Newsgroups: soc.men


	
	Brian writes:
	"So, if Sheaffer's right, and men are more aggressive, and tend to
	gain power and dominance over others more often, then we've got a
	strategy that's _more_ likely to get us _all_ killed. If Sheaffer's
	right about men and aggression, maybe it'd make better sense to keep
	men the hell _out_ of power."

-----------------------------------

	I've been doing a bit of pondering about aggression myself.... and
	I had entertained a slightly different angle on this....

	What if...  men are NOT inherently more aggressive, and in fact
	are equally agressive as women?  Huh?  "Makes no sense" I hear you
	say....  let me explain...

	It may simply be that men are more SUCCESSFUL at using agression...
	that in effect, men are 'better' at it.  Men have the physical
	size and additional strength to back it up, and we also clearly
	'train' boys to become agressive men.  Agressiveness has a place.
	It works well in certain situations.

	It may be that women, being less successful with agressive
	behavior, have leaned toward other means of asserting control.

	I have found that women can be some of the most hateful, vicious,
	angry, ruthless, fiendish, and all-around-nasty people I have ever
	met.  Knowing this, I thought "What would we have if women had the
	physical size, weight and strength advantage that men currently
	have?"  It was not a comforting thought. :-)  

	Women may not _appear_ to be agressive in nature simply because
	they rank 2nd in agressive _success_.  If a murderer is in prison
	and has been prevented from killing again... does that mean that
	the murderer is no longer agressive in nature? Or does that simply
	mean that nature is put on the back burner because of the more
	successfully agressive police forces?

	One place we might look to answer this question is to look at
	situations where agressive/violent women can be assured of
	success.... when the 'victims' of agression are weaker.

	Children.

	It has been brought to the attention of this group (and soc.women)
	that women are responsible for most child abuse AND most child
	murders when comitted by a parent.  Not the men.  The women.  This
	in spite of the fact that girls are NOT trained to be violent or
	agressive.... in spite of the fact girls learn how to care for
	and nurture children when they reach adulthood.... 

	So when you consider all the counter-agressive training that
	girls/women recieve, and they STILL victimize children to the
	extent that they do (children being inherently weak... assuring
	success of agressive behavior by women)  I really must begin
	to wonder if women are _truely_ less agressive...

	So when you write: "So, if Sheaffer's right, and men are more
	aggressive, and tend to gain power and dominance over others more
	often, then we've got a strategy that's _more_ likely to get us
	_all_ killed."  I think that maybe if women WERE in power.... that
	they might be just as quick to "The Button" tm. or quicker, then
	men.

	The point is simply this, that women may be less agressive/violent
	as a BY-PRODUCT of their "oppression"... and if the "oppression"
	were to dissolve, given time, the apparent aggerssion of men
	and women would equalize.

	[note that I am NOT using this argument to justify the "oppression"
	of women... I'm just toying with cause-and-effect] 

	A personal note:  I'm the oldest of three... my little brother
	was clearly less agressive than I was...  And I'll tell you
	why.    - Because if he tried pulling some agressive crap on
	me, I'd kick his butt! -  :-)

	I "created" a less agressive little brother.... not because it
	was his nature, but because he had no choice....

	One other quick glance at an intersting social experiment that
	really got rolling in the mid 70's....  many women adopted 
	a lesbian lifestyle.  The hopes of many of these women were that
	they could escape all problems associated with intimate relationships
	with evil-violent-agressive men... and that women in intimate
	relationships with other women would be utopia itself... thinking
	that all the bad in the world... all the problems.. all of the
	disagreements were the creation of a male dominated universe.
	They thought that lesbian relationships meant smooth sailing.

	They were in for a surprise.

	They had ignored a simple basic fact... that lesbian relationships
	were HUMAN realtionships.  And the gates to utopia did not open up.
	Many women went back to relationships with men... simply because
	they didn't gain what they hoped for as lesbians... (there is a
	term that appeared to describe these women.... "hasbians").  They
	discovered that it was not 'maleness', but rather 'humanness' that
	was the major factor in relationships.

	Sorry 'bout the length everyone.

	-Mike-






Xref: sparky soc.men:15270 soc.women:15548 alt.child-support:2819 alt.dads-rights:2037