Matriarchal Societies in History

[C T]

Members of armed police forces are duty-bound to discharge their weapons when circumstances call for such an action. Shoot to kill is entirely discretionary, but this is also something that has unfortunately been subject to abuse of late. In cases where shoot to kill has become unavoidable, one questions the necessity for armed police personnel discharging their weapons en masse, often at only one perpetrator (at a time). This brings up the question of the degree of clarity maintained during such exchanges. I have personal experience of such situations, and in hindsight, can say that no amount of training can prepare a cop to avoid panic when it gets real. Similar scenario for crew members in a distressed air-born or sea-faring craft. The mind finds it hard to stack up all the variables that is suddenly present in cases of emergencies. 

 

(sorry off-topic`0)

[Apech]

34 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I have to make at least one post in this thread:

 

Long live the Amazons!

 

 

 

It is rumoured that they have cornered the market in online booksales.

[Chang]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

Ok well watch this vid then:

 

 

 

I am afraid that I am unconvinced Apech but if it comforts you to think that so few men are capable of taking another mans life then so be it.

 

Let us consider for a moment recent events involving Muslim terrorists where Ghazi's have been shot dead by law enforcement Officers. I suppose we should be thankful that Policemen fall into the 1% psychopath bracket? You are very good at quoting lies, damn lies and statistics but I would like to see you using a bit of common sense for a change.

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

You could equally say 79% of men are the victims of homicide. 

 

Victims of homicide are often participants, not always innocent bystanders...

 

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Men are on average developed through evolution to be bigger and stronger than women -

Do you think size and strength are determining factors for expressing violence?

They are potentially useful characteristics, but deterministic?

Are larger, stronger women (men) more likely to be violent than smaller women (men), for example?

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

and are more likely to be recruited into gangs, more likely to serve their country in war - and suffer from PTSD etc. - and so on. 

Who is doing the recruiting and initiating the conflict? Male or female?

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

This suggests to me that men are more likely to be  manipulated into violence than women. 

For sure they are more often in a position to be subjected to such manipulation in most societies.

How often do they volunteer vs become victims of manipulation?

 

I don't mean to imply an answer to any of these questions but they are worth considering if we are interested in this topic.

 

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

But even then it is pushing it a bit to suggest that men have a 'propensity' for violence - or even that women haven't.   

I disagree with this point.

I think crime statistics show very clearly that men are more prone to violent behavior than women.

I'm not saying it is solely due to an inherent 'defect' or trait or even genetics.

I suspect it is multi-factorial - genetics, cultural, societal, etc...

 

It would be very interesting to have an opportunity to live in a world, particularly a technologically advanced society, with predominately female leadership and see if there are significant differences.  I personally agree with the Dalai Lama on this topic but I could certainly be wrong. I doubt it will ever happen in my lifetime so this is just an empty thought. 

 

 

It is interesting that in Bön and Buddhism, compassion is generally represented by the male deity while the female deity represents wisdom. I have a friend who is a shaman in Mexico. We once had a very interesting conversation about this point, to which he also subscribed, from his shamanic perspective.

 

The whole question of the nature of gender differences is an interesting one to me and it doesn't necessarily have to be judgmental. In terms of survival, there is certainly a normal and necessary component of violent behavior, particularly among hunter gatherers. In "civilized," agrarian society, I would suggest that it is far less necessary but far more prominent, at least on a larger and more destructive scale. There are many human characteristics which were valuable from an evolutionary biological perspective but become maladapted and dysfunctional in more technologically advanced society. This tendency towards violence seems to be one of them. I'm currently reading a book that I received as a gift that discusses Buddhism from the perspective of evolutionary biology. It's very interesting and well written.

 

 

 

Just some random musings...

[doc benway]

38 minutes ago, Apech said:

It is rumoured that they have cornered the market in online booksales.

 

And just about everything else!

[rene]

20 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

I am afraid that I am unconvinced Apech but if it comforts you to think that so few men are capable of taking another mans life then so be it.

 

Let us consider for a moment recent events involving Muslim terrorists where Ghazi's have been shot dead by law enforcement Officers. I suppose we should be thankful that Policemen fall into the 1% psychopath bracket? You are very good at quoting lies, damn lies and statistics but I would like to see you using a bit of common sense for a change.

 

Maybe a little common sense is in order here, too. And a round of 'keeping things in perspective' as well, for everybody.

 

From Steve's link:

Quote

The global male homicide rate is almost four times that of females (9.7 versus 2.7 per 100,000) and is highest in the Americas (29.3 per 100,000 males), where it is nearly...

 

29.3 per 100,000. Let's call it 30.

That means 99,970 out of 100,000 males did not murder someone.

 

Not everything is hell in a handbasket.

 

 

 

[doc benway]

6 minutes ago, rene said:

 

Maybe a little common sense is in order here, too. And a round of 'keeping things in perspective' as well, for everybody.

 

From Steve's link:

 

29.3 per 100,000. Let's call it 30.

That means 99,970 out of 100,000 males did not murder someone.

 

Not everything is hell in a handbasket.

 

Thank you for emphasizing that important point, Rene, which supports both Apech's position and my own.

Men appear to be far more prone to violent behavior than women, but it remains a small percentage of all men who are engaged in violence. 

[Apech]

10 minutes ago, rene said:

 

Maybe a little common sense is in order here, too. And a round of 'keeping things in perspective' as well, for everybody.

 

From Steve's link:

 

29.3 per 100,000. Let's call it 30.

That means 99,970 out of 100,000 males did not murder someone.

 

Not everything is hell in a handbasket.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes and that is the worst case scenario - globally it would be 9.7 per 100,000 which is is less than 0.01 % so small in fact that it can hardly be called a propensity or even a characteristic of men.

 

 

[Chang]

41 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Yes and that is the worst case scenario - globally it would be 9.7 per 100,000 which is is less than 0.01 % so small in fact that it can hardly be called a propensity or even a characteristic of men.

 

 

 

Whilst you obviously have your supporters in Rene and Steve I feel that I must point out that strength in numbers in no way relates to justness of cause.

 

At no point have I suggested that violence is a characteristic of men.

 

What I have attempted to state is that should violence be necessary then it is not a great leap or even a small step for men to take to become violent.

 

By all means continue to view the world through rose tinted glasses and believe that men are innocent and good at heart. My own view is that men are neither good nor bad but will be what life makes it necessary for them to be.

 

I can really say no more on this subject nor is it necessary for me to do so. Be thankful that at the moment you still bask in a matriarchal western society whose cloying weakness has produced weak men. That state of affairs is not likely to last and is already beginning to change.

 

 

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

Whilst you obviously have your supporters in Rene and Steve I feel that I must point out that strength in numbers in no way relates to justness of cause.

 

At no point have I suggested that violence is a characteristic of men.

 

What I have attempted to state is that should violence be necessary then it is not a great leap or even a small step for men to take to become violent.

 

By all means continue to view the world through rose tinted glasses and believe that men are innocent and good at heart. My own view is that men are neither good nor bad but will be what life makes it necessary for them to be.

 

I can really say no more on this subject nor is it necessary for me to do so. Be thankful that at the moment you still bask in a matriarchal western society whose cloying weakness has produced weak men. That state of affairs is not likely to last and is already beginning to change.

 

 

 

 

Do you read threads before posting?  I was questioning something Steve said - and I would add he and Rene are not in any sense my 'supporters'.  I was not addressing anything you said previously or any of your views because I couldn't see any serious points you had made worthy of debate.  Just thought I'd make this clear.

 

 

[Chang]

15 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Do you read threads before posting?  I was questioning something Steve said - and I would add he and Rene are not in any sense my 'supporters'.  I was not addressing anything you said previously or any of your views because I couldn't see any serious points you had made worthy of debate.  Just thought I'd make this clear.

 

 

 

Yes I do peruse the thread before posting and i was not so much replying to anything in particular but simply musing on the innocence of my fellows. I am sorry if I wrongly associated you with rene and steve, though they do seem to share your sense of innocence in this matter.

 

So as to cause no further offence I shall desist from posting in this thread and leave you free to ramble on with your fellow peaceniks without interference.

 

 

[thelerner]

Imo potential for violence runs on a spectrum in both sexes, but men being awash in testosterone, are clearly getting a boost in that direction.  Add to that cultural mores and men are clearly and statistically much more violent then woman.

 

A world without violence sounds good, but strangely, sometimes those selling it, are psychopaths (see cults & communism).  Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully someday in the future I clearly will be, but without strength and the ability for violence an organism is in grave danger of extinction, sooner or later.   Shades of Robert Heinlein quote 'A second rate military is very expensive thing' (not exact). 

 

I like the many of the Miyzaka anime that explore and celebrate gentler heroes.  see https://myanimelist.net/featured/945/Top_27_Best_Hayao_Miyazaki_Anime_Movies_Updated

Especially Spirited Away, Nausicaa.., Howls Moving Castle.. almost all his work, a type genteel heroism of inner strenght and pure virtue not seen in Western ethos.   Yet even they fight, when they must. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by thelerner

[doc benway]

6 hours ago, Chang said:

 

Whilst you obviously have your supporters in Rene and Steve I feel that I must point out that strength in numbers in no way relates to justness of cause.

 

 

Interesting comment given that Apech and I are mostly in disagreement in this thread.

 

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, rene said:

(my bold)

 

That may be true, yes. Part of the reason might also be that we're the ones who have to clean up the friggin mess that violence always brings. Violence, for it's own sake, is unnecessary. Doing what needs to be done, and all that that implies, is part of every woman's nature. Watch a mother protect her children.  ....

 

Indeed !

 

I saw a Commander of the Woman's Peshawar Forces interviewed 

 

 

 

 

She seemed nice, kind, considerate, even when  talking political matters, Kurdish 'nationality', etc ...   ' motherly even' .... then she turned her other side  and revealed what makes her a fearsome soldier to IS . It was when she stated her mission objective ;  to protect villagers woman and children from IS crimes and rape.  She totally changed and said  "I have something for them ."  and pulled out  a huge machine pistol from her belt   .

 

 

 

[rene]

We do what needs to be done. Don't ever doubt that.

[Mudfoot]

8 hours ago, thelerner said:

, but without strength and the ability for violence an organism is in grave danger of extinction, sooner or later.  

Add aggression to violence  that is, add social aggressive acts, and women will come up to the same level of aggression as men. 

Most seems to be cultural, in most cultures female violence is frowned at, and males tend to be stronger, so females must accomplish their ends with another means. 

 

And as a footnote, if anyone cares, usually it takes the combination of high testosterone and low serotonine to get the profile of a violent inmate, whether male or female. 

 

And when people in uniform kill, it's not homocide, so it doesn’t make the statistics. 

 

Maybe a matriarcal society would have less physical violence, but would it have less social aggression? 

[Nungali]

Edited October 19, 2017 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

Keep her imprisoned.