(Structural) sexism? Poverty? Poor fashion sensibilities?
> (Structural) sexism?
In the specific form of paternalism this would certainly seem to be a factor, at least.
Second, there are tons of alternative explanations (e.g. socialization). Nature vs. nurture is adolescent-level stuff, and obviously males and females are socialized differently. Stop being thick.
Third, that's not how science (or anything except religion) works. You don't get to make fallaciously substantiated conjectures and then demand everyone believe them until the core claim is disproven.
edit: Oh wow, based on prior coments you're actually just straight up early 20th century style racist, or a troll, or both. Done engaging you, and really hoping you're just a stupid troll and don't believe anything you're saying here.
Ex: "Melanin is positively correlated with crime. <Insert some unsubstantiated purely conjectural causal explanation about how melanin effects the psyche>" is exactly the same argument, and is (I hope obviously) damn racist.
The study cited also doesn't say what you think it does, and your misreading is obnoxiously wilful, to the point that it's clear you're looking for evidence to back something you believe a priori. But someone else has already taken that on.
Anyway, the bar for these sorts of claims is high for a reason: people have made these "black men just have medical differences that make them more susceptible to violence/rape/murder/crime" arguments since the existence of modern medicine. The evidence behind these claims has always been pure bullshit racism masquerading as science.