The Roots of Misogyny

[wukter]

Why is practically every human society across all times, places and cultures dominated by men?
I have read that War on Women article that MillyR linked to. It's chilling. Why is it everywhere?

I would be interested in your thoughts, or maybe there is actually a simple, widely accepted answer that I could be pointed to.

I was watching the West Wing last night, it was an episode where some congressmen had been killed in Gaza, and the president was under pressure from (nearly) everyone to launch a revenge attack. Even though they knew that many civilians would be killed, the vast majority of people and advisors were adamant that he had to do it. It really made me think about the glorification of the value of violence. Most of the characters (and yes it wasn't real, I know) didn't care that military action would just continue or even escalate warfare. They wanted violence for violence's sake, just to show that the president was a Real Man.

Sorry if this seems off the point, but I think attitudes to violence have a lot to do with modern sexual politics. I can see that people have clashed over land and resources, but these days most people don't need to do that. And yet schools teach a history that glorifies war and military leaders, focussing on the (few IMO) wars where Britain has unequivocally been on the right side. Kids don't AFAIK learn about the history of colonisation or oppression in e.g. Ireland or India, or about many of the great events in Britain's history that have not involved shooting each other. It's a history of men doing glorious violence, basically, that't taught for the most part.

And nowadays when we don't need to wrestle our neighbours for the last turnip, boys and men are still being trained to think violence is a hallmark of their identity. Toy guns, computer games that involve blowing up zombies/Arabs/each other, "men's food" being something where something had to die for it (e.g. steak). Porn is another aspect of this, with much of it frankly picturing women being treated violently.

To be a man is to leave a trail of destruction behind you?

I think that is exactly why "practically every human society across all times, places and cultures is dominated by men". It is to do with power, the need to gain power and control and the lengths gone to, to obtain it. This comes back to what daftpunk said at the beginning "men are more power-driven".
Women on the whole are not power-driven in the same way. I don't think it is to do with nurture, I think it is nature. The male need for control and dominance can also be seen in the animal kingdom.

I think it's nature too, but I still don't think it has to be inevitable.
For example, men's testosterone is raised by being around raised testosterone, apparently. So at a football match, say. Fights and rapes, DV or other types of violence would increase, driven by testosterone.
Alcohol raises testosterone.
I have quite a high testosterone, I think. Just quite competitive in general and body shape. I have lots of brothers, so I wonder if there's a connection there.

So, I do think a peaceful society can be built if we stop glorifying violence (Elephant's point), start reigning in alcohol consumption etc

I find it interesting how quite a few women say "I think I am more like a man" or "I have more testosterone than normal" or "I am not very feminine" - actually if you are a woman then your testosterone level doesn't make you a man/manly. We have all been told that women are full of cuddle hormones and men are full of liquid kill in the form of testosterone - my guess would be that the significant differences between the sexes are much lower than we would think. Testosterone is used as an excuse for everything.

"The male need for control and dominance can also be seen in the animal kingdom." You say that but it seems from what I've read/seen to be mostly competition amongst males. There does't seem to be much enslavement of females, violence against females etc etc.

I often think that commentaries on nature are so obviously spiced up with human assumptions that it is really misleading. I saw a documentary where someone was intoning in a hushed breath about how the males were fighting for control/dominance over the females and the best feeding spot on the river. Cut to picture of 50 bloody great female hippos with their babies, happy as larry in the best feeding spot where they live. Is it really that the males are fighting to "dominate" these female hippos? Seems to me they are competing to be allowed to mate with the females, and to be allowed access by the females to the best food. But time and again you hear about this "dominance" crap. If the females are living free and happy lives and the males are the ones who are having to fight amongst each other, aren't the females dominant in that grooup?

I have often heard it said that high cheekbones are a sign of high testosterone. I don't know if there is any truth in that.
But nature has made all of us different. I don't think we can ever have a peaceful society. I think there will always be some people who nature makes more competitive and power seeking (maybe partially to do with more testosterone). These people will always struggle to gain power over others, however they are brought up. Saddam is an example of this type.

I have recently been watching Channel 4's 3 part documentary on the drug trade. Thinking about it, all of the gangs are led by men who are ruthless and power seeking. It can't have anything to do with physical strength, because women could also obtain weapons which would put them on an equal footing to the men. There will always been some men who have the will and are prepared to do anything to get power. I think that is why nearly all societies come under the control of men in some way or other.

I think you are right. Men are essentially fighting it out amongst themselves, which is what the drug gangs do. The competition and desire for power is for power over all of society, but it is mainly men who are the rivals in the struggle. I mentioned Karen Horney in the psychoanalysis thread and I think she made some good insights. I think that male animals have lesser purpose and are of lesser importance to nature than female animals and that is why they strive to create their purpose by competing and fighting it out, and that is why nature can allow men to be expendable in wars, whereas on the whole most societies throughout history have not wanted women to fight and die in wars.

Yes, elephant, I think men and women have got testosterone, but only women have got oestrogen (??)
But when you breastfeed, for example, oxytocin and other peaceful hormones are released into your body.
And I do think that while there's no difference between men and women's brains on an intellectual level, I do think there's a difference on a behavioural level: that part is the animal in us, because we are animals. So the desire to reproduce, for example. In the throes of giving birth to my first, I was baffled as to why any woman would go through it more than once. But most of us do . It's totally irrational.
Also, you can't deny that women, because of their lower fertility, have a vested interest in cooperation, whereas men's high fertility makes them more, ahem, disposable to the human race. This is what drives male competitiveness, I think. The need to compete with other males on an evolutionary level.

Riven, domestic violence increases when a woman is pregnant.
I was shocked when I first read that.
You'd think a father would naturally feel protective of his baby, but in many cases he sees a child as competition.

eh? not on an intellectual level
I meant to say, there's no difference in intelligence

(or at least we have to let them think that)

I agree with Sakura, it is evolutionary. It is subconscious and is driven by our animal instincts. Civilisation is a way to curb these animal instincts, but much of all of our underlying behaviour is still driven by these instincts.

I think biological in the sense that men and women behave differently ( the instinct, animal part). You get more male serial killers, for example, and more male murderers.

But I think it's cultural in the sense that a man who attacks a pregnant woman has probably suffered some sort of neglect or abuse in his life to behave that way. Not taking the blame off him, but just saying that if we create a more peaceful culture, one where people feel that child-rearing is everyone's responsibility, and every child gets the financial and emotional support they need, then I think we'd see less violence overall.

not fair DP, didn't a woman invent the hooter hider?

and the dishwasher

Sakura I heard that a man very rarely fatally harms his own biological child, and when it has been reported as happening it is rarely his even if he believes it is (something to do with kin recognition, but don't know how kin recognition would work in pregnancy, suppose in that case it would come down to doubt over fidelity and getting rid of a potentially not his child to make way for one he can be more sure is his?)

its all to do with DNA and giving his the best advantage over the DNA of other men

I disagree with that oneortwo. Children are more likely to be killed by their father than a random stranger.

I think men attacking women and children is not normal. Men attacking other men makes sense, but as they were saying earlier, many societies didn't make the connection between sex and babies, so I don't think there's any evolutionary reason for men to attack women and children. Just other men.

But isn't infacide common right across primates? and usually its infants that are not related to the male?

And is it not STEP fathers who are most likely to kill infants, biological fathers may harm them but rarely kill?

Some fathers are unknowing or non-public step fathers and isn't there evidence to say that when in stories of "fathers" killing off spring it was really more of a step father situation?

fighting other males is just one way to give their genes an advantage,
Infacide is another
being a provider male is another
all have the same biological motive?

NOpe, biological fathers often do away with their family (then people feel sorry for the killers on Jeremy Vine). Fathers also sexually abuse their daughters. Biological fathers!! It makes no sense, but they do.

NOpe, biological fathers often do away with their family (then people feel sorry for the killers on Jeremy Vine). Fathers also sexually abuse their daughters. Biological fathers!! It makes no sense, but they do.

The Herod story is one of infanticide. It probably represents the fear of competition and being supplanted. The Oedipus story is double-edged, with the risk to the father of being killed by a future competitor son. Many kings were killed by their own sons, who then usurped power. Every lion will one day lose position in the pride to one of the cubs.

Many kings were killed by their own sons,

OMG, really? THat ties in with the "all other men are enemies" theory.

Yeah and how many old stories are there of gods/kings locking away/killing/changing their daughters into something else because they fear that the daughter's child will defeat them?

My friend said once WRT a text we were studying, that some people fear the passage of time/death. And in some men this becomes a hatred for those who will survive them, and a hatred for the woman who will give birth to the younger generation. Women = next generation = death of the older.

For some reason women aren't quite so upset about this?

I'm afraid that's bollocks oneortwo - so many men kill their children it's unbelievable. As for "well maybe they weren't their children anyway" - sounds like murder-excusing nonsense to me (I know it wsan't your idea! not accusing you).

"For some reason women aren't quite so upset about this?"

I think that's right. I think it is because the male role is tenuous and easily supplanted by a younger generation of males. The female role is fundamental,whereas the male is expendable. The male is destined to lose power and in some that leads to fear and that's probably where we get these tales of infanticide from.

However, we know that most infanticide is carried out against female babies across the world, so male infanticide is quite rare as far as I know.