Post-apocalyptic man

[Superlambaanana]

I watched ‘The End We Start From’ on Netflix last night. It’s about what happens after a natural disaster which wipes out power and food supply chains. Usual apocalyptic stuff - hospitals overwhelmed, society breaks down, looting, violence, survival of the fittest, fear and misery for those who are weaker (women).

The violence obviously is mainly perpetrated by men - often against women.

It’s got me thinking about how feminism can never really achieve equality. Equality feels like oppression to those in a position of privilege. So men will just overthrow an equal society. By physical force if necessary. Because in extreme situations, when men don't get what they want they will fight each other and just take whatever they want from women. I suspect the only thing that keeps the few men who aren’t already repressing, raping and beating us from doing it is the fact that civilised society suits them - for now.

All post apocalyptic films assume, and real life situations (war, famine) show that society’s niceties are immediately abandoned when food and resources become too scarce. Kindness to others, sharing and working together is replaced by oppression and violence.

Or did Covid show us that people will work hard to maintain order? Even those whose physical advantages mean they could seize the opportunity to steal, rape and murder.

It's an interesting discussion to have. There will always be altruists and violent oppressors. I wouldn't overlook how women can influence situations through negotiation and working cooperatively (I'm not saying only women negotiate and co-operate but if you're physically weaker then that can be a useful strategy). Women play a big role in resistance in war-time working covertly. I found the book Station Eleven very thought provoking because it showed humans developing different social structures in different groups cut off from each other.

I suspect the only thing that keeps the few men who aren’t already repressing, raping and beating us from doing it is the fact that civilised society suits them - for now

Few ? - We happy few ?- we band of brothers? Here's to us. Still a bit quiet in the pub this afternoon

I'm curious to see where this discussion goes as I've had a similar thought. I only feel relatively safe - just did my mandatory Domestic Violence training with all the national stats, so it is "relative" to war or post apocolytic scenarios because of the level of civilisation we've achieved so far is still not great when the stats are highlighted. The moment war breaks out our risk , and he risk to children, go right up, of course it does.

You only need to look at the fact that rape is carried out so extensively by soldiers during wars to see how true this is. Ok, not post-apocalyptic but when normal rules of society don't apply.

Thanks for the replies. Bit gloomy but interesting to imagine what might happen and whether it really would be like the horror movies with rampant oppression and violence, cannibalism and loss of any humanity.

I worry occasionally about a breakdown of society and what it might mean for me as a single, middle aged woman with no children.

I previously felt that world war 3 was most likely to be fought digitally and economically through commerce instead of violence - I mean why would China cross the Pacific to invade and conquer Silicone Valley when they can just buy it instead?

But the war in Ukraine and rise of the far right (which I believe is partly driven by men who feel their position is under increasing threat from equality) has heightened the potential for a ground war which could reach my doorstep.

There's also been recent messaging warning us to have some basic supplies available to cope for a few days should the power grid pack in (of which there is apparently a very high chance). As we know from Covid and Brexit, supply chains are extremely fragile. And almost all of us have absolutely no idea how to grow food or keep animals and rely entirely on the supermarket for survival.

I did buy a wind up radio and some water purification tablets but I'm no survivalist! I have a big enough garden to have chickens. But what's the point if, should it come to the point where I'd need to feed myself, some man would just invade my house and garden, rape and kill me and then take everything I had for himself anyway?!

Its much more complicated than "society collapses, murder and rape instantly begins". A lot of it depends on how strong existing social structures are, grass roots civil society etc. The war in Ukraine is an interesting example because the places that got bombed to shit basically did see a complete collapse in the formal ability of authorities to do anything. People were desperate, often starving and everything went back to the stone age. There were reports of looting in places like Mariupol (not just for food but for random stuff) and some people got very drunk. There was also probably some really bad shit that happened that we don't know about. But lots and lots of cases of men trying desperately to break into flats where old people were trapped to get them water, quite a lot of pulling together etc. There was a story of a woman who drove into Mariupol to rescue some people and a man at the hospital tried to take her car (because he was trapped) but others stopped him. So people were still policing each other and some men were policing other men. But that's because Mariupol was under attack from an external enemy so people were "in it together", plus civil society is quite strong there, and people were in many cases with their families. All of which means that most people see the people around them as their "in group" to an extent (despite their being some quite strong pre-existing divisions). Half the population didn't suddenly go, whohoo no police lets go on a rampage.

Some men are very violent, and dangerous all the time. Much much more men are likely to treat women in their "in group" fairly well and view violence against them as bad. But if its other men in their group attacking/hurting women/children/men they don't consider their in group they are much less likely to help, and actually fairly likely to join in. Its why groups of young men holidaying in places like Amsterdam are so unpopular with the locals, and why terrible stuff happens in war, and why UN peacekeepers will set up child trafficking rings and no-one around them does anything. (Women can be as bad for this, even if they aren't committing the sexual violence themselves) Some men will always step in to stop bad things happening, even if its their best mate doing something bad to a total stranger. They are rarer but its behaviour that can be learned and taught. (Religion tries to do this sometimes. Think Jesus and the "every man is my neighbour".)

That was a really long essay. But actually some of the most important aspects of disaster planning from a government perspective should be strengthening community ties. This is already being thought about in e.g. planning for areas prone to devastating floods. From an individual perspective, I guess prepping for disaster should also include living in a close knit community or making your area as much of a close knit community as possible. So make friends with your neighbours.

I don't want to understate how awful it must be to be in places like Mariupol. It must have been hell. And as I said, people were desperate and I am sure some took advantage of the situation. But it wasn't as bad as it could have been in terms of people's behaviour.

This is an interesting read: Natural hazards, disasters and violence against women and girls: a global mixed-methods systematic review (unwomen.org)

Slightly OT, but along the same line of thought, how much do you all think it would change men's behaviour if women had access to weapons and men did not? Is their desire to dominate women so strong that they would be willing to take the risk of being killed, or would they change their ways?

Or why did civilisation start in the first place.
They could continue with the subjugation - why not?

@biscuitandcake thanks for your long post, you make some really interesting points. That's fascinating about Ukraine. But yes the killer line is that everyone is in it together against a clearly defined external enemy. I can see how that creates 'Blitz spirit' as there's an end in sight and that end will be better if people work together to defeat the enemy.

Where there are no compelling reasons to work together I think people - especially men - move into 'me against the world' mode.

So why doesn't government do contingency planning for this kind of scenario- a scenario where government no longer exists because individual officials have abandoned their posts? Building up communities, educating people, establishing local food production networks which don't rely on just in time supply chains, creating ways for us to function without fuel for at least one growing season etc etc. The answers are indeed there.

Depressingly the answer is because they're not even doing proper planning for a scenario when government doesn't break down - as per Covid when ppe supplies had been let dwindle by neglectful departments in 'peace time'. Unfortunately the cost of living crisis has allowed many to forget Covid very quickly and few lessons have been learned, or better contingency planning out in place. The next pandemic will see all the same issues - toilet roll hoarding, dodgy contracts and hand wringing about what to do when, resulting in more deaths again which could have been avoided).

And I believe there is a slightly more horrific reason- because predicting doom doesn't get you elected and helping people work together in a way that doesn't rely on government means you lose some of your 'power' if you're a politician. And people in power only care about power so they are probably the very ones who will do the worst deeds given half a chance!

Thanks for sharing. Rather horrifying as it sets out a lot of evidence that men do immediately take advantage of situations to abuse women physically, emotionally and financially.

This was explored in a Netflix drama called The Power with Toni Collette. The idea that women suddenly evolved an innate power to electrocute an attacker. It was a very good watch!

I believe the world would be a very different place if women had a physical advantage. But that opens up the question of whether we gain it suddenly or had it all along, and the different outcomes of those two scenarios.

Gained suddenly it would likely mainly be used to fight men off rather than allowing us to develop a better society from scratch.

If it was always there, then society would have evolved with women in the dominant social position. Which sounds like a dream - less violence, kindness at leadership levels, cooperation and coalition valued over men's preference for exerting force, making demands and taking things against others' will. But, would women have evolved as much of our cooperation, kindness and intelligence if we hadn't been forced to by men's superior physical power? Maybe we'd just be the marauding men and men would be the more decent sex.

Just my twopence thought.

There are those who think we are where we are (successful to expand specie) thanks to our collaborative nature.

History tends to hide the community /common people achievements but there are many. Recently, all the western workers well fare improvements from weekend to pension, etc. Focus on the helpers.