Why male dominance?
SETH JACKSON 297-4751
You claim that:
1) The sexes are both equal
2) Throughout hundreds of years of civilzation, a male-dominated
society has evolved
3) This situation continues to exist today, despite the efforts of
feminist organizations
How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the
sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men
managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see
much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
--
"Many a man's done terrible thing
Just to get
His baby
A shiny
Diamond ring"
Seth Jackson
Elaine Richards
>Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike):
>
>How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the
Anything that has 66% more upper arm strength can whomp the weaker
person in the schoolyard. Happened to me until Mom told me about "a
good swift kick".:-)
>sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
>to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men
Some psychologists say men are making up for moms and female schoolteachers
bossing them as youths.:-)
Anthropologists claim that the mystery of menstruation and pregnancy
made men feel a little out of place with the Powers of the
Universe and thus they assauged their fear and un-ease via bonding rituals.
If you believe bonding rituals don't exist, visit a men's club or
stand on Wall Street and look at the uniforms men wear. Women are learning
to blend in by following the rules of the club (grey suits and non-feminine
haircuts).Read Lionel Tiger on male bonding.
When we all lived on farms, sexism was not an issue. Men and women ate and
had shelter and some clothes. With the Industrial Revolution, a trend called
"The Cult of Domesticity" began to separate the roles of men and women in
production. A woman's place was in the home and Dad went to work. What we
see with ladies wearing sneakers and grey suits is the Female March Back into
productivity. Since technology is different, rules are different and that's
why everyone is upset and confused. No big deal. Eventually, companies will
lose a lot of their masculine flavor and get into "human mode" (daycare,
relaxed communication betwixt M and F, etc.). Do I sound optimistic. I am.
>managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see
Wanna see my old paychecks?
>much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
Except when they get thrashed in the schoolyard for being "smart".
Except when they get beaten by fathers and husbands (statistical answers
are irrelevant, women do hit men, but this is NOT AS COMMON!!!)
>violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
>and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
Survival mechanism. If you are horny enough, you'll put up with anything.
E
*****
"They look cute in a bathing suit on a billboard in .....
....Tierra Del Fuego!" -Malvina Reynolds
Jeff Lichtman
> How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance?
On the average, men have better left hooks than women do. :-(
> If the
> sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
> to put women in a subservient role?
The simple-minded ethic that "if you have less, then I have more."
> Also, by what means have men
> managed throughout history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see
> much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
> violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
> and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
> --
> Seth Jackson
You've got to be kidding. Have you ever heard of rape and wife-beating?
Have you ever read what Freud said about women? Have you ever seen the
way women are portrayed in popular entertainment?
There are so many examples that it would be impossible to list them all.
Sexism is part of the air that we breathe.
--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
Andy Cohill
> > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance?
>
> You've got to be kidding. Have you ever read what Freud said
> about women?
Wait a minute. Freud was male, if I recollect correctly. You trust a
low-life, no-good, sleaze-ball male to make judgements about women????
Best regards,
Andy Cohill
ihnp4!mhuxd!amc
Gadfly
> Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike):
>
>
> How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the
> sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
> to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men
> managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see
> much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
> violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
> and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
>
What choice do they have? Honestly, Seth, you are grasping at straws.
And even if your simplistic analysis were true, how would that justify
the situation? After all, humans have lived under tyrannical monarchs
for thousands of years. Many do even today. Does that make it right?
Why would men want to put women in a subservient role? Heck, men
usually want to put other *men* in a subservient role.
Your error, Seth, is in the assertion that feminists believe that
the men and women are, or even started off, "equal". The obvious
biological differences led to obvious differences in social roles.
The--well I should say *A*--feminist position is that many of these
role differences are no longer necessary, if they indeed ever were.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 25 Feb 86 [7 Ventose An CXCIV]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7753 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
rex ballard
In article <12...@decwrl.DEC.COM> jac...@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) writes:
>Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike):
>You claim that:
>1) The sexes are both equal
Wrong, some women are superior to some men!
>2) Throughout hundreds of years of civilzation, a male-dominated
> society has evolved
Society wouldn't have evolved at all if women hadn't used men's
vulnerability to sex to make them provide for the children
(allowing WOMEN to train children to higher levels, because
men lacked the stamina and patience for such work).
>3) This situation continues to exist today, despite the efforts of
> feminist organizations
Women are discovering that their skills in "managing" children,
negotiating with merchants..., is a valuable commodity in the
business world! Most women aren't prepared for modern motherhood
(any universities offer degrees in mothering? :-), but once they
have mastered the art, they are ready for some rewarding work :-).
Some women are smart, they skip motherhood and go directly to
work in a rewarding career :-)
>How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance?
Just because a man can "run away from home" for a few
hours a day doesn't mean he's the boss.
>If the sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
>to put women in a subservient role?
Women know that by letting the male FEEL superior, they'll fight
less, and get more done.
>Also, by what means have men managed throught history to
>"keep women in their place"?
Some women get trapped into feeling inferior by jerks who don't
know how to appreciate them, including fathers, husbands and even
sons.
>I don't see much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
>violence,
No, just the family paycheck.
>so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
The illusion was easy to maintain (still is, if men appreciate it).
>and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
Co-operate yes, but now they are expecting a little more
consideration, recognition, and pay for their TRUE role as the
glue that holds this society together. Without them, men
would have warred themselves to extinction by now.
My boss is a women, the best man for the job.
From: a male feminist :-)
H.SILBIGER
males hould be dominant because otherwise they would not
have evolved as dominant through history!
There are some historical reasons why males have become
dominantin most cultures. These probably are their greater
physical strength and the fact that they do not bear their
young.
In the current era, in societies where physical strength is not
the criterion for survival, but mental ability is more important,
equality between men and women is (slowly) coming about.
What is a more interesting question, although academic as far
as the equality issue is concerned, is why we have such extreme
sexual diphormism in humans. It is hard to think of any mammal
species where it is as great.
Herman Silbiger ihnp4!homxb!hrs
Richard Aleksandr
> Wrong, some women are superior to some men!
>>2) Throughout hundreds of years of civilzation, a male-dominated
>> society has evolved
> Society wouldn't have evolved at all if women hadn't used men's
> vulnerability to sex to make them provide for the children
> (allowing WOMEN to train children to higher levels, because
> men lacked the stamina and patience for such work).
etc., etc., etc.
>
>My boss is a women, the best man for the job.
>
>From: a male feminist :-)
Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell
sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. The men out here
don't get down on their hands and knees and ask their wife to strap on the
10" dildo, as I have no doubt that you do. While your woman is getting into
the fudge-packing and you're squealing like a pig in your high pitched voice,
and yelling 'Shut up, you worthless wimp, or you're going to lick the dildo
again!', there are men out here who go through life with no such insecurities
as you seem to have- and women also.
You'd better stick to perfecting your grunting and sucking technique and
quit posting sickening atricles, slime.
B. Dog
Phil Ngai
>sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
>to put women in a subservient role?
The same motivations that caused them to import blacks to work as slaves.
How can you help but profit by forcing someone else to do your bidding?
> Also, by what means have men
>managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see
>much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
>violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
>and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
How about encouraging girls to go into low paying professions like
teaching and nursing? Discouraging them from showing their
intelligence, and keeping them away from math? Indoctrinating them
with the idea that marriage is more important than career? Failing
to provide child-care so they can work after having a child?
(Am I starting to sound like Cheryl yet?)
--
NASA employee: "These are REAL flight simulators!"
Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!ph...@decwrl.dec.com
Jamie Andrews
>There are some historical reasons why males have become
>dominantin most cultures. These probably are their greater
>physical strength and the fact that they do not bear their
>young.
written history, warrior cultures became dominant by conquering
other cultures by physical force. Although some of these cultures
(e.g. the Celtic) had strong female figures, most of them had the
male warriors (who were not as bound to the home as women were in
most early societies) as leaders.
This theory thus puts forward the opinion that men are not
"naturally" dominant, but that some cultures in which they did
happen to be dominant became successful by crushing other cultures.
>What is a more interesting question, although academic as far
>as the equality issue is concerned, is why we have such extreme
>sexual diphormism in humans. It is hard to think of any mammal
>species where it is as great.
Could you please explain what "diphormism" is? Is it a typo
for "dimorphism", and even if so, could you please expand on what
you mean?
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Look at this tangle of thorns"
Nancy
Yes, Seth, and blacks should be slaves,
Jews should be burned,
Christians should be fed to lions,
Japanese should be put in internment camps,
etc. (have I said enough)
Please, Seth, tell me I misunderstood you.
--
ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc3!nancy
Kathy Kister
> > > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance?
> > > Seth Jackson
> >
on the family blood line and that the female don't count. I would have thought
that everyone was past this, but I am constantly surprised by the number of
idiots (particularly, my fater-in-law) who believe this. Generally, only
the male carries the family name and is the only way to insure "immorality".
Mary Monroe
> Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell
etc,etc,etc.....
Is this guy for real, or what ? In the words of Bugs Bunny-
"What a maroon"! Mr. Dog, if it wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing.
ps-I know that responding just encourages this, but I just couldn't help it.
j...@unccvax.uucp
> > Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike):
> >
> > [feminists claim that the sexes are equal]...
> >
> > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the
> > sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
> > to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men
> > managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see
> > much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
> > violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
> > and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
> >
The 'roles' of the sexes have of necessity, been dictated by the means of
survival of the era.
o...@mcnc.uucp
> >You claim that:
> >society has evolved
> >How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance?
> >Also, by what means have men
> >managed throught history to "keep women in their place"?
> >I don't see
> >much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical
> >violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history
> >and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
>There are some historical reasons why males have become
>dominant in most cultures. These probably are their greater
>physical strength and the fact that they do not bear their
>young.
Yes. Perhaps this will give everyone a better understanding of
how primitive conditions interact with male/female biology to
produce the subservience of women:
_________________
Excerpted without permission from Science, Vol 226, No 4676 (Nov 84):
The Population Factor in Africa's Development Dilemma, Fred T. Sai
...The status of women is a matter of great concern to Africa.
Perhaps the rural African woman is the most underprivileged of
all human beings. Various social roles, cultural practices and
the biological tasks imposed by fertility have combined to keep
the average rural African woman close to a beast of burden...
...Maternal mortality rates are also very high: two to six deaths
per 1,000 live births---that is, 100 to 500 times the western
European rates. Thus the high population growth rates of Africa
result from high fertility and relatively high mortality and are
therefore achieved at a very high price in the lives and health
of African women. By the time women complete their families, 50%
of their cohort is dead....
...The usual African fertility pattern is for childbearing to
start as soon as it is biologically possible and stop at menopause.
The total fertility rate per woman is between four and eight births,
but mostly between six and eight. This very high fertility means
the African woman spends between 18 and 20 years of her adult
life in childbearing (that is, the interval between the first live
birth and the last one), in comparison with 3 to 5 years for many
more advanced countries.
...most women have traditionally handled most of the family
food crop production and have therefore played a major role
in agriculture...
(My favorite line:)
...Her potential for other pursuits is therefore considerably
reduced....
-------End of Article------
The suggestion that males are dominant because women fear rape
and beating is probably somewhat of a simplification of the
situation in primitive cultures, where it was not so much the threat
of violence from the immediately `dominating' males (mate, brother,
father, etc), but the threat of violence from a physically hostile
environment, which included males. The biggest threat probably
came from tribal warefare. Another threat would be predators.
In an effort to survive, each tribe naturally depended upon their
most physically strong (ie, males, not only because of raw physical
power, but because they weren't pregnant and nursing babies all of
the time) members to defend the community against these threats.
This made these folks *very* valuable. Oh, sure, women had babies
and grew a lot of food, but that's a long-term asset, and humans
are incorrigibly short-term planners. Under these circumstances,
I believe *I* would have seen males as more `valuable' than myself.
After all, what good is being able to produce babies (most of which
are dead before they reach the age of 2, anyway) and grow food, if
the neighbors are likely to drop in and slaughter us all tomorrow
night? My guess is that *women became subservient* (rather than
men becoming dominant) in order to survive, and also developed
conniving, manipulative, sexually competitive behaviors in order
to attract and keep males that would protect them and their young.
Robert Hartman
>
>Hey shithead! ...
> { bunch of obnoxious crap }
>quit posting sickening atricles, slime.
> B. Dog
aleksand:
1. take your own advice
2. go see a shrink. you need one.
3. thank god for the "kill" file. it was made for articles
like yours. needless to say that few people will ever
read your postings again.
w...@rti-sel.uucp
>Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell
>sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. ... [a lot
>of other offensive garbage]
Hey, Bird Dog! If you're real, real lucky, one of these days you just
might GROW UP. When (and if) you do, you're going to realize what being
a REAL man is all about. And what being a human being is all about. When
you're sitting there cleaning the Clearasil and old copies of Playboy with
the pages stuck together out of your closet, remember these little juvenile
exchanges. And feel properly embarrassed for your youthful idiocy.
-- Toodles, Bill Ingogly
SETH JACKSON 297-4751
OK, you misunderstood me. Nowhere in my posting did I attempt to prove
male superiority or anything else. If you'll reread, you'll note that
I simply raised some questions about why things are the way they are.
The questions were raised in response to recent postings by women who
expressed a great deal of hostility toward men, suggesting that men are
involved in some kind of evil conspiracy against them. I'm simply
trying to point out that this is not the case.
My point is that the traditional gender roles evolved out of
some need of society, and was mutually agreed upon by men and women
at some point in time, as this arrangement allowed for a smoothly
functioning society.
Today, many women are attempting to change the traditional gender roles.
Given that people are comfortable with the old way, it is to be expected
that many people would fear and resist change. Rather than attempting to
force change through self-righteous anger, it would be far more
productive to understand why things are they way they are, and to
convince people that the new way can work better for everybody than the
old way. If you can't convince people of that, than perhaps change
isn't such a good idea after all.
--
"Without love in the dream it'll never come true"
Seth Jackson
cs11...@ucla-cs.uucp
>>My boss is a women, the best man for the job.
>>
>>From: a male feminist :-)
>
>Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell
>sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. The men out here
>don't get down on their hands and knees and ask their wife to strap on the
>10" dildo, as I have no doubt that you do. While your woman is getting into
>the fudge-packing and you're squealing like a pig in your high pitched voice,
>and yelling 'Shut up, you worthless wimp, or you're going to lick the dildo
>again!', there are men out here who go through life with no such insecurities
>as you seem to have- and women also.
>
>You'd better stick to perfecting your grunting and sucking technique and
>quit posting sickening atricles, slime.
> B. Dog
HEY! I think this guy is FOR REAL! He sounds SO convincing! He MUST BE speaking
from experience...
He also might be rabid.
Oleg Kiselev, student again.
ucla-cs!oac6.oleg
P.S. It really *IS* funny!!!
P.P.S. I remember I just laughed first time I read Ray Frank's and Ken Arndt's
postings. Then I read a few more... and it was no longer funny, it was
tragic...
Jeff Lichtman
> Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell
> sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. The men out here
> don't get down on their hands and knees and ask their wife to strap on the
> 10" dildo, as I have no doubt that you do. While your woman is getting into
> the fudge-packing and you're squealing like a pig in your high pitched voice,
> and yelling 'Shut up, you worthless wimp, or you're going to lick the dildo
> again!', there are men out here who go through life with no such insecurities
> as you seem to have- and women also.
>
> You'd better stick to perfecting your grunting and sucking technique and
> quit posting sickening atricles, slime.
> B. Dog
There are all kinds of insults I could heap on B. Dog, but I don't want to
start another pointless flame contest. I will just make the following
suggestion:
Either learn to express yourself in a civil manner, or get out.
Kathy Kister
wouldn't you agree?
:wq
>
Isaac Dimitrovsky
Kathy Kister writes:
> Generally, only the male carries the family name and is the only
> way to insure "immorality".
You got that right.
Isaac Dimitrovsky 251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 (212) 674-8652
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
You know the great thing about tv? If something important happens anywhere
at all in the world, no matter what time of the day or night, you can always
change the channel - Jim Ignatowski
Terry Grevstad
>My point is that the traditional gender roles evolved out of
>some need of society, and was mutually agreed upon by men and women
>at some point in time, as this arrangement allowed for a smoothly
>functioning society.
I will agree with this statement. Those "traditional gender roles"
are now in the process of changing, and both men and women are getting
bent out of shape because of it.
But, yes, the traditional roles _did_ provide for the needs of
society, and not too long ago either. If you go back even 100-150 years,
you would find a predominately agrarian society where families stayed
together in a local area, on a farm. The man tilled the fields,
herded the cattle/sheep/what-have-you, made sure house/barn/etc was in
good repair and the like. The woman helped till the fields when
necessary, often took sole responsibility for livestock (particularly
chickens/sheep/goats), raised a garden, baked bread, hand-washed all
laundry, made all the clothes, did all the housework sans modern
appliances. The children helped out as age, size and propensity indicated.
ALL INDIVIDUALS WERE MADE TO FEEL NEEDED AND WORTHWHILE!
However, come the turn of the century/industrial revolution/whatever
people started going to work in factories (men, women and children).
Men went to work more because if they lived in the city there were no
fields to till. They had more time to work. Women didn't because the
laundry still had to be done by hand, the bread still was baked at
home, and the budding home appliance industry was out of the average
price range. Therefore, the woman still had a LOT of work to do at
home.
But, gradually, home appliances became relatively easy to acquire,
and doing housework became relatively easy. Laundry--instead of a
back-breaking, all-day job--became a matter of throwing the clothes
in the washer, watching your favorite soap on TV, throwing the clothes
in the dryer, watching your favorite soap on TV, and folding the
clothes. No challenge, no effort, no feeling of satisfaction in a job
well done because you really didn't do anything.
Needless to say, women began to look around for more to do. Hence the
beginning of the "changing traditional gender roles". And I don't
blame anybody for it, but if I had to stay home all day long with only
housework (2 hours max) facing me, I'd go stark raving mad.
Consequently, I work. I enjoy my work. It gives me the satisfaction
of a job well done. I think a lot of women are looking for that
satisfaction, and don't feel they get it at home.
DISCLAIMER: This is, of course, very simplistic and is only my
assessment of the current state of "traditional gender roles". As
I've stated before on this net, "I may be wrong. I've been wrong
before, and I certainly expect to be wrong again at some point in
time."
Bye!
--
\"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c
_______________________________________________________________________
Terry Grevstad
Network Research Corporation
ihnp4!nrcvax!terry
{sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry
ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
Peter Ladkin
> [...] Nowhere in my posting did I attempt to prove
> male superiority or anything else. If you'll reread, you'll note that
> I simply raised some questions about why things are the way they are.
I think people were responding to implicit assumptions in your
questions.
For example, *have you stopped beating your wife yet?* is a
question, but there is propositional content to it.
Yours had much propositional content, and the replies you
have had so far seem to address that content quite well.
Peter Ladkin
Chap Flack
> on the family blood line and that the female don't count. I would have thought
> that everyone was past this, but I am constantly surprised by the number of
> idiots (particularly, my fater-in-law) who believe this. Generally, only
> the male carries the family name and is the only way to insure "immorality".
Was that intentional? :-)
--
---------------------
Chap Flack ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!flackc
Carleton College ihnp4!stolaf!flackc
Northfield, MN 55057
m.terribile
If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must
respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of
open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means
of coercion.
If a significant amount of a societies effort was expended in this
fashion, and if women were tied up bearing and caring for children, trying
to overwhelm the rather bad infant mortality odds, it seems likely that most
of the people who would be out patrolling, fighting, bargaining, etc., would
be men, who would grow more skilled in it; they would even be especially
trained for it. In fact, we see this happen in many less developed cultures.
If men grew more skillful at coercion than women, they might come to
predominate in the leadership of the society.
Anyone have a simpler explanation?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
the Real Swede
>
> etc., etc., etc.
>
> >My boss is a women, the best man for the job.
> >
> >From: a male feminist :-)
>
> Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell
> sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. The men out here
> don't get down on their hands and knees and ask their wife to strap on the
> 10" dildo
> B. Dog
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FLABERGASTED MESSAGE ***
Who the hell are you, to employ such foul language on a public system!
I've seen some flames in my time, but this crap takes the cake. If you don't
have the decency or intelligence to rotate or censor your postings, LEAVE
THEM AT HOME, WEIRDO!!!
Jeff Winslow
>
> If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must
>respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of
>open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means
>of coercion.
>
> If a significant amount of a societies effort was expended in this
>fashion, and if women were tied up bearing and caring for children, trying
>to overwhelm the rather bad infant mortality odds, it seems likely that most
>of the people who would be out patrolling, fighting, bargaining, etc., would
>be men, who would grow more skilled in it; they would even be especially
>trained for it. In fact, we see this happen in many less developed cultures.
>
> If men grew more skillful at coercion than women, they might come to
>predominate in the leadership of the society.
So, perhaps this dominance arose when the human population density finally
got high enough that pressure from adjacent cultures was a common occurrence?
And the time when females were dominant was before this? Sounds reasonable.
And what will happen if the "global village" ever becomes reality? Will
females dominate again?
Horrors! Quick, Watson, the bazookas!! :-)
Jeff Winslow
Peter Ladkin
> [...] most men, for whatever reason, tend to have a win/lose type of
> aggression. Simply put, for a man to feel he has won, he must feel that
> the other person has lost.
>
> Women, although they may choose to "compete", have the option of developing
> a win/win approach. Simply put, a woman can feel she has "won" if
> she gains benefit from the encounter even though the "opponant", if any,
> may have also gained.
The win/win approach has been the cornerstone
of professional diplomacy for many centuries. And the profession
hasn't exactly been known for its lack of discrimination by gender.
It's interesting you work in a place where the men are win/lose
problem-solvers, and the women are win/win.
I've never worked in a place like that.
To me, the trait has appeared in people independent of gender.
Peter Ladkin
Kee Hinckley
>
> respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of
> open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means
> of coercion.
Hmmm. There have been some cultures that were very non-aggressive. The
Hopi come to mind, but I may be wrong. Does anyone offhand know what the
status of women in such cultures is? My recollection is that women do
indeed have much more equal status.
-kee
--
...decvax!wanginst!apollo!nazgul
There was a man in our town,
An Astrophysicist,
Who found a place
In Hyperspace
By just a twist of the wrist.
But when he sought the Near Now
And gave another twist,
He found that he'd
Become somehow
A Cyberneticist.
A Space Child's Mother Goose
B.KORT
and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to me the outcome is generally
Lose/Lose? Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
partner?
--Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
Dana S. Nau
It sounds to me like you might be interested in reading Axelrod's book, "The
Evolution of Cooperation," which studies the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
It doesn't *directly* answer your questions above--but some of it is
relevant. Also, it's a pretty interesting book!
--
Dana S. Nau, Comp. Sci. Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
dsn@maryland seismo!umcp-cs!dsn (301) 454-7932
Robert Plamondon
>
> If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must
> respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of
> open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents
> means of coercion.
> ...
Look all the way back to the social organization of upper primates,
such as gorillas. Gorillas suffer from high infant mortality just as
primitive human cultures do, and if a mother dies, her child will
almost certainly die as well. In such a situation, it's clear that
you'd rather have the males doing the life-threatening work (such as
driving off big cats), since you lose only one group member if a male
dies, but at least two if a mother dies.
In human cultures, the same situations applied. If the women didn't
have lots of kids, the population would dwindle. If the women took up
dangerous professions, such as soldiering or seafaring, it would put
their kids at risk, or increase the chances that they wouldn't have
kids, and the population would dwindle.
While the root reason for all this is that men were ultimately more
expendable, it also worked out that the men who went trading,
raiding, or soldiering became more powerful than the people who
stayed at home.
--
Robert Plamondon
UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert
FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon
Disclaimer: It wasn't me! The check is in the mail!
They made me do it! It was an accident!
r...@ccivax.uucp
>In article <4...@ccivax.UUCP>, r...@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes:
>> [...] most men, for whatever reason, tend to have a win/lose type of
>> aggression. Simply put, for a man to feel he has won, he must feel that
>> the other person has lost.
>>
>> Women, although they may choose to "compete", have the option of developing
>> a win/win approach. Simply put, a woman can feel she has "won" if
>> she gains benefit from the encounter even though the "opponant", if any,
>> may have also gained.
>
>The win/win approach has been the cornerstone
>of professional diplomacy for many centuries. And the profession
>hasn't exactly been known for its lack of discrimination by gender.
Even though diplomacy begins with a win/win approach, frequently,
the end result has been one side or the other gaining a distinct advantage.
Often, "Teams" are built for the purpose of increasing pressure on opposite
side. This is win/lose.
>It's interesting you work in a place where the men are win/lose
>problem-solvers, and the women are win/win.
>I've never worked in a place like that.
>To me, the trait has appeared in people independent of gender.
>
>Peter Ladkin
I agree that this win/win strategy can be developed by men. In fact,
it should be allowed to developed at a much earlier age than it does.
Those men who use this approach too early to the exclusion of win/lose,
are frequently considered effeminate(sp?). In elementary school, boys
who aren't willing to fight or play with guns were considered "sissies"
(Derivation please?:-)). In Jr. High they were considered "fairies".
In high school, they were simply written off as homosexuals (many were,
but not all). Fortunately by college (perhaps because there was no draft
by the time I got there), it was acceptable to be non-competitive. Even
then, there were competitions of "wits", but it was possible to win without
the "opponant" loosing.
In my college (a predominately female school) we were encouraged to
compete against ourselves rather than each other. The object was to be
better today than you were yesterday. Of course, the two predominate
programs were music-theater and nursing and 70% of the men at the school
openly admitted that they were homosexual. Many of the heterosexual men
experienced profound personality changes during there stay in this school.
The sample was very small, less than 60 males in a school of 800 students,
only 18 heterosexual males.
Another interesting observation was that in the fencing course (one of the
few competitive courses), the women were initially more instintively defensive,
ie. able to deflect the thrust, and less counter-offensive (able to deflect
then counter thrust). Later, the women became more effective at the
counter-offence, so much so that although some never initiated the
offense, they could win in the first deflect/counter. During the final
"tournament", there were no male finalists (they had all lost in early
rounds).
This minature model of a "female dominated" society was one of the most
educational experiences of my life. I don't claim to understand women
better because of it, but it did shatter many of my old sexist beliefs.
It also exposed me to several "feminine" characteristics which I found
to be quite admirable (and a few that weren't, but we won't get into that:-)).
Jamie Andrews
>Hmmm. There have been some cultures that were very non-aggressive. The
>Hopi come to mind, but I may be wrong. Does anyone offhand know what the
>status of women in such cultures is?
You hit the jackpot here! The Hopi are one of the cultures I am most
interested in.
The traditional Hopi have a matrilineal, matrilocal clan structure, which
is to say that you belong to your mother's clan (Bear clan, Fire clan, etc.)
and stay in your mother's clan house. Women, usually the oldest in the house,
are the heads of the clans, and control domestic affairs. Since the Hopi
migrate only infrequently, this means that the women have considerable say in
the community.
However, men are the only ones allowed into the various religious
societies, which take care of most of the ritual life of the village. Men
are also the people usually in the position equivalent to mayor of a village
of clan houses.
The theory that I subscribe to about the origin of the Hopi's non-
aggressiveness is that they chose to live in such an arid and hostile
environment (the Black Mesa area of Arizona) that they had to form a highly
cooperative society to survive. However, I feel that the political power
afforded to women in this society is more a consequence of their putting a
high value on cooperation and domesticity than a result of it.
You are right that the traditional Hopi culture raises many interesting
questions about masculine/feminine roles and aggression, more than I can
talk about here. Reading a book on Hopi legends (my university library has
several) would give you a good introduction to their way of life.
BTW, I read an article recently which, if I remember correctly, seemed
to indicate that the US DND was trying to take over the Black Mesa area to
turn it into a military base. Does anyone have more information about this?
I would like to contribute to the cause of the Hopi if I can.
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"You *must* say the *number*"
r...@ccivax.uucp
In article <6...@hounx.UUCP> ko...@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes:
>Has anyone worked out the dynamics where one player is using Win/Win
>and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to meethe outcome is generally
>Lose/Lose? Does anyoneehaveea strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
>partner?
Yes, the author of "(I can't remember the name, but itrwas the book that
studied management techniques of the 100 most successful companies, had
a chapter called "stick to knitting", and changed the way managers view
business)" who originally identified this
tendancy, did propose several solutions on an NPR broadcast.
Theeexample given was a man (using win/lose) and a woman(using win/win)
strategy. They were bargaining over advertising rates for a
show whos ratings had climbed. Both had a liberal bargaining
margin. She was the buyer,rouhe was the seller. Herwants to
raise theeprice 20%.
Approach #1: Attempt to determine what itrwill take for the "adversary" to
feel that he has won. If possible, try to show him that you both
can win. If the opponant is willing to deal in a win/win situation,
then you can deal with him fairly.
Approach #2: Appear to surrender. The opponant does not have to know
that you've only used half your bargaining margin. You simply
get him to go as low as he feels he can. You can gain leverage
byrsetting your "surrender point" well aboveeyour "top price".
When you go aboveewhat you have set as your surrender point,
theeopponant feelsrouhe has won.
The interesting thing here is that the woman actually has the advantage.
Because theeopponant is in win/lose mode, he is risking the possibility
that she could simply terminateethe contract. Herknows that a new
account would beeharder to find.
Since the woman is simply trying to get the best buy for her company's
money, she has a number of options available. Both parties know that
his price is toorouhigh, and that her priceeis too low. Even "splitting
the difference" may result in a price that is wrong. If she considers
this account to beeimportant, sheecan let him win byrdetermining with
him what theereal value should be and giving him a little bit more.
She also wins because sheenow has better relations with the other negotiator
who will see her first if a really hot new product becomes available.
Interestingly, many of the most successful companies not only prefer
win/win negotiators but also use win/win in such things as "Brainstorming
Sessions", tactical and strategic planning, and management decision making.
Since women have more experience at this than men, they are often
r...@ccivax.uucp
>>
>> If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must
>> respond, and respond with aggression.
>
>Hopi come to mind, but I may be wrong.
>
the woman could throw the man out of the house, women "owned" the property.
In the Amazon culture, women warriors would cut off one breast to keep
the drawstrings from striking them. Women not only hunted, but also defended
the culture.
Several matriarchial cultures co-existed with male dominated cultures until
the spaniards were able to overpower them with guns and armor.
I recall a movie (fiction) where harem girls formed a band of outlaws and
gave an arab culture some trouble. Any historical background for this?
Phil Ngai
>and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to me the outcome is generally
>Lose/Lose? Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
>partner?
There was an interesting article in Scientific American about a
computer simulation of various strategies. The most generally
successful strategy was one called "tit for tat". You assume
cooperation until proved otherwise, but you remember the bad guys and
treat them according. A population of such players would take over a
population of bad guys if introduced and would dominate if
contaminated with bad guys.
It's a satisfying result, I think.
--
"We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will become the
present, and respect the past, knowing that once it was all that was
humanly possible."
Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!ph...@decwrl.dec.com
Jody Patilla
> > respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of
> > open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means
> > of coercion.
>
> Hopi come to mind, but I may be wrong. Does anyone offhand know what the
> status of women in such cultures is? My recollection is that women do
> indeed have much more equal status.
>
The Hopi were/are a matriarchial society. Several generations of
women in the same family live together and bring in husbands - men marry
out into other women's groupings.
--
jcpatilla
..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp
If you pick nits, you have to eat them. It's the polite thing to do.
m.terribile
> >
> > If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must
> >respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of
> >open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means
> >of coercion.
> >
> > If men grew more skillful at coercion than women, they might come to
> >predominate in the leadership of the society.
>
> So, perhaps this dominance arose when the human population density finally
> got high enough that pressure from adjacent cultures was a common occurrence?
> And the time when females were dominant was before this? Sounds reasonable.
>
> And what will happen if the "global village" ever becomes reality? Will
> females dominate again?
>
> Horrors! Quick, Watson, the bazookas!! :-)
>
> Jeff Winslow
My suspicion is that before competition between other clans/tribes/tribal
nations became a significant factor, competition from the environment began
the process. Note, however, that in the frontierlands of this country,
where the environment was the major competition, very often women had
(locally) as much authority as men ... there was too much to do to spend
energy and time governing or dominating. And I suspect that, apart from
the (admittedly considerable) asymmetries, of childbearing and child-rearing,
in very young societies, there was not a major distinction between the
authority of men and the authority of women.
m.terribile
> in the form of fighting, competitive sports, and "contests" of various
> types. Later, if and when maturity occurrs, the "contests" become more
> intellectual, insult matches, debates, and "intellectual clubbing matches"
> of various types. For the male, this is not really optional. For a male
> to not participate, results in low social status. Frequently, males who
> do not compete are given "lables" normally associated with homosexuality.
> For this article (and follow-ups) I'll call this agressive win/lose
> trait "macho".
We've got a few of these a**holes around here. All are despised to a greater
or lesser degree.
> Women, although they may choose to "compete", have the option of developing
> a win/win approach. Simply put, a woman can feel she has "won" if
> she gains benefit from the encounter even though the "opponant", if any,
> may have also gained. Personally, I consider this "feminine" trait to
> be superior in a society which must cooperate to survive.
> For this article, I'll call this trait "feminine".
>
> Think about it, would you really rather have an arms treaty negotiation
> between two "masculine" types, each insisting on a clear competitive
> advantage (and risk being on the "loosing" side), or two "feminine"
> types, each insisting that they be safer than they are now? I often
> wonder if we might not be better off having the "first ladies" cut the
> treaty (providing neither is actually a "macho woman" in disguise).
Note, however, that most of those who work the win/lose game sucessfully
know where to stop. Those who don't usually don't get very far in an
organization. Douglas Hofstadter, a few years ago, ran a column in
Scientific American in which he reported on programs that were designed
to play a Co-operate/Defect type of game. The most successful programs
were those that mimiced their opponents, being just as nice -- or as
nasty -- as the opponents were.
> A few "male feminist" role models:
> Mr Spock on Star Trek - in contrast to "shoot 'em up" Kirk, a pioneer!
> Even when he fights, the emotional restraint of the
> character is admirable.
And not necessarily a good role model for humans. If you supress/ignore
your emotions, you will end up being ruled by them, in one way or another.
> Tom Baker's Doctor Who - "ask questions first", seldom uses a gun, seldom
> fights, frequently a "win/win" resolution of the problem.
Hmm. Yes. Very interesting.
> By the way, are there other such role models available? My wife and I
> are both a little concerned when my three year old son comes up to
> daddy and says "I'm gonna break your face". He gets this stuff from
> television, but it is hard to find non-violent, non-insulting,
> "feminine" male role models.
I've got a better idea. Cut out the TV. Get him into books now, before
it's too late. Start with The Wind In The Willows, and the classic Dr.
Suess books. Make the TV hour a twice-a-week thing, make it a family
affair, and try to avoid the trash. And recognize that he is just playing.
Play it out with him, and try to get him interested in other things.
> As an example, most of our evaluation engineering staff are
> women. For some reason, when a male engineer is told by another
> male engineer that his program doesn't work right, the response is
> to "compete" by trying to prove that the test was done wrong. The
> women have come up with approaches that keep the men off the defensive.
> For example: "I'm not sure what is happening, but I can't get xyz
> function to work right, could you give me some help?"
I use this sort of thing with men and women -- no sex involved. Don't
look to the handbooks of seduction. Look to ``How To Win Friends and
Influence People'' by Dale Carnagie. Men like Lincoln and Franklin and
both Roosevelts and Andrew Carnagie and ... have done this. Just don't
say ``could you give me some help?'' as though you WANTED to be patronized.
Say ``could you show me what I'm doing wrong?''.
> The male programmer comes to the "rescue", simply to discover that his
> pride and joy (program) is broken. He further "rescues" the evaluator
> by having the fix done before the ink is dry on the trouble report.
>
> The evaluator knows full well that the space cadet programmer has left
> a gaping bug in the code that has to be fixed, but by not taking the
> "macho" role, both she and the programmer have saved time, effort, and
> emnity. Men have more difficulty taking this feminine role. In
> reality, the "feminine" is actually in control of the situation. Men
> are also less likely to "rescue" other men.
If this capability is the exclusive province of women, we are ALL in
trouble.
> We also have a few "feminine" men who have actually gained more by
> using win/win tactics than those who take the "macho" aproach. And
> despite wives, children and clear heterosexual preferences, the "Gay
> Jokes" and "hints" can be heard in the woodwork.
What the hell kind of place do you work in? The Dodge City municiple
iron works? The best way to deal with people like that is to show them
ONCE that you can be a worse SOB than they want to deal with. Then go
about getting your work done.
J. Eric Roskos
> and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to me the outcome is generally
> Lose/Lose? Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
> partner?
Could someone translate this into ordinary English? It sounds very
interesting, but the only place I have heard of these nouns with slashes
in the middle is in the pep-talk brochures the folks over in Sales write
for each other.
Seriously, no ":-)", the above sounds like something you'd read in the
"Bridge" column of the newspaper, not something you'd read involving the
nature of interpersonal relationships... "player"? "Win"? "Lose"?
"Strategy"? I am sure glad I have never encountered an SO who subscribed
to this philosophy! It appears to be a very weak one, where contamination
by a "lose" in the ratio of 3:1 converts the whole thing to "lose".
--
E. Roskos
rex ballard
>studied management techniques of the 100 most successful companies, had
>a chapter called "stick to knitting", and changed the way managers view
>business)"
The book was "In Search of Excellence", sorry for the mental block:-)
Chuck Koelbel
strategies was one of Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" columns.
(If you're interested, the column and some followup material appears in
his book _Metamagical_Themas_.)
What I wanted to point out is that "playing nice" like "tit for tat" does
is not always the best strategy. In a replay of the computer simulation
with different (sometimes more complicated) strategies, "tit for tat" did
not win - a program that "probed" its opponents to see their reactions
did better. The conclusion is that no one strategy is best. Your reactions
should be based on your environment. (For the win/win players out there
I should point out that not attacking until provoked does seem a robust
strategy, i.e. it does well in most environments.)
Chuck
Jeff Lichtman
> In article <6...@hounx.UUCP> ko...@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes:
>>Has anyone worked out the dynamics where one player is using Win/Win
>>and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to me the outcome is generally
>>Lose/Lose? Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
>>partner?
>
> There was an interesting article in Scientific American about a
> computer simulation of various strategies. The most generally
> successful strategy was one called "tit for tat". You assume
> cooperation until proved otherwise, but you remember the bad guys and
> treat them according. A population of such players would take over a
> population of bad guys if introduced and would dominate if
> contaminated with bad guys.
>
> It's a satisfying result, I think.
> --
The tit-for-tat strategy works as follows: start out cooperating. If, on
a particular turn, the opponent competes (i.e. does the opposite of
cooperation), then compete on the next turn and go back to cooperating.
The only thing one has to remember is what the opponent did the last time
around.
The Scientific American article described an elimination tournament in which
the worst player would be dropped every n rounds. The article said that
"tit-for-tat" was the best strategy; that is, it would end up surviving the
longest, even when competing with much more complicated strategies. One of
the conclusions of the article was that keys to longterm survival were
non-aggression (never hitting first) and forgiveness (not carrying a grudge;
hitting back if hit but then forgetting that it ever happened).
I wrote a program to run a similar tournament. My brother and I played around
with strategies, and found one that worked better than "tit-for-tat" in the
mix of strategies we were using. We called it "progressive punishment". It
would never hit first, just like "tit-for-tat". It differed from "tit-for-tat"
in that it would hit back once the first time a particular opponent hit it,
twice the second time, thrice the third time, and so on. It should be noted
that the results of such a simulation depend entirely on the mix of strategies;
it's possible that "progressive punishment" would do very badly under some
circumstances.
Lee Hagerty
>> Has anyone worked out the dynamics where one player is using Win/Win
>> and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to me the outcome is generally
>> Lose/Lose? Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
>> partner?
>
>"Bridge" column of the newspaper, not something you'd read involving the
>nature of interpersonal relationships... "player"? "Win"? "Lose"?
>"Strategy"? I am sure glad I have never encountered an SO who subscribed
>to this philosophy! It appears to be a very weak one, where contamination
>by a "lose" in the ratio of 3:1 converts the whole thing to "lose".
The Win/Lose player says, "I have to win even if I'm wrong." The Win/Win
says, "We both have to win even if one of us is wrong." It seems to me
that both types of players are telling a lot of lies.
Lee
Matthew P. Wiener
>What I wanted to point out is that "playing nice" like "tit for tat" does
>is not always the best strategy. In a replay of the computer simulation
>with different (sometimes more complicated) strategies, "tit for tat" did
>not win - a program that "probed" its opponents to see their reactions
>did better. The conclusion is that no one strategy is best. Your reactions
>should be based on your environment. (For the win/win players out there
>I should point out that not attacking until provoked does seem a robust
>strategy, i.e. it does well in most environments.)
What do you mean by "best strategy"? "tit for tat" is best against ALL
the competition. In other words, it can be beaten, but only barely. The
other known strategies, including the "prober", will lose spectactularly
against certain other strategies, and so on average, do worse than "tit for
tat".
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
jimb@ism780
> The Win/Lose player says, "I have to win even if I'm wrong." The Win/Win
> says, "We both have to win even if one of us is wrong." It seems to me
> that both types of players are telling a lot of lies.
>
> Lee
I think you're missing the point in that an awful lot of situations "right"
and "wrong" depend purely on perception -- a sort of quantum view of
psychosociology -- and as such, two not-equivalent statements can still be
true. Now, ideologists of all stripes and flavors, from John Birchers to
religious fundamentalists to the theoreticians of the Soviet Communist Party
can and do deny this, clamoring in unison, "There is but one way!"
-- from the musings of an ideological moderate,
Jim Brunet
"Me? I'm just looking for Schrodinger's cat."
ihnp4/ima/ism780
hplabs/hao/ico/ism780
sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780C/ism780
Henry Polard
> The Hopi were/are a matriarchial society. Several generations of
>women in the same family live together and bring in husbands - men marry
>out into other women's groupings.
(such as the ancient Hebrews) are MATRILINEAL.
It seems to me also that in most such societies, women are not oppressed
as much as in most patrilineal societies.
In MATRIARCHIES, women hold most of the power. I know of no well-documented
matriarchies. The Hopi, according to SUN CHIEF and other books
I have read, are run by the men for the most part.
Could someone provide references about any true matriarchies? Thanks.
>If you pick nits, you have to eat them. It's the polite thing to do.
--
Henry Polard (You bring the flames, I'll bring the marshmallows.)
hplabs!nsc!voder!suntek
mxp...@ritcv.uucp
>
>What do you mean by "best strategy"? "tit for tat" is best against ALL
>the competition. In other words, it can be beaten, but only barely. The
>other known strategies, including the "prober", will lose spectactularly
>against certain other strategies, and so on average, do worse than "tit for
>tat".
yes, "tit for tat" would be best if one was considering 'on average', but what
if one was just interested in winning percentage? The point I make is that
there is not necessarily just one way to test for the "best strategy."
By the way, what does this have to do with net.singles and net.women?
sil...@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Sorry to disapoint you, but the "Amazons" are almost surely mythic, at least
in large part. Pliny (I think) mentions them, but he also mentions people
with only one arm and one leg who move by hopping. Interestingly enough, his
account is literary evidence that the early Greeks drew the bow to the chest
(a half pull) rather than to the ear like latter people.
The last sovereign ruler of Palmyra (a mideastern country which included
what is now Syria and Lebanon) was a woman, Queen Zenobia (or Xenobia), who
took over the crown when her husband died and led an unsuccessful revolt against
Rome (under Marcus Aurelius). Bodacia was a queen in Briton who led a revolt
against the Romans as well, although she appears to have had little control
over her nobles or troops.
Ami Silberman
Alan Algustyniak
Alan Algustyniak
I'm reporting on 2 ideas that i just read about, concerning why, in
prehistoric times, men were the bread-winners and women raised the
children. I'm sure that the enlightened, open-minded community which
contributes to this newsgroup will treat these ideas on their merits.{
These ideas from 2 anthropologists were recently reported in a magazine
article[1].
1.) Women in early big-game hunting societies did not get the chance
to hunt because of menstrual dysfunctions...If early woman joined
the hunts often enough, it would have endangered her reproductive
potential....There may indeed have been some societies where women
hunted, and because of it these societies did not survive. "Those
societies where women did not go out and hunt are the ones that
reproduced and survived."
[Women's] role as child bearer and rearer was more important to
the band than any of her desires to run after mammoths. "Men,"
Graham says,"are[sic] much more expendable than women." They
could be killed or maimed on a hunt, and the band would still survive.
2.) DeRios thinks that the reproductive odors a woman[sic] emits may
have been what excluded them from hunts. Animals..."would either
have fled or attacked" a band that included a woman.
----------
I'm not very interested in the topic personnaly, and have not thought much
about it, so my personal opinion isn't worth the cost of transmission.
Al Algustyniak
[1] "But, Oog, She Throws Like a Girl", Insight magazine, 10 Feb, 1986.
Chuck Koelbel
> In article <5...@mordred.purdue.UUCP> c...@purdue.UUCP (Chuck Koelbel) writes:
> >What I wanted to point out is that "playing nice" like "tit for tat" does
> >is not always the best strategy. In a replay of the computer simulation
> >with different (sometimes more complicated) strategies, "tit for tat" did
> >not win - a program that "probed" its opponents to see their reactions
> >did better. The conclusion is that no one strategy is best.
>
> the competition. In other words, it can be beaten, but only barely. The
> other known strategies, including the "prober", will lose spectactularly
> against certain other strategies, and so on average, do worse than "tit for
> tat".
>
I meant "best" in the sense that no strategy always has the highest total
at the end of the tournament. (I believe this was what the original message
meant, as well as the way the tournament was judged. But it's been a while
since I read the article, so I may be wrong.) So the "win/lose" players out
there may not want to use tit-for-tat. For us "win/win" players, it is still
a good option.
Chuck Koelbel
Kee Hinckley
> In article <7...@osiris.UUCP> j...@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes:
> > The Hopi were/are a matriarchial society. Several generations of
> >women in the same family live together and bring in husbands - men marry
> >out into other women's groupings.
> The Hopi, as well as several extemely patriarchial societies
> (such as the ancient Hebrews) are MATRILINEAL.
> In MATRIARCHIES, women hold most of the power. I know of no well-documented
> matriarchies. The Hopi, according to SUN CHIEF and other books
> Could someone provide references about any true matriarchies? Thanks.
When I get home (if I get home?) I will try and remember to look through my
notes, but I believe you are correct. I seem to remember that people have
tried, but never found a society that was truely matriarchal.
As a bizarre aside this reminds me of a paper I wrote. If you want a really
strange society, consider Anne McCaffrey's Pern. There are three different
methods of descent, depending on whether you belong to a Guild, one of the
landowner holds, or to a dragon hold. (I may have the terminology wrong).
The dragon holds are patriarchal, but the passage of power is matrilineal through
the dragons!
-kee
--
...decvax!wanginst!apollo!nazgul
This is the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
A Space Child's Mother Goose
(8 more messages to finish this poem!)
Linda Seltzer
> >> and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to me the outcome is generally
> >> Lose/Lose? Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
> >> partner?
My answer is not to play manipulative games. I have my own philosophy
of life, which is spiritual. If someone is being dishonest with me, I
confront that person directly. In some situations I have done this in
writing. If someone is acting like a cutthroat I either tell them I
don't like it or I find another, less direct way to let them know
that. I am not about to waste my intellectual energy on keeping track of
who did what to me and who slighted me. I would never get anything done
and wouldn't progress at all to any meaningful levels of life experience
and inspiration, such as artistic or scientific creativity. There are
all kinds of people walking around who will try to play all sorts of
win-lose games, and you can't lose if you don't play. I consider
these people's actions to be like random noise. I just ignore it like
the static on the radio, and go about whatever positive thing I am doing.
That's part of what you learn in a practice like meditation or playing
the shakuhachi. You just concentrate on your life (breathing) and
block out junk and noise.
Paul O`Shaughnessy
>Has anyone worked out the dynamics where one player is using Win/Win
>and the other is using Win/Lose? Seems to me the outcome is generally
>Lose/Lose? Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with a Win/Lose
>partner?
>--Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
Leave/Leave.
****************
Paul O'Shaughnessy @ Axiom Technology, Newton MA
Home of the 'Management Team'
{decvax,ihnp4,utzoo}!linus!axiom!paul or
{bellcore!topaz,seismo}!harvard!axiom!paul on UUCP