Things that make you go hmm !

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

In most societies THE MALE figure has the dominate roll and the female has the passive role. Why is that? Most children play on the same level. The girls seem to be as aggressive as the boys and in some cases more aggressive.

Any group that is held down long enough will rise up physically if the numbers are right. Given that men for the last century have gone to war and died in large numbers, women have begun to out number men in most societies.

Why then is it that women do not take over the world "aggressively" and physically. Given the large amount of WOMEN on the planet. Think about it, an ARMY of Nothing but WOMEN could be an effective killing machine given the right circumstances.

ANY THOUGHTS?

[path_of_one]

I guess women can get aggressive, but after puberty, women are inherently less likely to be aggressive than men. While both sexes have testosterone, men have it in higher doses, and this is one of the primary hormones that drive feelings of aggression. Women, with greater amounts of estrogen, are more prone to feelings of nurturance. Some men who have undergone sex change operations and take estrogen say they feel like they are on some kind of drug that relaxes them. This is an indication that women and men, though on a spectrum of hormonal levels, overall have a pattern in which women are less aggressive than men. Of course, this wouldn't show up until puberty when the hormones really kick in more. And naturally, females can and do act aggressive in the right circumstances, especially when young are threatened.

If you're wondering why women world-wide don't unite and push for equality... we are separated from each other by class, ethnic, cultural, religious, and national differences that take precedence in our understanding of our own identities. That is, most women feel they have more in common with the men of their own class, ethnicity, nation, culture, and religion than with women in non-familiar societal groups. Divide and conquer. Same goes for why the working poor of all nations don't get together and overthrow the elite. The working poor of the US feel like Americans, not the same at all as poor people in Guatemala or China or Namibia. Ethnicity, nationality, and religion are the biggest dividers- they prevent people from feeling solidarity based on gender and class.

Plus, gender is an even more difficult to unite under than class since many women feel some sense of sisterhood with other women, but do not feel a sense of animosity toward men. I know that's how I feel. I love the men in my life- my husband, father, uncles, friends... they are great people. Many women would feel the same- that even though SOME men are oppressive, cruel, etc., MANY are not. Why become hostile toward any group of people when only some of them are problematic? How is that fair to the rest?

[taijasi]

Yes. They (women) embody Love, collectively, in a way in which we, as men, do not. Both genders certainly love, in various ways, most of them overlapping - even all, to a great extent.

Yet as practically every spirituality and culture has shown, each in its own manner (dependent on geographical region, time period, societal convention, etc.), women and men each embody slightly different versions - or presentations - of Love as the Divine Archetype (or Ideal).

I cherish very greatly the Diversity of presentations of these archetypes and ideals as they are found throughout the world. None as yet gives full expression to its parent Idea(l), imho. Both men and women, unfortunately, still incarnate violence ... since our world karma (read `Humanity') as yet requires this. Even so, peace can be found in each and every human heart, if sought, and my experience suggests to me that women know Peace in a way which many men do not. The reverse might be said, but the meaning will change ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Why become hostile toward any group of people when only some of them are problematic? How is that fair to the rest?

Ah Path, if only more of us would ask just this same question, many times throughout the day! I volunteer the leaders of the world and everyone belonging to a radically fundamentalist religion, for starters! Don't worry, I'll do my part too!

my 2 cents ...

andrew

[China Cat Sunflower]

Why would women want to form an army and go out killing when men are more than happy to do it for them?

Chris

[wil]

Good location to ask the question because most religions put women in a subservient role...

Well to that matter so do most governments...

But the ture question to me....why do men feel the need to dominate and be agressors?

me thinks a world run by women would have had much less killing...

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

In most societies THE MALE figure has the dominate roll

Most men surely learn that this is an illusion?

[Quahom1]

As with my own mother while I was young (and still to this point), my wife can turn away my anger towards another, with a word, a touch and a look.

However, when my wife is fuming, things have just about gone beyond control. She doesn't need a word, a look or a touch at that point. But I've noticed that she does need my presence (if silent). Then, after awhile, it all comes tumbling out, and I need to simply listen. She gets it out of her system. And I appear to be understanding and sympathetic.

If I try to fix her "problem" for her, forget it...if I stay with her and listen, after awhile she feels better, and the problem disolves.

If she offers a solution for my irritation, I find I become less emotional, and more reasonable, and the problem has a rational outcome/option that I can get my hands around.

As far as who has it better...well, she's got the horse, the motorcycle, the Mustang (car), and I have the pickup truck, my power tools and contentment in my house. Not a bad trade off...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11
In most societies THE MALE figure has the dominate roll

Most men surely learn that this is an illusion?

It all became clear to me after I read that book, Men are From Mars, Women are From the Fiery Bowels of Hell LOL!

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Quote:
Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11
In most societies THE MALE figure has the dominate roll




It all became clear to me after I read that book, Men are From Mars, Women are From the Fiery Bowels of Hell LOL!

Chris

True, Venus is a very HOT place...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

True, Venus is a very HOT place...

Ah, good point!

Chris

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I guess women can get aggressive, but after puberty, women are inherently less likely to be aggressive than men. While both sexes have testosterone, men have it in higher doses, and this is one of the primary hormones that drive feelings of aggression. Women, with greater amounts of estrogen, are more prone to feelings of nurturance. Some men who have undergone sex change operations and take estrogen say they feel like they are on some kind of drug that relaxes them. This is an indication that women and men, though on a spectrum of hormonal levels, overall have a pattern in which women are less aggressive than men. Of course, this wouldn't show up until puberty when the hormones really kick in more. And naturally, females can and do act aggressive in the right circumstances, especially when young are threatened.

Have you ever read the book Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier? I'd be very interested in your take on it. She writes a couple of chapters about aggression in women, and its relation to testosterone. She posits that women are actually more aggressive than men - but women are socially aggressive rather than physically aggressive. According to Angier, women use cattiness, gossip, character assasination, and snubs, and in a much more complex way, and for much longer, than men use physical violence. A man doesn't like you, he punches you in the nose and is done with it. A woman doesn't like you, she makes sure that nobody else will ever want to associate with you ever again. And from my own experience, I'd have to agree with her.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Scarlet!

women are socially aggressive rather than physically aggressive. According to Angier, women use cattiness, gossip, character assasination, and snubs, and in a much more complex way, and for much longer, than men use physical violence. A man doesn't like you, he punches you in the nose and is done with it. A woman doesn't like you, she makes sure that nobody else will ever want to associate with you ever again. And from my own experience, I'd have to agree with her.

I would agree too, if it didn't get me ostracized!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Have you ever read the book Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier? I'd be very interested in your take on it. She writes a couple of chapters about aggression in women, and its relation to testosterone. She posits that women are actually more aggressive than men - but women are socially aggressive rather than physically aggressive. According to Angier, women use cattiness, gossip, character assasination, and snubs, and in a much more complex way, and for much longer, than men use physical violence. A man doesn't like you, he punches you in the nose and is done with it. A woman doesn't like you, she makes sure that nobody else will ever want to associate with you ever again. And from my own experience, I'd have to agree with her.

Ah, but no woman can deal with a man that ignores her...no woman...nes't pas?

v/r

Q

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I guess women can get aggressive, but after puberty, women are inherently less likely to be aggressive than men. While both sexes have testosterone, men have it in higher doses, and this is one of the primary hormones that drive feelings of aggression. Women, with greater amounts of estrogen, are more prone to feelings of nurturance. Some men who have undergone sex change operations and take estrogen say they feel like they are on some kind of drug that relaxes them. This is an indication that women and men, though on a spectrum of hormonal levels, overall have a pattern in which women are less aggressive than men. Of course, this wouldn't show up until puberty when the hormones really kick in more. And naturally, females can and do act aggressive in the right circumstances, especially when young are threatened.

If you're wondering why women world-wide don't unite and push for equality... we are separated from each other by class, ethnic, cultural, religious, and national differences that take precedence in our understanding of our own identities. That is, most women feel they have more in common with the men of their own class, ethnicity, nation, culture, and religion than with women in non-familiar societal groups. Divide and conquer. Same goes for why the working poor of all nations don't get together and overthrow the elite. The working poor of the US feel like Americans, not the same at all as poor people in Guatemala or China or Namibia. Ethnicity, nationality, and religion are the biggest dividers- they prevent people from feeling solidarity based on gender and class.

Plus, gender is an even more difficult to unite under than class since many women feel some sense of sisterhood with other women, but do not feel a sense of animosity toward men. I know that's how I feel. I love the men in my life- my husband, father, uncles, friends... they are great people. Many women would feel the same- that even though SOME men are oppressive, cruel, etc., MANY are not. Why become hostile toward any group of people when only some of them are problematic? How is that fair to the rest?

Nicely put

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

As with my own mother while I was young (and still to this point), my wife can turn away my anger towards another, with a word, a touch and a look.

However, when my wife is fuming, things have just about gone beyond control. She doesn't need a word, a look or a touch at that point. But I've noticed that she does need my presence (if silent). Then, after awhile, it all comes tumbling out, and I need to simply listen. She gets it out of her system. And I appear to be understanding and sympathetic.

If I try to fix her "problem" for her, forget it...if I stay with her and listen, after awhile she feels better, and the problem disolves.

If she offers a solution for my irritation, I find I become less emotional, and more reasonable, and the problem has a rational outcome/option that I can get my hands around.

As far as who has it better...well, she's got the horse, the motorcycle, the Mustang (car), and I have the pickup truck, my power tools and contentment in my house. Not a bad trade off...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

LOL...NICE THOUGHT