Phaedrus, on a different thread posited “Males are more aggressive than females and THIS includes homosexual men. MEN cause wars, MEN rape…”
I disagree. Men are simply the ones in the position to start wars. If we were to put women in the leadership roles in every nation, the war would not stop.
Phaedrus also suggested that men are more prone to agression and violence. Again, I think men, being generally stronger tend towards physical agression where women use other non-physical tactics.
The evolution of the weapon has little to do with phallic (sp) symbols. The most primitive weapon is the closed fist. Under the chemical cocktail of fear most people will resort to a hammy closed fist swing dictated to them by the primitive animal side of their mind. As man learns to use tools including tools for war the most obvious and natural thing to do to enchance your fighting ability then is to enhance your fist. How do you do this? With a rock. Of course the bigger, longer and stronger your rock the better you will be (damage, range and your weapon not breaking/damage respectively for the qualities above). Note, that length is one of the key qualities to the usefulness of the early weapon. How do you extend the range of your weapon? You tie it (or early on drive it into) to a stick. Now you have a nice early club.
Now, the human body is VERY effective at absorbing bludgeoning blows (especially on the outer sides of our bodies). However, we are not nearly as effective at stopping stabbing or slashing blows. Therefore, a pointy sharp rock is better than a round flat one for beating another human to death. Tie a sharp rock to the end of a longer and longer stick and you have a spear.
Now the OP: The answer is it depends. If we look at Earth’s history I think it is certainly true that it is men who cause wars. BUT that is because it happens to be that it is men who have predominantly been military, religious and political leaders. Would it be different if women had of been these leaders? Probably not, except that soldier would wear pink and frilly outfits.
“Glitch … Window, large icons.” - Bob the Guardian
Women are free from feelings of anger and hatred? Since when?
I’ve seen a woman pull a knife on another over an argument about their mutual boyfriend.
There have been several t.v. news magazines (60 Minutes, Dateline, etc.) about female gangs in big cities. Some of these women make the men look tame.
A woman in my hometown blew her husbands head clean off point blank with a shot gun while he was asleep. Her excuse, mental instablity brought on by PMS. She got off clean with that defense.
If women ran things, the wars would be different but they would still exist.
I vaguely remember a history teacher in high school telling us about an all women army troop in the middle east that was much more vicious than their male counterparts, but I have never verified it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Was the Falkland war really Thatcher’s fault? As I recall, the Argentine’s pretty much made that decision on their own and she was defending what was theirs.
And Janet Reno is a woman? I trust you have proof!
Well, testosterone definately makes young boys more agressive than young girls. Having said that, guys seem to be on a slider switch concerning violence, capable of sitting anywhere in the continuim of non-violence to berserker.
Girls on the other hand seem to be on an on/off switch. Sweet and light or nails-out-gonna-rip-you-a-new-set-of-eyes-pal! 'course that’s through observation only. Could be way off base.
dlv, are you pulling our leg? What does Janet Reno have to do with Ruby Ridge? And what do Thatcherism, cattle futures, and health insurance have to do with war and aggression?
Studies on women and violence by various police forces, ex-military personal turned violence experts, Lethal Force Institute, etc have shown that there a certain amount of truth to this.
Western women, in general, because of cultural effects have a much shorter force continuum (this is the range of actions taken to a threat). I.e. the go from non-deadly to deadly faster then men. This is most easily seen by the “maternal instinct”. Threaten a women’s children and she will turn on you with deadly force in a split second.
A woman home is broken into by a rapist. She hardly fights back. The rapist beats her and rapes her. When he is done, he leaves her on the floor and heads towards her children’s room. She immediately flew into a rage and stabbed the rapist in the back and side of the neck several times with a pair of scissors killing him.
Of course, the fact that the force continuum is shorter shouldn’t be that surprising. Afterall, confronting a man and woman with an identical threat it is clear that the woman (who on average is going to be smaller and physically weaker) must respond with a higher degree of force to compensate.
I’ve always found it interesting that the female members of cult and terrorist groups are often the most violent (eg. Bader-Meinhof gang, Manson family, etc.)
For sheer bloody mindedness, someone like Catherine di Medici or Elizabeth Bathory could easily give Hitler a run for his money.
Traditionally, one needed position and power to commit mass-violence. Traditionally, position and power has been mostly restricted to men. This disqualifies History as a determinator of which sex is capable of causing the most state sponsored violence.
Some woman whose name escapes me, has written a book calling for a higher tax on men because, she feels, men do more damage to society, commit more crimes, do more property dmage, etc. I thought that this was such prejudiced bullshit. But when I brough t it up to some female friends they thought it was a good idea.
I think men make their actions more visible. Women seem to me to be more likeley to engage in subtle actions. For example, I think a woman would try to con a clerk out of the money in the cash register where a man would take it at gun point.
My theory is that, because they tend to be physically weaker, they have become craftier. Men may go out there and pillage and steal, but women will hook up with the guys who are best at doing it and then share the rewards. Smart.
I can’t really add anything new to the OP, so I’ll go off on the tangent opened up by Mr. Z.
I don’t think women have EVOLVED to be craftier, after all, I don’t think that the genes for intelligence are carried on the sex chromosomes. Any slant favoring intelligent women would help the species as a whole, though women might tend to need it more. I think that instead, women LEARN to be more crafty. After all, they’re raised (until the 90s) in a world where physical=male, stay-at-home-be-meek-care-for-the-children-and-submit-to-hubby = female, and so they emphasized intelligence in their world-training, eh? By which I mean, in raising their daughter’s in a world where their daughter’s are going to be physically weaker than half the other people they encounter, they probably train into them reflexes other than ball up the fist and swing at first threat, eh?
The amazons of old are of scythian decent, near the north black sea, and in fact were the most violent and feared women at the time ( and since have been surplanted by NOW LOL ). They were known to be the “pant” wearers societally, and warriors, who engaged in drinking of the enemies blood, raping of the opposing forces women (yes, it was done, and it was seen that any woman who didnt join them and allowed herself to be oppressed by men, deserved death), they also kept men as slaves, and were known to at times by some extreme groups cannabalize men. They broke and deformed the legs of male slaves, and male infants, and used them as living sperm banks and servants.
To conquer or kill an Amazon warrior was a heroic deed in Greek and Trojan writings, and to capture, “domesticate”, and marry one was the greatest show of male power at the time.
The Amazons were known to be the most capable horsemen of their time, and their male offspring (once more civilized in later times) were to become the Russian Cossacks of lore, need I mention more on their ability to butcher and ride horses, and what part of the world they descend from??
Anyone read the book about “Historical Warriors-Women”, its got Irish female boxers, chinese assassins, Viking women who raped men and women (yes you can so shut up) and were the source of lore for the Valkyries. Its cool, in a way a semi turn on… ooops I said that out loud.
It states that women are ALWAYS more violent when they become violent, to counter and show that they can be as bad as men, and worse. Hence a reference to “anyone you can butcher, I can butcher even worse”. Women must Out-do the competition in order to gain top ranking and stature amongst MEN.
