|
Warfare is only an invention... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zenchowdah
i think you're naive. |
Well it was only conjecture. I did say that, did I not?
Maybe you could enlighten us as to how the state of the world would be if humanity was reduced to one gender, seeing as how you are so obviously blessed with this grand foresight.
However, I do ask you to keep in mind that, last I checked, the world of jellyfish was completely and utterly without conflict or war. |
|
|
| venomX |
| The mere suggestion of males being the only humans capable of organized killing, and not females lets you know that this is just a cover up for extremist feminist views. Warfare has been with us humans since the beginning of our socities. Obviously its an invention, just like time, money, and loads of other concepts and abstractions that we use everyday. Noone would buy a book if its hypothesis was, "time is socially constructed", the only reason this book has seen the light of day or her ideas for that matter is because it wants to prove that females are in some ways more peaceful then men, and if they were in charge the world would be a better place which in my humble opinion is the biggest load of crap a giant elephant could ever evacuate. |
|
|
| L.E.N. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
However, I do believe that, in general, men seek the money and the power and the prestige at all costs *more* than women do. Wait, scratch that. I would say that men seek the money and the power and the prestige more competetively than women do. |
Because money and power attract women. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| Ever read "War what is it good for"? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by L.E.N.
Because money and power attract women. |
That's pretty true, isn't it?
But why is this? To safeguard reproduction, I would say. Without men, there would be no reproduction. So with the removal of men, would women have a true reason to fight amongst themselves? |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
"The tie-up between proving oneself a man and proving this by a success in organized killing is due to a definition which many societies have made of manliness." |
This is the key part right there. We have these concepts of what men are supposed to be like and what women are supposed to be like, and we associate ourselves to these models. It's a viscious circle where the problem just keeps on feeding itself.
So to answer your question; The cause isn't gender by itself, but rather the duality that we've created around it. So asking if wars would still occur if only women existed is a very redundant question, because if that were the case, we wouldn't have a dualistic society to begin with, and thus the very definition of a "woman" within the context of our society would no longer apply. I think a better question would probably be; Would there still be warfare in a society where both men and women are considered socially equal? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
Are you serious? I'm not going to make any claims for I don't think I, or any one else here for that matter, can corroborate any supposed claims, but for one - I think women are generally more emotional and sensitive than men are. I think most women can agree with this. Men, I think, are many a time more 'logical' then women are, and hence more phlegmatic. This is also why I think many women are susceptible to mood swings, whereas guys - as far as I know - are not. Then again, there are many exceptions to this notion too, and I could be wrong for all I know. I never read "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus," maybe the person who wrote it can tell you lots more on the subject.
I would certainly like to know what the female TAs have concluded to my question, anyway. |
How much of that is a fundamental gender difference, and how much the result of standardized social norms imparted on individuals from birth? Men aren't unemotional by nature -- but the notion that to be 'manly' one must be unemotional is. There are societies that prove this. And the most manic depressive people I know are all males.
And let me be the first to point out the obvious -- a world where there is only one gender, regardless of which it is, would not last very long. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
But I also think that if women were removed from the world, men would find far less reason to fight among themselves. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Maybe you could enlighten us as to how the state of the world would be if humanity was reduced to one gender, seeing as how you are so obviously blessed with this grand foresight.
However, I do ask you to keep in mind that, last I checked, the world of jellyfish was completely and utterly without conflict or war. |
Great posts, regaled me not a little. Thanks. :) |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
This is the key part right there. We have these concepts of what men are supposed to be like and what women are supposed to be like, and we associate ourselves to these models. It's a viscious circle where the problem just keeps on feeding itself.
So to answer your question; The cause isn't gender by itself, but rather the duality that we've created around it. So asking if wars would still occur if only women existed is a very redundant question, because if that were the case, we wouldn't have a dualistic society to begin with, and thus the very definition of a "woman" within the context of our society would no longer apply. I think a better question would probably be; Would there still be warfare in a society where both men and women are considered socially equal? |
good post -- you beat my point by three minutes |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
So to answer your question; The cause isn't gender by itself, but rather the duality that we've created around it. So asking if wars would still occur if only women existed is a very redundant question, because if that were the case, we wouldn't have a dualistic society to begin with, and thus the very definition of a "woman" within the context of our society would no longer apply. I think a better question would probably be; Would there still be warfare in a society where both men and women are considered socially equal? |
That's very insightful and perhaps true, but we should consider also that war doesn't occur solely on account of a 'dualistic society' but for many other purposes as well, some of which have been mentioned in my opening post. And I'm convinced that even in a supposed society of a single gender, or, as you proposed, "in a society where both men and women are considered socially equal," we should still retain our natural desires and be motivated by them as a source of conflict, domestic and international. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
That's very insightful and perhaps true, but we should consider also that war doesn't occur solely on account of a 'dualistic society' but for many other purposes as well, some of which have been mentioned in my opening post. And I'm convinced that even in a supposed society of a single gender, or, as you proposed, "in a society where both men and women are considered socially equal," we should still retain our natural desires and be motivated by them as a source of conflict, domestic and international. |
if there were no men women would have evolved to take over the things we do. our needs structure our socities and our social relationships, if "men" werent the ones with the physical strenght to wage war, women would had evolved the same strenght and violence prone character. the "its all the mens fault" argument is utter bs in my opinion.
conflict over finite resources such as food, land, water, will always have the posibility to denegerate into violence. i think that regardless of having a one world sex or "socially equal", it has no bearing on the fact that it is our nature to divide ourselves into them and us, and due to the nature of our environment there will always be conflict over finite resources, hence in theory there will always be violence. now this is not to say that we can not override our desires, it is possible to leave without war but i dont think sex socialization or tendencies has anything to do with it.
PS: i severely dislike the whole "its all the mens fault" undertones of the book you mentioned. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Feminism is actually the belief that both genders are socially equal. |
feminism is a large body of (often) contradictory thought you cannot simply reduce to the above statement.
i reckon women would wage warfare, but mostly behind their opponent's back, in a sneaky snide manner ;) the cold war would return forever! |
|
|
|
|
