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

[Kane]

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]

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]

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

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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 troglodytes) 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]

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]

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"?

QUOTE]

Next time, I'll remember to put quotes around when when I am making sarcastic references. It's hard to convey sarcasm in writing. I realize the way it sounds in my head isn't the way it comes across on a post that I type.


As someone who has been erroneously referred to as a feminazi, let me say for the record, I do not believe that all feminists are feminazis. Nor are all Right wing Christians fanatical, or all Muslims radical extremists, or all New York Yankee fans rabid (well, OK, maybe that last one... )



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

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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]

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

:asian:
No apology necessary.

Poor communication skills on my part are to blame.

 

[Flatlander]

No, no, no, it was MY fault.

*bends over*

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

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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*

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

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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]

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".

...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.