Men's Group

However, let's look at a couple things objectively. One, by every statistical yardstick, violent crime in the United States has dropped dramatically in the past 40 years, as shown in this graph:



Now, if gender were the only or the primary factor or driver behind "violence"... well, are there significantly fewer men out there, as a percentage of the population, than there were 40 years ago? Doubtful. In fact, I suspect the percentage is essentially unchanged. Demographically, what is the one trend that has changed and is often linked to the decline in violence? Age. So it would be far more accurate, to talk about a "youth culture of violence" than a male one, wouldn't it? People aren't stopping being men, but they are stopping being young.

Furthermore, if one were to dissect the data on violence along other demographic lines beyond gender or age, one might find other trends or statistical preponderances, lying along lines like race. Socioeconomic status. Where people live, geographically or urban v. rural. Yet, there is not the seeming rush to talk about the ________ culture of violence, as there is the "male" one, is there?

Why do you suppose that is?

What it boils down to, from my perspective, is that rather than using violence to advance group-based agendas, if we want to address violence the simplest and most direct route is to talk about violence itself as the problem.

Edited to add: you say "we" worship violence. Is that the royal we? The inclusive we? The exclusive we? I don't worship anything.