless, discussion on this issue has become more and more removed from reality. I'll leave aside the fact that male and female violence isn't qualitatively different - there are no essential characteristics of male violence as opposed to female violence. Instead I want to highlight the missing part of the recent emphasis on male violence, namely the female fear of it.

Western women are the safest group of human beings ever to have existed in human history, but they apparently feel that they are at ever-greater risk of violence from men. We very often hear about "rape culture", "femicide", "man vs bear" and an "epidemic of violence against women", but the fact remains that there is not one place in the world where men are safer than women. The language becomes ever more extreme and detached from reality, and it's men as an aggregate that are blamed.

The reality, of course, is that men are the most common victims of murder and violent assault by a long chalk, and although they are not the same men who commit the violence, sympathy for them is low. But the current feminist narrative is that women are the main victims not just of violence, but specifically of male violence. Men are enjoined to curb their violent nature, to persuade other men to change their behaviour, and to become an unofficial police force with the aim of making society safer for (already safer) women.

Why has women's fear of violence increased, despite violence becoming significantly less common over the past few decades? Has our existing gynocentrism become weaponised? Who is driving this fear, and why? Is it possible to counter female fear without being patronising or demeaning to those who have suffered violence? I think it would be valuable to question the irrational fear of men by women (note italics) and find out what is really behind it, because it seems to be a relative new phenomenon that previous generations of women avoided by various means.

On a larger scale, feminism seems to have bred a generation of men who are very much afraid of doing any harm to women but who are on the receiving end for all the harm that some men do to some women, despite being completely blameless themselves. I feel that I'm part of that generation, and that it can't lead to anything good.