From: markbr@radian.UUCP (markbr)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Warfare and women  -new stuff(?)
Summary: time to revive...
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:43:00 GMT
Organization: Radian Corp. Austin, TX

In article <1992Apr15.231923.25196@u.washington.edu>, treon@milton.u.washington.edu (Treon Verdery) writes:
> When I was reading people's posts on male and female aggression
> I thought:  "aggression isn't war, war is something else,
> perhaps organizational tendencies + aggression""
> 
> In certain timeframes,  war is a useful activity:
> 
> 	War is a technology of material acquisition
> 
> 	War is a social context that gives some people meaning, and other 
> 	people power
> 
> ok, well, it strikes me that throughout history lots of societies
> have been into material gain, whether it was a place closer to the
> campfire, better food, nicer jewelry, or slaves/servants to
> haul the wood.
> 
> I'm under the impression that many 'primitive' societies also evolve
> elaborate systems of social positioning.
> 
> Humans of both sexes reslly seem to appreciate free food and
> high social position.  I suspect that the different levels
> of responsibility in the biological lives of women and men
> play a part in  making aquisition & prestige activities 
> 
> Basically, I think War is the microwave dinner approach to reality.
> it is easy, you get what you want, it is powered by impulse, yet
> at some level requires complexity.  most of all, you don't have
> to do the work yourself
> 
> Women and men work together to Dominate, and Destroy, the natural

At this point, I think it's time to inject a throwback to the 60's: way
back then, there was talk about something called the *moral equivalent*
of war. One might also consider that in the "primitive societies", *life*
itself was incredibly chancy. As late as the American Revolution, I understand
that only 1 out of 5 (or was it 7) children lived to have kids of their own.
Think, then, about prehistorical groups, where a bad harvest or failed hunt
could mean one or more *whole villages* could die, to the last person (add
disease to the list). There's a moral equivalent of war, as well: the fight
to survive in an inhospitable ecosystem. Then there's the guys (generic) 
down the road, who have something to eat (never mind that you're ignorant
of what roots to dig up & that you need to burn them to eat them): let's go
get their food, I, and my kids, want to live. Or even, those damn saberteeth
are sleeping in the valley, and that's the only water around for tens of miles.
Charge!

The point of all this is that there obviously *was* a *good reason* for 
organized aggression. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, when the only
tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. And I
can't see *any* sex-based reason for this aggression, just the desire to
stay alive.


/*___________________________________________________________________________*
 *  1.     How *DARE* you attribute these opinions to anyone else!           *
 *  2.     Would *you* claim opinions like these if they *weren't your own?  *
 *					                                     *
 *		         Mark Silverdragon                                   *
 *					                                     *
 *          	       	markbr@radian                                        *
 *___________________________________________________________________________*/
Etymology, n.:
	Some early etymological scholars come up with derivations that
were hard for the public to believe.  The term "etymology" was formed
from the Latin "etus" ("eaten"), the root "mal" ("bad"), and "logy"
("study of").  It meant "the study of things that are hard to swallow."
		-- Mike Kellen