Violence and Human Instinct

This one's going to be a little short. I finished reading the arguments regarding violent tendencies in male evolution, and I've come to the conclusion that the editors of the book must be purposely throwing in two opposite extremes on each issue, because I think both arguments aren't completely right. I don't believe that there is a violent gene, or a killing gene or a biological instinct in modern men to rape in order to pass on their genes. That last one, if the "power" reason factors in, is completely ridiculous and unfounded. I also don't think it is completely cultural to be violent, nor do I think it is restricted to men these days. Testosterone does in fact play an integral part in violent tendencies, as it helps fill out the arms and shoulders (or so I have read anyway), the arms being arguably the body part most frequently used to fight, whereas estrogen helps widen the hips. Anyway, that part is biological. However, the desire to commit violence and the desire to kill are different. Generally, native Americans tried to preach respect for the animals they hunted and killed, but did not necssarily desire it. Chimps, who are closely related to humans genetically, will throw branches and rocks when they get angry.
Anyway, what I have come to believe is that there is an instinct, at least in humans, for survival. That, coupled with an evolved intellect, perceived and recognized violence as a necessary action for survival. Eventually, it was culture that took the helm and began carrying these behaviors from one generation to the next. This is why women have also become prone to violence, though not more so yet than men, perhaps due simply to different chemistry make-ups and hormones.
I liked this reading much better than the last one--human violence and corruption is one of the reasons I got into Anthropology in the first place.