Well I’m no antique altho’ I remember the Iron Lady era (just about).
Yes indeed dear old Maggie was a hardassed bugger for sure.
Anyway it would appear that my vision of a utopian society ruled by the fair sex whilst us mere men are reduced to secondary citizens is not to be.
I was rather looking forward to having to “service” a few dozen comely wenches each week :mad:
c’mon man you’ll get over it
All of the worst bullies I’ve ever known in my life have been women. Girls, especially in adolescence, can be the meanest creatures you’ll ever run across.
You’ve met my sister then?
This reminds me of a letter I saw in Penthouse once.
Generally, women have historically only been as safe as the strongest men defending them. If they are being defended, they can afford to be gentle, etc. Once there is no man defending them, all bets are off.
Women get labeled vicious because they can’t afford to play by all of the “rules” of civilized warfare than men believe to be right and just. For example, women will scratch and kick instead of punching. That’s viewed as almost cheating or “not fighting fair.”
When you have the power, you can set self-limiting rules on your behavior. When you don’t have the power, you can’t afford to.
It’s very similar to differences between countries like the US versus terrorists. One side standing around crying that the other side isn’t fighting fair, while the other side knows that “fighting fair” will just end up with them crushed under the overwhelming power of the other side.
So how would they take power in the first place?
Cite? Are you familiar with the saying of the Spartan mother who pointed to her son’s shield and said “Return home either with it or on it.” In other words if you drop your shield in battle and flee like a coward I don’t want you to come back home.
Ah, so this wasn’t meant to be a serious thread. Gotcha.
Marc
No doubt that’s part of it. However, I also believe that part of the difference is why they fight. IMHO, male violence instincts have a strong component of “prove your place in the tribe”, of a dominance competition. Whether or not they realize it at the time, violent men are acting according to an instinct desgned to show off how strong/tough they are.
To me this explains why men care about fighting fair; it doesn’t prove you are stronger if you hit someone from behind, or have a weapon and they don’t. It also explains the fact that men who murder tend to boast about it to someone, eventually, and why having witnesses actually increases the chance of a man committing murder in the heat of passion; major reasons why it’s easier to catch male murderers. It also explains why so much male violence is utterly stupid; people who let their instincts do the thinking tend to do stupid things.
As for women, a woman who attacks you isn’t trying to prove something to you; she’s trying to hurt you. If her method is unfair, too damn bad. I believe that’s one reason women favor poison; as they are not ( even on the instinctive level ) trying to prove they are stronger, they don’t care if the victim or anyone else knows who hurt or killed them. So they go the practical, unfair route.
You assume that’s what they’d want you for. I’m reminded of a footnote from a Discworld novel, which mentions an all female tribe that captures men for the “purposes that only men can serve”. The men don’t last long; all that moving furniture and hauling things off the top shelf takes it out of you. 
MGibson Well it started out as a serious thread but obviously I hadn’t thought it all that well :smack:
WhyNot Man they are fucking scary :eek:
Der Trihs You mean they wouldn’t be lusting over my body all the time…oh shit!
I recall an episode of Sliders – our heroes land in an America where women monopolize all the political and economic power (apart from that, not much is different – there’s no hint that this society has any less war or crime than ours). Rembrandt Brown hooks up with a female business executive who treats him – well, pretty much the way an arrogant male exec would treat his flavor-of-the-week girlfriend.
WhyNot, ha! You don’t need a device to pee in the snow like men, I’ve seen videos…er…heard stories…of girls doing it naturally. Let’s just say it involves some stretching.
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
-Kipling
I think we’d have a tough time proving whether this is instinctual, as you believe, or conditioned, as I believe.
If it was conditioned, I doubt it would be such common behavior across time and cultures. Nor would it be so stupid; it’s a rule of thumb I read somewhere that if many people across many cultures do the same stupid thing, it’s probably an instinct; otherwise, what’s the motivation ? It’s harder to identify an instinct that impells sensible behavior, because if many people across many cultures do the same sensible thing, it could just be because it is the sensible thing. “No one needs an instinct to tell them to throw the spear pointy end first.”
But it has a goal, so it’s not stupid. It might not work right, but it’s goal-oriented behavior if it’s supposed to facilitate proving their place in the tribe.
Combination, I’d say. The root comes down to us from when we were prehuman primates and several thousand generations of positive reinforcement perpetuate it.
Goal oriented behavior is perfectly capable of being stupid. I recall a case where three Cambodian men hauled a live anti-tank mine into a bar, and egged each other into stomping on it progressively harder to show off their bravery. Inevitably, BOOM ! Goal oriented male behavior, but definitely stupid.
One thing about that episode bothered me. Despite woman being the dominant sex and controlling everything they still took their husbands names! Of course the joke about “President Clinton” would have been lost otherwise.
What makes you think it isn’t?
