Well, now. Here's a female aggression of another kind. In Ocala, and surrounding counties, a laughin bandit has robbed several banks. Only 5% of bank robbers are women, according to the news. And this woman is caught blatantly on video and no ski mask..
As of tonight, no one has come forward to identify this woman who, to me, looks like anybody's mother.
Phoenix32890 wrote: But is there something, whether innate or socially learned, about the male in general, that propels men towards aggression, domination and control?
I believe a little reflection will confirm that for the great majority of mammilian species (but not all), Phoenix' speculation is indeed true. That is not to say that females don't wield power. Aggression and power are different things. Aggression leads to control, but power consists of both control and influence. The higher one moves in a complex organization, the more power is exercised through influence and the less through direct control. That is to say that the more complex and layered our society and organizations become, the less significant is traditional aggression and control in its operation.
Finally, I believe the behavioral differences I have observed among individual men and women are of the same order of magnitude as the average differences between men and women generally. That means that there are lots of examples in both sexes (or should I say genders) that confound common perceptions of what is typical.
I agree, Phoenix. Gez for Prez
I've thought for a long time that different qualities such as those raised in this discussion are innate. Georgeob and Phoenix raise these points.
We humans love to separate ourselves from the rest of the mammalian species - of course - with good reason - we have opposing thumbs, the ability of speech, higher intelligence (well, maybe) souls, and so on and so on. We like to forget that we have more in common with our animal brethren than we don't. These seems pretty obvious to most of us, I'm sure, but isn't it just possible that that aggression and dominance are instincts that are simply built into the male DNA just as the nurturing and protective instincts are in females (mostlly)? It is some of these qualities that have allowed us to survive as a species over many millenia. Only in recent history has this kind of discussion occured and still doesn't in a large part of the world. Georgeob points out the difference between aggression and power. Yes, indeed. But in more primitive times successful aggression was power. It was localized to a tribe or region and control of it. Males of many meat-eating animal species act this out to take control of all the females and or territory.
Humans with their self-proclaimed superiority have added greed and corruption to the mix. Them what can, does. Would you say that I'm deeply cynical? I am a woman person, by the way.
Aggression is not born out of Gender but out of mis- judgement about the world.
Lady Thatcher had shown her agression in a far off country without legitmacy.
Of course male dominated politic is full of aggression.
I am not convinced that the feminine can lead the masculine, thus women may never make good leaders. However, much of what ails mankind is warped masculine power that does not understand or respect feminine power. Masculine power has been misused, that is the problem, not that men lead.
ISHA NA'ALA, NA'ALA NA'ALA, NA'ALA ET HADELET BIFNEY BA'ALA. =
A dignified woman, put on her shoe, locked the door in the face of her husband.
hawkeye10 wrote:I am not convinced that the feminine can lead the masculine, thus women may never make good leaders.
But they already have.... perhaps you weren't looking.
Not yet in USA nor in embedded arabic countries.
Robert Gentel wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:I am not convinced that the feminine can lead the masculine, thus women may never make good leaders.
But they already have.... perhaps you weren't looking.
There have been a few feminine women who have been good leaders, and many masculine women who have been. To my mind the jury is still out.
hawkeye10 wrote:Robert Gentel wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:I am not convinced that the feminine can lead the masculine, thus women may never make good leaders.
But they already have.... perhaps you weren't looking.
There have been a few feminine women who have been good leaders, and many masculine women who have been.
You have really stepped into it. Define feminine and masculine.
Quote:To my mind the jury is still out.
Men have already proven that they can't lead. It is time to give women the chance.
Most of the decent, cultivated, cultured citizens around the globe wish a decent( unsponsored by CEO'S Toilet papers) lady to shape this world a better one.
Count me as the first person to support the views..
Roxxxanne wrote:
Men have already proven that they can't lead. It is time to give women the chance.
I would hate to throw out a sexism charge as willy-nilly as you like to throw out racism charges.....but I guess it fits here.
No it is barbarism to disqualify a candidate because of colour or Gender.
Ask any Indians who knows about the word Barbarism.
I am not here to probagate Obama or Hillary.
But I am here to expose hypocracy in the name of DEMOCRACY.
Ramafuchs wrote:No it is barbarism to disqualify a candidate because of colour or Gender.
I don't think that anyone would disagree with you here.
your exactly right, but i have to say i think that any form of government is male expression of dominance.
=O
hawkeye10 wrote:
There have been a few feminine women who have been good leaders, and many masculine women who have been. To my mind the jury is still out.
Sounds like you define leadership itself as masculine. Thereby equating all examples of good female leaders with male qualities. I say it has less to do with the women's ability to lead than your own way of defining leadership. Because by definition (yours) they simply can't be good leaders. If they are, they are just being men to you.
The problem with those kind of notions is that you can use it to self-validate any such generalization. Anything that disproves it is an exception by definition in your syllogism. It's a circular argument that is convenient if not very intellectually honest.
But beyond its basic logical deficiencies, it ignores any consideration of whether this perceived trait (again, let's ignore the substantial problems of subjectivity in your definitions and assume your observation is right) is dispositional or situational.
Maybe it would be because of the prevalence of such sentiments that female leaders go out of their way to act "tough" and fit the stereotype. If enough people think like you, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy as few feminine leaders will have an opportunity to lead.
My personal opinion is that women by nature tend to value their lives more than men, so they may tend to be more reluctant to "take that hill."
However, when women are living with the males that historically conquered other lands, the women (of the conquerers), I thought, did not refuse the "spoils of war." In effect, there was often a "tacit approval" of the warlike behavior of their men, since they benefitted from the men's aggression. This is not peacelike at all.
Also, isn't there an incongruity in that many women value their right to an abortion (aka, ending a life), yet claim that as a woman she is so much less oriented to the violent behavior of men historically. Something doesn't add up? In my opinion there is a portion of the woman's movement that has an ideological orientation, that is trying to proselytize the belief that men are prone to violence naturally, which I believe, is a demonization of men, since women can be socialized to be violent too. It's all in the socialization, I believe.
And, if women do tend towards less violence it doesn't mean that they don't tend towards other behavior that is just as obnoxious as macho behavior.
And what I don't believe there is an answer for, from a women's movement perspective, is who is going to protect the women and children of a peaceful nation, when an aggressive (male dominated) nation attacks? Hint: think of the 20th century for many examples.
Interesting topic, with interesting remarks.
In the animal world, our close relatives--Bonobos--have a female-led heirarchy. In order to maintain this arrangement, males are allowed sex at all occasions, with whomever he chooses.
I wonder if anyone would care to comment on this. Could this work for us?
