sozobe
The sport and politic analogy was mine. The similarity, I think, is in the confrontational nature of both, particularly true in a two-party system. Side in conflict against side.
I hesitate (boy, do I) to posit meaningful gender differences, but it is the case that primate behaviour - across the boards - displays such differences. Though there is really a great deal of variation in how the differences manifest, I think one can say without too much worry of being wrong, that primate females tend to keep the domestic show running while the head-knocking stuff is done by males, usually against other males.
There is one rather humorous example in the 'fatted monkey syndrome', a label applied to a particular South American (if I recall correctly) species. The females live together and care for the young in a permanent core territory. The males are not allowed in and are relegated to wandering the periphery, getting drunk and hurling insults at one another probably. But in spring, the males, as part of a natural cycle, begin to bulk up bigtime. When that Arnold Schwartenegger phase reaches a particular point, the males overrun the female territory and do the rape and pillage thing for some weeks. Then the weight begins to come off. At the point where they are once again to normal size, the females gather together and boot them out again.
As a side curiosity, more than a few women who I've talked to about this have thought it not a bad arrangement.
Blatham you have reminded me of another species in the wild. Lions, in the pride it is the female who provides for the pride by hunting and killing the pray and the male, well it seems he just allowed to hang around and is used for mating and the occasional defensive growling when necessary and of course fighting with other males. Food for thought.
Here Comes the Pride
Joanne
Yes, these sorts of behavioral variations are pretty ubiquitous. As you know, it's adventurous to make analolgies (even from primates) to human behavior, but it sure is tempting, isn't it?
On the Iraq thread this morning, I mentioned that I didn't watch the speech last night (nor do I watch any speeches now for that matter) considering them not merely predictable, but as just pieces of performance art.
But vietnamnurse has provided a link there to a wonderful piece by Lewis Lapham (Harpers) and I would hope some of you might turn to it for a careful read. It would be my guess that rather fewer people on this thread are as ready as some on the other thread to visit bombs on a city.
Thank you blatham and Vietnamnurse for the link what a wonderful analysis of why the US is so out of step with the rest of the world.
Quote:Some American cultural values that shape the new war paradigm are not universally appreciated, such as efficiency and a fascination with gadgetry. Others, such as a native commitment to human rights and a genuine aversion to causing greater harm to another people than is necessary, are admirable.
And I would add we were never a patient lot and lack in understanding of the ways of the ancients. The computer/gadget age has only served to speed us up. The is no need for speed in making war against the people of Iraq. Iraq is smack dab in the middle of the cradle of Western Civiliation. When we attack we will surely destroy part of our own history yet to be excavated. The people of Afganistan are the Aryans.
The Aryan point of view
The Cradle of Civilization
Well, I voted for "don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough". And, I don't. Then again, I barely have enough time to glance at headlines and read a little for pleasure these days.
Gee, I wonder why I'm so busy? :-D
When ever I see a female name on the ballot, and I don't know any of the candidates, I usually cast my vote for the female. "Why," you ask? Well, I believe women are more nurturing and fair in their philosophy of life. And it's time to end discrimination against women. c.i.
As has been well established in another thread here, wimmins be evil--we doan need no wimmins muddyin' the waters of our sacred political battlegrou . . . er, forum.
Uh Oh ... furniture may start getting flung about. I'm not gonna stand anywhere near Setanta.
timber
timber, I don't believe at all your fear of furniture being flung about.... I see it as your natural environment.
c.i.
c.i., you're right; I have no fear of flying furniture, and in fact enjoy a good game of toss muself once in a while. I just figured I'd let Setanta play his own infield this round
timber
No chance, Boss, i know the wimmins too well . . . i headed out fer the showers right after posting that one . . .
Setanta protests his need for wimmins, but really it's not too hard to see that his behavior belies his claim. I dont' believe you Setanta. So no need to throw any chairs. Here, sit down and let's talk about this.
It's funny while we're all talking about the differences in men and women, we demonstrate one aspect of their similarities. I think women are competitive with each other more than with men and men are competitive more with other men. But is there anyone here claiming that women are less competitive with each other than men are with themselves?
I expect there will be a few here who will say they think women less competitive and aggressive. And in some ways, we are. But I see the difference mainly in the method women use to compete and/or be aggressive. Men are more direct, perhaps because this method fits for their assigned task in life and women are less so. I'm not denying the very obvious ways in which women are different from men. There are real differences. But given that some women have more testosterone than some men, (some women are high in the female range and some men low in the male range) I think it's a mistake to make too many absolute generalizations.
In any case, I see lots of examples of both aggression and the need to deny it in both sexes. But it seems to me that more women feel uncomfortabe with aggressive and competitive wishes than do men. And maybe that's because women do have the responsibility for nurturing. And men the responsibility (generally speaking) to bring home the bacon.
So I wonder if this may be one explanation for fewer women in politics discussion. Women feel more uncomfortable with their aggressive wishes than men do. And/or maybe it's just a question of chosen method for managing aggressive wishes.
Lola, Your ideas about wimmin mirrors mine; I've watched women boxers go at it with the zeal of high testosterone levels. I've also seen wimmin with muscular bodies. But generally speaking, I still think there is a truism in the fact the wimmin are more nurturing. That's the reason why they suckle their babies after birth, and watch for their general welfare as they grow into adults. The min folk disappear into their jobs. c.i.
Yes, I agree c.i., women are more nurturing with their babies and in general with others, however, I don't think that negates their competitive and aggressive wishes. One can have both. Actually, we all do have both, in my opinion. The real question is whether women suffer more conflict over aggression or more correctly, they manage the conflict in different ways than men, not whether they actually have the feelings or not.
Differences in management style are probably due to a differential in intensity (due to genetic, homone levels differences) as well as the difference in their roles in society. But I'm only saying that it may be more the difference in intensity and style that explains wimmins avoidance of politics than in the presence or absense of competitive wishes.
I stay completely away from the political threads. I never used to, but even pre-A2K it's either Bush, Afganistan or Iraq. Nothing I hear will change the way I feel and nothing I say will change anyone else. For or against, for or against...in simple terms, that's what it all comes down to.
They just come down to people who ignore your posts because they have no answer and would just rather pass it over than try to address it and prove they have no clue what they are talking about. I've been ignored by better
Perhaps those of us who worked with men in their hard-hat roles learned a thing or two, or maybe it's something we've always known. It's always been interesting to me - the role of the lioness in the pride. Women can be fierce, but the stereotype role fits easier. It doesn't require so much adjustment in thinking. Then again, the fierceness is many times of a different nature.
Hillary Clinton, for instance. A lot of men and women tend to disparage her, a lot because of her competiveness, her willingness to stand there, and maybe, above all, the feeling that she is not supposed to be so bright and aware and knowledgeable. That, in politics, is reserved for the men. Maybe that's part of the confused feelings about George Bush - he's supposed to be a man, with all the mythical attributes, but somehow he doesn't quite fit the picture. Not to do with his presence as president, but that he lacks the stature of this maleness.
And, for the topic of this discussion, that definition of maleness pervades the political threads. It is a gender separator for the most part, in which male dominance has to be evidenced.
I would like, at this point, to say I am most happily married for eons to a man whose intellect I respect, whose opinions I seek and consider valuable. But we meet, and argue , and discuss without running out of the room in a pique. And my rather large family is composed of people of both genders. We holler at each other a lot, but over the years we seem to have adopted a mutual respect, while still agreeing that there are specific differences and roles.
And isn't it curious that all over the world various countries have produced female leaders (some good, some bad), while here we are still debating whether a woman should run for anything?
mama, You aint seen no conflict until you've lived like me; all my siblings are christians and republicans. I'm the only atheist and independent.
c.i.
Me too, c.i. Everyone in my family of origin are fanatical christians and Republicans. I'm the little freak, but everyone loves me anyway, or maybe because of it.
