# Men make the world VIOLENT, Women make it full of SEX



## Kane (Sep 28, 2004)

Chimpanzees are our closest relative. Most DNA studies confirm we share 98.4-98.8% of our DNA with them. Chimps are not only close to us in genetics, but in society structures too. Their society is relatively violent, and killing occurs a lot for reasons very similar to humans. Like a son killing his father for the troop leadership. This happens often. Chimpanzee society is rather violent. They wars quite like wars for similar reason; land and power. Each chimpanzee community is lead by one dominant male and the males rule the society.

There is another species of chimpanzee, called Bonobos or Pygmy Chimpanzees. Though they belong to the same genus, there are a lot of differences between the two, and not just physically. Bonobo societies are matriarchal and are run by females. Bonobos society is a lot less violent and instead of having war with each other, they have sex with other bonobo communities when having a conflict. Each bonobo community is run by females and they rule the society.

Now why in the world am I telling you about chimpanzees and what the bloody hell does this have to do with the topic? Well I think that chimpanzees and bonobos are an outline of human society and how it can be run and how it is currently being run. Meaning that if the human society is run by women, it would be a lot like bonobo society in which instead of going to war with a rival country, we have sex with them. A society run by males seems to have more violence and less sexual immoralities.

Today, women have the same rights as men in every aspect in western civilization. If you have also noticed, sexual immoralities are much more common in todays world. It seems to be balanced right now between sex and violence in the US for example.

Now we look at the past where women had fewer rights and men were the head of society. Life back then was MUCH bloodier and there were much more war. Heck, Medieval Castles were designed for a society that did nothing but war and defense. Does anyone else see what Im saying? 

What this all means is that a worthy hypothesis can describe human life under both sexes. Society run by men is more violent. A society run by women has more sexual immoralities. So it really makes no difference if men or women had more rights or power than each other, because it would always balances out to either a more violent dangerous society or a sexually immoral society. 

What do you think?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Meaning that if the human society is run by women, it would be a lot like bonobo society in which instead of going to war with a rival country, we have sex with them.



Well, damn, selective service my ***.  Pick me!


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 28, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Most DNA studies confirm we share 98.4-98.8% of our DNA with them.





			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Bonobos society is a lot less violent and instead of having war with each other, they have sex with other bonobo communities when having a conflict. Each bonobo community is run by females and they rule the society.


Sources?  Shall I just take your word on this?  



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Well I think that chimpanzees and bonobos are an outline of human society and how it can be run and how it is currently being run......Meaning that if the human society is run by women, it would be a lot like bonobo society in which instead of going to war with a rival country, we have sex with them.


That's quite a leap.  I would say that the differences in our genetic makeups, however small, manifest in a much larger fashion.  As well, you are drawing a comparison between two different species of chimp.  It doesn't necessarily follow that because the behaviour of one species is different than the other that under the same circumstances (women "running" the planet) we would drop the wars and begin some type of sexual revolution.





			
				Kane said:
			
		

> A society run by males seems to have more violence and less sexual immoralities.
> Today, women have the same rights as men in every aspect in western civilization. If you have also noticed, sexual immoralities are much more common in todays world.


 If you are suggesting, and I believe that you are, that sexual immorality is resultant from the power of women, I think that this is something you need to rethink.  If that is not what you mean, you need to clarify this post haste. 





			
				Kane said:
			
		

> What this all means is that a worthy hypothesis can describe human life under both sexes. Society run by men is more violent. A society run by women has more sexual immoralities. So it really makes no difference if men or women had more rights or power than each other, because it would always balances out to either a more violent dangerous society or a sexually immoral society.
> 
> What do you think?


I think this was poorly thought out.  Immoralities was the wrong word to use.  You've drawn your conclusions from illogical reasoning.  Kane, we are not chimpanzees.  We have a host of various abilitites which influence our capacity for thought and reason, and are not subject to the whims of instinct.


----------



## Melissa426 (Sep 28, 2004)

Men are more prone to aggression.
Women are more prone to be nurturers.
This is a generalization, I admit.

Think about it from an anthropological evolutionary point of view.

For a male, his sole evolutionary goal is to spread his genetic material around as much as possible.  The number of offspring he can have is limited only by the number of females he can convince to have sex with him. Going to war and killing other males eliminates the competition for gene-spreading.

For females, her goal is to have the best possible support system for the relatively few (compared to men) offspring she can have in her lifetime.  While she may not intend to have sex with every man in the tribe, she wants the choice to pick the best potential mate to give her offspring the best chance at survival. Also, eliminating every male is disadvantageous, as well.
Who will be doing the hunting and heavy work that needs done while she is nurturing her children? Who will protect her and her children from physical threats, either animal or human?

We need men!  As much as some feminazis don't want to admit it, it is true.

Of course in a society like China, where there is a great deal of female infanticide,  and the male to female ratio is something like 60-40  (that may be an exaggeration),  there are also numerous social problems stemming from an out of balance situation.

OK, let me have it. I am ready for the flames.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 28, 2004)

Dan pretty well covered all I wanted to say except:  it takes two.  And, since we women are nurturers and caregivers, I don't think you can make a sweeping statement that we are the avatars of sexual immorality.  There are some - no, many - women who are faithful in their monogamous relationships (I'm married 29 years and just look -- always have) and who instill those mores in their children.  Also -- wasn't raping and pillaging part of overthrowing one's enemy?  That's having sex with your enemy, albeit not voluntary, isn't it?


Talk about immoral behavior...


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 28, 2004)

In this area, the Iroquouis or Hodonashonee (sp?'s) Native culture is a big deal.  Ancestry and everything, including politics is run through the matriachal line.... and they had some pretty tough and roudy warriors and burned, boiled, crushed skulls with the best of them....all under the rule, direction and guidance of the 'clan mothers' who chose the male leaders and even ran religious/medicine rituals and services.

I don't know so much if it is sex/violence thing or a female/male thing so much as a morallity/corruption thing because of motives for decision - sociopolitically or personally.  Do you make decisions because it is best for you only or do you decide/act on things that are thought out and promote the 'general welfare' so to speak.

I think the idea that women are the source of the 'sexual immorallities' is equivalent to saying that 'She made me want her, so I took her....' or the medieval 'Eve's fault' view of the genders in any situation.

Just using the term "sexual immorallities" suggests that bias.

Oriental and other cultures, pre-euro/judeo-christian contact had no hang ups about homo/hetero/multipl....practices, what would they consider "immoral" practices introduced because of the rising power of estrogen?  Maybe male fidellity would be considered an "immoral" sexual practice. Hubbie would have to give up the geisha/concubines.

Please.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 28, 2004)

This is one of those threads that literally makes me shake my head.  

The idea of "sexual immoralities" being because of "female leadership" has so many logical and intellectual gaps as to be really beneath discussion.

As for flames:



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> We need men! As much as some feminazis don't want to admit it, it is true.



Melissa, are you aware of the irony inherent using a quote in your sig file from Anais Nin, a pioneer in erotic writing and in feminist literature, while referring to feminists as "feminazis"?

While some feminists take positions that even I find excessive, comparing them to a genocidal fascist cult really strains any attempt at rational discourse.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

Well, I can see that I'm about to get yelled at again.

First off, if memory serves, bonobos are one of the types of apes that commit rape and carry out wars.

Second off--as was pointed out--we ain't apes. But a question--so is everybody who buys this kind of arguemnt also accepting of the theory of evolution?

Third--I love science fiction novels where The Women Rule The Planet. Looks like others do too--especially if they can somehow work a little bit of a bondage theme into it.

Fourth: feminazis. Lovey. Good to see that women know their place--which, it appears, is right behind Rush Limbaugh, who made up this endearing piece of men's propaganda. Yes, those unreasonable liberationists--we MUST do something about that damn Frederick Douglass. Three slaps with a copy of Mary Wollestonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Woman," written in 1798.

Fifth: for true comedy of blindness, one CANNOT top the assertions that women have equal rights in America and Europe. Yes, yes yes. Those damn feminists. Why, we've dropped the rape stats to 10-20% of the female population! We have safe houses available for the 5-10 million beaten women in this society!!! Women now earn almost two-thirds or even more of what a man earns for the same pay!! There are what--two-three women in the Senate!!! Must be fifteen or twenty in the House!!! Why--Sherry Lansing is a Big Wheel in Hollywood!! What DO these LESBIANS want!!!???

Males and females. What tripe. GERBILS are "males and females." PEOPLE are men and women, boys and girls.

Loved the ID of Anais Nin...who's OK to use, I guess, because she's all about sex. (Sure, right.)

Joanna Russ is not going to approve. Good for her.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 28, 2004)

Props to PM and Robertson, I second your emotions.

Below readers can find a number of mini-rants, or you can opt to skip this entirely.



> Today, women have the same rights as men in every aspect in western civilization.


Nope. Wrong. Sorry. For the vast majority of women in the US today, you are still economically considered a second-class citizen. You will, on average, make 3/4 of what a man does for the exact same job. Imagine how much money thatis over your lifetime. Just for being on the wrong team. And then Robertson mentioned all the domestic violence/rape problems. To this day, women are still often afraid of reporting rape, because they may not be believed, or it is implied that they "asked for it", somehow. 

Additionally, I find it fascinating that we have less violence now than "olden times" - now instead of hacking each other up with swords individually, we can send a bomb to wipe out half a city. No muss, no fuss. Hardly even violent. We are very lucky, also, in this country. I'm not sure many people in, say, Iraq today would say that life isn't violent. 

And HOLY S**T, can we please knock it off with the ridiculous "feminazi" comments? Like women don't have enough problems without turning on *each other* as the source of our problems. As like the concept that men and women should be equal under the law is the same as being a Nazi. Yes, yes that makes perfect sense when you put it *that* way.

Anyways.

Citing how genetically related we are to chimps implies that all this behavior is genetically-driven. I have not seen that demonstrated. Where are the biological factors? Because chimps do something does not demonstrate that *we* do it, nor does it demonstrate that because a relative does something, that we *should* do it. 

Comparing chimps (the common chimp, _Pan troglod_ytes) and the bonobo (the pygmy chimp, _Pan paniscus_) has become a popular funtime activity - people are disturbingly titillated by the idea that a species sometimes has sex among individuals when conflict occurs. This is not the only species in which this happens. There are other species (for example, bottlenose dolphins, _Tursiops truncatus)_ that not only commit rape, murder, social ostricization, use tools (amazingly), hunt alone or in packs, have wars, have friends, change friends or keep them for years, but also are pretty promiscuous (if you are a male, at least). 

Common chimps are also relatively promiscuous, but matings with non-dominant males are concealed from the dominant male and/or his "friends" or allies (if he has any, there is a lot of variation in that). 

It did intrigue anthropologists and animal behaviorists to discover what seemed to be going on in bonobo societies. But then we have these other, more distantly related cousins, like the gorilla, which in general are far more peaceful, or the orang-utan, a predominantly solitary animal that is still remarkably tender when they are social. We are still genetically related to them (although not as closely) - what does that mean?

I think it's an interesting idea, Kane, but making the leap from chimps to humans, and also asserting that we have more sexual promiscuity today (hello, 1/3 of all babies born in the Victorian era were born out of wedlock - sounds pretty dang promiscuous to me!) because women are somehow "dominant" (I have yet to see that!) in society, is too tenuous for me to follow.

ETA: I forgot - KT and Loki - excellent points too.  Props all around.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Fourth: feminazis. .


Not targetting you Mcrob, just pulled the reference for the content.

I think the original use was within the context of "a member of the militant wing of" or someone who is as fanatical about feminist ideals as any 'ism' can get, not necessarily a comment on feminism as a whole...

Reminds me of the "member of the militant wing of the salvation army" for Frau Fehrbissina from Austin Powers fame...


----------



## Melissa426 (Sep 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> This is one of those threads that literally makes me shake my head.
> 
> 
> Melissa, are you aware of the irony inherent using a quote in your sig file from Anais Nin, a pioneer in erotic writing and in feminist literature, while referring to feminists as "feminazis"?
> ...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Fifth: for true comedy of blindness, one CANNOT top the assertions that women have equal rights in America and Europe. Yes, yes yes. Those damn feminists. Why, we've dropped the rape stats to 10-20% of the female population! We have safe houses available for the 5-10 million beaten women in this society!!! Women now earn almost two-thirds or even more of what a man earns for the same pay!! There are what--two-three women in the Senate!!! Must be fifteen or twenty in the House!!! Why--Sherry Lansing is a Big Wheel in Hollywood!! What DO these LESBIANS want!!!???


The Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate based on a person's sex. This provides equal RIGHTS to women. Meaning that if a woman experiences any of the things you list, she has a legal right to seek vindication for it. 

Everything you've listed (the beaten women, the rates of rape, the unequal pay) are very unfortunate, obviously need to be addressed, and please don't understand me to be saying that they're excusable in any way. I don't think that they are. However, they are also examples of the culture not catching up with the legal standards; they don't show that women don't have the same rights. Any of the women who've been raped, or not paid fairly, or beaten, have the opportunity to try their case in a court of law, and get the jerk who did it to them thrown in jail. 

If you want to show that they don't have equal rights, then show a trend among judges to dismiss rape cases because "she obviously wanted it", or perhaps a leniency in sentencing for rape cases. Or perhaps some federal and/or state laws that make it ok to pay women less for the same amount of work. A woman getting beaten at home is an unjust action; what determines whether she has equal rights is whether its a crime according to the law. 

*Waits for the inevitable accusation of being a chauvenist Michael Savage follower, and probably some book slaps*


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 28, 2004)

> However, they are also examples of the culture not catching up with the legal standards


I think, however, that that is the idea behind the original argument - when women are dominant in a society, there is more promiscuity.  Culturally, we still need to "catch up" with the legal rules and ideals.  But while there is still disparity, how can it be argued that women are dominant (or fully equal) and therefore we have a bonobo-like society?

And Melissa, sorry, I didn't realize the sarcasm.


----------



## Melissa426 (Sep 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And Melissa, sorry, I didn't realize the sarcasm.


:asian: 
No apology necessary. 

Poor communication skills on my part are to blame.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 28, 2004)

No, no, no, it was MY fault.

*bends over*

Slap ME with the book mcrobertson.  Come on, I know you want to. :rofl:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think, however, that that is the idea behind the original argument - when women are dominant in a society, there is more promiscuity. Culturally, we still need to "catch up" with the legal rules and ideals. But while there is still disparity, how can it be argued that women are dominant (or fully equal) and therefore we have a bonobo-like society?


Oh, no disagreement there.  I realize that that **** still goes on, and have to shake my head in condescension at the people who think that women don't deserve to be paid the same for the same work.  I was just arguing that the rape statistics don't show that they don't have equal rights, and mentioning what would be better to show that they don't.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 28, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> The Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate based on a person's sex. This provides equal RIGHTS to women. Meaning that if a woman experiences any of the things you list, she has a legal right to seek vindication for it.
> 
> Everything you've listed (the beaten women, the rates of rape, the unequal pay) are very unfortunate, obviously need to be addressed, and please don't understand me to be saying that they're excusable in any way. I don't think that they are. However, they are also examples of the culture not catching up with the legal standards; they don't show that women don't have the same rights. Any of the women who've been raped, or not paid fairly, or beaten, have the opportunity to try their case in a court of law, and get the jerk who did it to them thrown in jail.
> 
> ...


 
We may all be 'equal' potentially on paper, but I think that we should recognize that there is inequity in practice (wages, expectations.....).


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 28, 2004)

> We may all be 'equal' potentially on paper, but I think that we should recognize that there is inequity in practice (wages, expectations.....).



See the above response to Feisty.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

Nope. But then, I ain't a bonobo.

In some cases, women have been granted equal LEGAL rights. In some cases they have not. But in any case, this scarcely means that women somehow magically acquired, "equal rights," de facto.

For one thing--as was mentioned--yes, it's an improvement that women can sue for gross violations of their rights. Mostly--despite the propaganda endlessly pumped out by Limbaugh et all--they do not, for very much the same reasons that many rapes and sexual assaults are not reported. Or did you guys miss the Bryant trial? Whatever the truth of it (which is that Bryant is an arrogant sleaze, at a minumum), the shocking thing is that that woman was treated pretty much exactly as most rape victims are treated in court; the only difference was, what with more money and more sports fans involved, we got to hear about it more.

The very title of this thread reveals the problem. It's the same old crappy binary opposition between Man as somehow, "normal," and Woman as Other that Simone De Beauvoir wrote about in 1947, a binary opposition that gets used--as it has been here--to ground all sorts of attacks on women and hallucinations about reality.

This is hardly full equality


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 28, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> I read somewhere that the term "feminazi" was originally used by Rush Limbaugh to refer to women who wanted to get rid of a group of people (in Rush's original example, it was unborn fetuses)


 A ridiculous notion, since there are no women who want to "get rid of unborn fetuses".



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> ...and then expanded by some to include women who felt men weren't needed at all in society, now that we have sperm banks.


 Again, a nonexistent group.  But for mental midgets like Rush Limbaugh, the straw-woman will always be an easier target, since they don't fight back.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, "Herland."

Joanna Russ, "The Female Man."

Joan Sloniczewski, "A Door Into Ocean."

Ursula K. Le Guin, "The Left Hand of Darkness."

"James Tiptree," The Women Men Don't See," and "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?"

Sometimes, when I hear the mean-spirited dumbassery from the likes of Limbaugh (even conceding the mean-spirited dumbassery from Camille Paglia and Andrea Dworkin), I go for the whole speam-bank theory.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

These stats are a little outdated:
(as of 2002)

WOMEN IN POLITICS: A look at various public offices 
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/wchart29_20021029.htm

October 29, 2002

Seats held by women 2002 
U.S. Senate: 13 (13 percent) 

U.S. House: 60 (13.8 percent) 

State executives: 89 (27.7 percent) 

State senates: 404 (20 percent) 

State houses: 1,276 (24 percent) 

[nb]U.S. Senate in 2002: [/b]
A record 13 (10 Democrats, 3 Republicans) women serve in the U.S. Senate, including Debbie Stabenow, a Lansing Democrat. 
11 women (8 Democrats, 3 Republicans) are running in 9 states in next week's elections. Three are incumbents. 

*U.S. House in 2002: *
Women hold 60 seats, including Michigan Democrats Lynn Rivers of Ann Arbor (who lost her primary election against incumbent John Dingell) and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit. 

In 435 House elections, 124 women (78 Democrats, 45 Republicans) are running. 
*Female governors 2002: *
Jane Dee Hull (R-Ariz.) 
Judy Martz (R-Mont.) 
Ruth Ann Minner (D-Del.) 
Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) 
Jane Swift (R-Mass.) 

==========

A comparison to a few other countries: 

Canada: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=CA
Number of Women in Lower House:
 Election Year: 2004 
 Number of Women Elected: 65 of 308 , 21.1% 

Number of Women in Upper House:
 Election Year: 2000
 Number of Women Elected: 34 of 105, 32.4%

United Kingdom: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=GB 
Number of Women in Lower House:
 Election Year: 2001
 Number of Women Elected: 118 of 659 , 17.9% 

Number of Women in Upper House:
 Election Year: 2001
 Number of Women Elected: 117 of 713, 16.4%

Australia: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=AU
Number of Women in Lower House:
 Election Year: 2001
 Number of Women Elected: 38 of 150 , 25.3% 

Number of Women in Upper House:
 Election Year: 2001
 Number of Women Elected: 22 of 76, 29.0%

Sweden: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=SE
Number of Women in Lower House:
 Election Year: 2002
 Number of Women Elected: 157 of 349 , 45.0% 

More info here: http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/statistics.htm

=====

Tons of stats: UNECE - Gender Statistics Website for Europe & North America
http://www.unece.org/stats/gender/web/

=====

GenderGap website: http://www.gendergap.com

=====

US Census information: http://www.census.gov/population/www/index.html

=====
RACE
Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 100.0
One race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274,595,678 97.6
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,460,626 75.1
Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,658,190 12.3
American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,475,956 0.9
Asian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,242,998 3.6
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . 398,835 0.1
Some other race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,359,073 5.5
Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,228 2.4

HISPANIC OR LATINO
Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 100.0
Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,305,818 12.5


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

So, in other words, the point that women--for all their advances--remain very much in the minority with regard to power in this country was absolutely correct.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

US Census information on Male/Female ratios, broken down by race
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t11/tab01.txt


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

We divide things into male/female white/black white/nonwhite etc.
What i'm looking for here is the more accurate breakdown.
The comparison of genders and races accordingly.

Of more importance, is the question "WHY?"
Given that women are 51% of our society in the US, why is only 13-30% of our elected leaders female?  Is it because they've been 'kept down' as some will suggest?
Is it because of problems with the existing system that heavily favors established incumbents over newcomers? Or, do they simply not run for any of several reasons?

If they aren't running, why not?
If they are, and are losing, why are they?

Legally, they are equal. It is the implimentation of that 'equality' that is lacking, IMHO.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> We divide things into male/female white/black white/nonwhite etc.
> What i'm looking for here is the more accurate breakdown.
> The comparison of genders and races accordingly.
> 
> ...


I think that it is a matter of 'sociopolitical evolution' so to speak ( I don't know if that is even a legitimate phrase, but it works for what I mean here). Women, in the USA at least, are late comers to the 'power party' and don't have the long history of networking and weren't part of establishing the 'standards' (read the unspoken ones, not the 'equal/legal' ones) that make up the 'secret of my success' in the puzzle palaces of corporate, political or any other institutional structure in America. Even in education, where teaching use to be considered 'women's work' because they had that 'mothering instinct', administrators and deans/board leaders were traditionally men.

Same for minorities based on ethnicity or color or what ever. African Americans/Blacks didn't really get legally recognized until fairly late in the game and had/have an uphill battle of preconcieved notions (both internal and external) to overcome.  Same during the industrial revolution, potato famine...or any major influx of a 'group' into American culture (whether 'in' geographically or socially or both).  The Western Euro types that made of the earliest influx set the standard and didn't want to let in the slavs, italians, irish, polish, baltic region types..... because it threatened their 'way of life.'  So we end up with all the fun 'phrases' for these ethnicities, colors, genders, religions that either came with the influx or were created because of fear/threatened feelings by those who were here 'first.'

In each case, progress is there, but it is extremely unfair to compare their progress to that of the 'type' that the founding fathers had in mind when they structured the foundation of constitution.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 28, 2004)

Although I think there are a host of reasons why there isn't 50/50 power in our government (I've met a number of misogynists who truly seem to think women are inferior, for example) (what their mothers think of them I have no idea), one solid reason is the problem of personal and private lives.

It is still a serious challenge for a woman to try and have/raise a family, and pour her energies into a career, especially something as all-encompassing, time-consuming, and image-related as politics.  Most families still are based on the Mom-as-caretaker model.  I'm not saying it's bad for moms to be caretakers, but if I am considered the primary person in charge of taking care of the kids, and my spouse also has a job, that limits my time and energy.  

I have witnessed more male professors tell me why women don't get ahead in academics, and why I shouldn't have kids because it would ruin my career, and how they are often surprised at how much time and energy child care actually takes, because their wives just took care of the family while they had the time to immerse themselves in their own piece of esoterica.

So, I think a tiny bit of it is still expectations and division of labor in homes.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> It is still a serious challenge for a woman to try and have/raise a family, and pour her energies into a career, especially something as all-encompassing, time-consuming, and image-related as politics. Most families still are based on the Mom-as-caretaker model. I'm not saying it's bad for moms to be caretakers, but if I am considered the primary person in charge of taking care of the kids, and my spouse also has a job, that limits my time and energy.
> 
> .


Ahhhhh the "suppose to" thing.  Yup.  Though harder to measure because it isn't like measuring income levels, populations or participation is the "Mr. Mom" factor that has changed too.

My son's mom and I don't live together but he lives with me.  I love being a Dad and always wanted to have him live with me once I was done with my degree and had a 'real job.'  Well now it is so.

Last summer I sent him out to his Mom's by plane and all the other 'two family' people were watching their children leave.  I was the only guy and listened to all the 'his father this..' comments or 'her dad that...' comments.  You should have seen the looks when I could contribute with the "Yeah, his mom ...." all because it was "suppose to" be that the father was the 'other parent.'  It was funny to watch them start to realize that the things they were talking about (basically the readjustment when the kids return, the 'disney dad' syndrome so to speak) wasn't so much about gender as much as it was about 'roles.'  In a kid's mind the 'other parent' is always the ideal because they get to fantasize about what it would be like there.  The 'roles' would flip if the set up was the other way around.  I sort of forced that issue just by being there...

I love watching people buck the "suppose to" stuff.  Keep drivin' on.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 28, 2004)

Props to you, loki!  I'm glad you "represented" with the moms.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 28, 2004)

You guys constantly amaze me.  Forget the stats, which, by-the-by, I love seeing from you, Kaith.  Forget the literary citations from Robertson and Paul (!).  Forget Peach with his stir-the-pot statements (I'm still puzzled by your statement about no women want to get rid of unborn fetuses - explanation or amplification would be appreciated).  Random for being, well, random...

You are all feminists.  Yes.  You.  The Testosterone Tribe.  Your moms should be very very proud of you.  Evolved males -- what a concept!

*big tiger hugs to you all*

(Oh.  Rape statistics will always be invalid because most women have been socialized to feel shame and guilt, regardless of the fact that they did _not_ "ask for it".  Nothing more humiliating than being put on trial yourself, as Robertson pointed out re: the Kobe Bryant circus.)


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 28, 2004)

kt, I think what PM meant (although please jump in, PM), is that no group of women hates unborn children and is trying to get rid of all of them.  (Unlike pro-life or pro-choice groups.)  I don't know of a group of women activists who hate fetuses and are trying to get rid of them.


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 28, 2004)

Ok, to say the statement that is the title of this thread is a little misinformed. We really can't say that a world run by women would be more peaceful. We also can't say that a world run by women would be the same, or more warlike. Yes, it might be true that women never started wars. However, that's a very moot point. Regrettably, despite advances in women's rights, women tend to be the minority of our society. Most of the governing is done by men. There are few countries that have women in their highest governing office (if any, there are none to my knowledge). Who's to say that if women were in the higher governing offices, they wouldn't cause war? We won't know, until the day comes that everyone can be considered truly equal.


----------



## bignick (Sep 28, 2004)

alright...the important thing people are missing here is...if sex is so prevalent when women are in charge.......why aren't we putting them in charge?

:uhyeah:


----------



## Kane (Sep 28, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> alright...the important thing people are missing here is...if sex is so prevalent when women are in charge.......why aren't we putting them in charge?
> 
> :uhyeah:



Good Question!  I think its time for women to take charge so we can have sex with our enemies instead of killing them like bononbos . Seriously though, that is exactly what bonobos do when having a despute. I am tired of having a chimp-like society where we have to kill each other. :snipe2:


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> kt, I think what PM meant (although please jump in, PM), is that no group of women hates unborn children and is trying to get rid of all of them.  (Unlike pro-life or pro-choice groups.)



KT, Feisty summarized my point exactly.  No group advocates the destruction of fetuses for its own sake.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 28, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> There are few countries that have women in their highest governing office (if any, there are none to my knowledge). Who's to say that if women were in the higher governing offices, they wouldn't cause war? We won't know, until the day comes that everyone can be considered truly equal.


There have been a few:  Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir.  Only one who might remotely have been considered warlike is Mrs. Meir, and that is a case of inheriting some one else's policies (like Clinton).


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 28, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> If you want to show that they don't have equal rights, then show a trend among judges to dismiss rape cases because "she obviously wanted it", or perhaps a leniency in sentencing for rape cases.


KOBE BRYANT

The only case I'm aware of where the sexual history of the victim was admissable--which made it intolerable to the victim, who withdrew her case.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 28, 2004)

Wow, sounds like the judge was being the ultimate jerk in allowing that as evidence. Her withdrawing the case because of that is unfortunate; I'd have liked to see the judge get told through the appeals process, but that would be long and costly.  I hope stuff like that isn't the norm.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 28, 2004)

I started a new thread to discuss the Kobe Bryant thing.  For now, I'll simply say that it's an oversimplification to *simply* say that the judge allowed evidence of the accuser's sexual history.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

MARGARET THATCHER and INDIRA GHANDHI weren't aggressive and "warlike," in any way?

Say what?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> MARGARET THATCHER and INDIRA GHANDHI weren't aggressive and "warlike," in any way?
> 
> Say what?


My dear Robertson,
To my way of thinking, no, not warlike.  When's the last time India invaded a _major_ power's territory?  Aggressive?  Surely, since one of the qualities of a leader, in my opionion, is to be aggressive, thus taking the lead...  Or are you saying that they were aggressive in a negative sense, since they're women...
*tiger claws scratch the earth slowly and methodically*


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> To my way of thinking, no, not warlike.



So was England's conflict with Argentina over the Falkland Islands not a war?

When Indira Ghandi won a war with Pakistan in 1971, did that not somehow not count as a war?  Is Pakistan not *major* enough of a country for the war to really matter?

When she was caught manipulating election results, was ordered to vacate her seat as Prime Minister, and instead declared a State of Emergency and created a dictatorship, imprisoning political foes, censored the press, and placed the nation under the rule of her eldest son Sanjay, was that somehow justified?  Was that simply "taking the lead", as you say?

When she responded to Sikh separatists by nearly destroying their holiest shrine and massacring its occupants, was that a sign of sweetness and love?

Indira Gandhi desecrated the memory of her father, Jawaharlal Nehru and did near-irreparable harm to India's democratic processes.  

None of this means women as a gender are not capable of providing lawful, peaceful leadership, mind you.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 29, 2004)

Peach,

Look at what you cited - and how long ago.  And, no, I don't deem Pakistan a *major* power, which is precisely why I said what I did.  I'm talking about conflicts which include, willingly or not, every major power in the world - like the Iraqi war - or a potential WWIII, should that ever occur.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 29, 2004)

Thanks for the backup I was too lazy to provide...

And as for the assertion that, "aggression," is essential to leadership, well, I'd say either, a) what a guy's argument, or b) then I look forward to the day that we get rid of the disease of, "leadership," in the way we normally conceive of it. 

I've seen enough phony, "educational leadership," thanks. It always boils down to the same same: bullying by some fool who's got a little power for some reason that has nothing at all to do with their brains, record or plans, bullying which draws on crackpot notions about human nature, culture, and history.

These are the clowns who stuck us with, "Mission Statements," and "Vision Statements," and I'll bet it's pretty much the same in the government....and a lot of business, for that matter.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 29, 2004)

For at least one researcher who is doing excellent work with chimpanzees (common chimps) and cognition, you may want to check out  Dr. Sally Boysen's site

http://chimpcenter.osu.edu/default.htm

She doesn't have research article links, but I will try to find any that might be free online.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Look at what you cited - and how long ago.  And, no, I don't deem Pakistan a *major* power, which is precisely why I said what I did.



KT, I have to admit I don't understand what you're talking about.  Maybe you can help me out.

First, you mentioned that you didn't consider Thatcher and Indira Ghandi to be warlike.  Robert contested -- you claimed that they weren't warlike to your way of thinking.

The facts and wars that I cited happened *during their terms of power*.  That's how "long ago" they took place.  In what other way is the time since they occurred relevant?



			
				Kenpo Tiger said:
			
		

> I'm talking about conflicts which include, willingly or not, every major power in the world - like the Iraqi war - or a potential WWIII, should that ever occur.



I think I understand your reasoning, although I find it incredibly flawed.  

Why does it not make someone warlike to invade Pakistan?  Are the lives of Indian and Pakistani soldiers and civilians not important unless they take part in some kind of global conflict?  

Why is it not warlike to massacre members of a religious sect you aren't a member of?  

Why is it not warlike to defend your claims to a far-off island by effectively destroying Argentina's navy and expelling Argentine soldiers with your military?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> You are all feminists. Yes. You. The Testosterone Tribe. Your moms should be very very proud of you. Evolved males -- what a concept!


Um, thanks for what I think is a compliment, but I have to seriously ask: Huh?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Thanks for the backup I was too lazy to provide...
> 
> And as for the assertion that, "aggression," is essential to leadership, well, I'd say either, a) what a guy's argument, or b) then I look forward to the day that we get rid of the disease of, "leadership," in the way we normally conceive of it.


Show me one leader who is _completely_ non-aggressive and I will gladly concede the point to you.  I have a feeling that you agree more with your latter statement here.  As to it being a 'guy's' argument, well, I'm not in a position to provide first-hand information...  so I'll take your word for it for now.

Upthread there was discussion about the aggressive males and females in the chimp tribes, wasn't there?  (Gotcha.)


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And as for the assertion that, "aggression," is essential to leadership, well, I'd say either, a) what a guy's argument, or b) then I look forward to the day that we get rid of the disease of, "leadership," in the way we normally conceive of it.



Agreed.  This is another part of the military and sports mindset that seems to have taken over (at least) American management philosophy.

The best managers I've ever worked for were not at all "aggressive".  They led by example -- they worked hard, cared about the people they managed and their customers, had good senses of humor, earned the trust of their employees and trusted their employees in turn.

It would seem that for all the lip service we give to the TQM philosophies of Deming, it's really just that -- lip service.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that experienced martial artists participate in this common delusion -- the arts we practice help to teach us about the appropriateness of agression and passivity, in balance.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 29, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Um, thanks for what I think is a compliment, but I have to seriously ask: Huh?


Random, it was meant as complimentary.  If you don't understand why, well, you _are_ a guy...  women regard different traits as desirable.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> KT, I have to admit I don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe you can help me out.
> 
> First, you mentioned that you didn't consider Thatcher and Indira Ghandi to be warlike. Robert contested -- you claimed that they weren't warlike to your way of thinking.
> 
> ...


Of course all life is precious.  I think the point is to ask yourself how many female lead dictators/imperialists...totalitarians can you remember from history that pulled some kind of major 'domination campaign' or serious genocide?

Personally I can't think of a one, but I am only an amatuer at this game.  AND personally I don't think it is a point of gender (though I would say that the process that M and W apply will be different) as much as intent and motives.

If your selfish and greedy, or fantatical and convinced that your cause is just and absolves you of any immorallity in accomplishing your goals, then you are going to be capable of serious violence and corrupt acts - at least corrupt by a western historical perspective.

Sun Tzu supposedly killed a Concubine in the process of winning a bet with a nobleman who gambled on the idea that Sun Tzu couldn't train a group of concubines into a fighting unit....pretty 'immoral' to me, but within the context of the time and culture, not as bad as I would see it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Agreed. This is another part of the military and sports mindset that seems to have taken over (at least) American management philosophy.
> 
> The best managers I've ever worked for were not at all "aggressive". They led by example -- they worked hard, cared about the people they managed and their customers, had good senses of humor, earned the trust of their employees and trusted their employees in turn.


And how did they get to that position of leadership?  Hard work - long hours - isn't that being aggressive?  And, I do agree that the mindset Robertson described is part of the *military/sport mindset* to which you refer.  That's why so few women are managers - we are competitive, but our playing field, as it were, is far smaller because we are limited as to where we can go vis-a-vis where the deals are struck (men's clubs of all types) as well as not being included in "the old boy" network.  Try, as a woman, to break into one of the above, and you're labelled.  Look at Hillary Clinton, for example.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Of course all life is precious. I think the point is to ask yourself how many female lead dictators/imperialists...totalitarians can you remember from history that pulled some kind of major 'domination campaign' or serious genocide?
> 
> Personally I can't think of a one, but I am only an amatuer at this game. AND personally I don't think it is a point of gender (though I would say that the process that M and W apply will be different) as much as intent and motives.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Paul.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> And how did they get to that position of leadership?  Hard work - long hours - isn't that being aggressive?



I disagree.  "Aggression" and "ambition" are two different things (although they often go hand-in-hand in our society these days).

Let's keep in mind that the word "aggression" literally means initiating hostilities or attacks, or behaving in a hostile or destructive fashion.

You *can* work hard, get ahead, and do well without attacking others or their works.  The greatest leaders, in fact, are those who grow and "move up" without tearing others down.



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> That's why so few women are managers - we are competitive, but our playing field, as it were, is far smaller because we are limited as to where we can go vis-a-vis where the deals are struck (men's clubs of all types) as well as not being included in "the old boy" network.  Try, as a woman, to break into one of the above, and you're labelled.  Look at Hillary Clinton, for example.



In my field, there are actually quite a few female managers, and the number is growing.  I certainly wouldn't say equality has been achieved, however.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Try, as a woman, to break into one of the above, and you're labelled. Look at Hillary Clinton, for example.


Though not a Billary fan, I can respect the struggle of being a woman in a male dominated game and how, honestly, being percieved as a cast iron...well you know, might be the only way to 'break even' in that game.  Fair?  Not really.  I think the phrase is something like 'having to be twice as good just be seen as equal' or something like that.

Let's flip this around a bit:

Do men make poorer stay at home parents just because they are men?  Do men make 'better' doctors because they are men, or do women because they are 'natural nurturers'.... come on.  This logic, whether at an individual level or sociological level of study is so full of holes it isn't even funny.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Of course all life is precious.  I think the point is to ask yourself how many female lead dictators/imperialists...totalitarians can you remember from history that pulled some kind of major 'domination campaign' or serious genocide?



I don't fully disagree.

The point I was debating, specifically, was whether Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi could be termed as having been "warlike" leaders.  

I still assert that one does not have to murder millions or plunge the planet into catastophic global warfare in order to have behaved in a warlike fashion.

Moreover, Indira Ghandi's practices towards Sikhs and Moslems bordered on the genocidal.

I'm also not convinced that, had society provided more equality and more opportunities for female leadership during social, economic, and political situations that led to widespread warfare and genocide, that there would not have been female leaders as totalitarian, genocidal, and just plain insane as the male ones.  

As an example, I will bring you back to the discussion of male vs female management, and "aggression".  I have worked for both men and women, and with both genders, I have seen calm, ideal leaders as well as manipulative, aggressive, micromanaging, cuthroat leaders.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I disagree. "Aggression" and "ambition" are two different things (although they often go hand-in-hand in our society these days).
> 
> Let's keep in mind that the word "aggression" literally means initiating hostilities or attacks, or behaving in a hostile or destructive fashion.
> 
> ...


 
Agressive can either be an adjective or a verb.  I think that in this case it is being used as an adjective, which only serves to describe the way that people would work hard.  I am pretty sure that the Hillary Clinton example could be describe as 'agressively pursuing her career goals.' without it having to mean physical hostility.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> As an example, I will bring you back to the discussion of male vs female management, and "aggression". I have worked for both men and women, and with both genders, I have seen calm, ideal leaders as well as manipulative, aggressive, micromanaging, cuthroat leaders.


And there may be 'trends' that could be indicative of nature (being 'a man') or culture/upbringing (gender roles/trained behavior...) or a combination of both, so I think on the idea that it is a 'woman thing' or a 'man thing' we agree that it isn't just because of gender.

I have had agressive, positive and productive bosses both male and female.

I have had agressive, manipulative and unproductive bosse from either gender.

I have had passive, laid back bosses...

In otherwords, 'gender' isn't the only or in most cases the major indicator of what kind of leadership will be in place.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 29, 2004)

No, not gotcha with the bonobos. Faux biology/ethnology summoned up to support patriarchal ideology is not the sort of stuff I consider convincing evidence.

But beware of TQM. What I've read is more...let's just say stuff, and anyway, wasn't this developed to manage Blue and Gold crews on navy missile subs?

I go for it when they give English teachers control of Trident IIIs.

Again, though, claiming that Thatcher and Ghandi weren't hyper-aggressive can only be supported if you ignore what everybody who ever worked with them had to say.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again, though, claiming that Thatcher and Ghandi weren't hyper-aggressive can only be supported if you ignore what everybody who ever worked with them had to say.



It also helps if you ignore virtually all of their political and military policies and actions.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> No, not gotcha with the bonobos. Faux biology/ethnology summoned up to support patriarchal ideology is not the sort of stuff I consider convincing evidence.
> 
> But beware of TQM. What I've read is more...let's just say stuff, and anyway, wasn't this developed to manage Blue and Gold crews on navy missile subs?
> 
> ...


Obviously, TQM stuff has been repackaged in order to be applicable to business models.  I remember the 'touchy feely shift' in NCO leadership training from when I first joined the USMC and when I went through ARMY NCO academy years later.  It was exactly the same idea as what I was getting in TQM at work (Security Coordinator for an industrial/corporate site at the time) just reworded to fit the 'corporate culture.'

Women or men are equally capable of being a sinner or saint - gender aint the deciding factor.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 29, 2004)

My point would actually be that far from being touchy-feely or liberal in any sense, TQM is at its root a particular adaptation of Frederick Jackson Taylor's business management principles to military purposes, and a subsequent grafting of military ideology back into business.

This hardly reassures me.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> My point would actually be that far from being touchy-feely or liberal in any sense, TQM is at its root a particular adaptation of Frederick Jackson Taylor's business management principles to military purposes, and a subsequent grafting of military ideology back into business.



None of this discussion of the history of TQM is accurate.

I'll take the discussion into a new thread.


----------

