' Bearing this idea in mind, Pavelka's bold statement leads us to believe that there is no explanation as to why men commit violence, therefore resulting in no explanation as to why violence is associated with masculinity. In regards to social upbringing, James (1995) argues that family environment and social education is crucial and that if children are born to violent parents but don't actually experience violence themselves, then they have the exact same chance to be violent themselves, as those children with non-violent parents. This insinuating that although some children may not face violence from their relatives/guardians, it can be a biological impairment that has been passed down to them. The National Institute of Justice wrote a report on how family life can have an impact on violence and they found that if a child experiences violence as a young child, this can affect the way their brain develops, which could potentially lead to a violent outburst in later life; 'poor prenatal care, prenatal exposure to drugs and alcohol, exposure to high levels of lead in the environment, and early abuse or neglect can lead some children to have more difficulty controlling aggressive impulses' (Steinberg, 2000:34). .
Many social theories contribute towards the understanding of why violence appears to be associated with masculinity. These include 'theories of violent behaviour, stressing social learning, youth subcultures, economic inequality and the potential thrill and enjoyment of violence' (Ray, 2011: 86). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, theorists argue that children are more likely to submit to violent actions if they are surrounded in a family environment that promotes violence. However, social learning theories claim that although these children are living under the same roof as violent parents, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will also obtain the same violent nature.
