Jump to content
Mr Rayon

If men didn't exist would there be less wars?

Recommended Posts

And assuming only women existed and that they reproduce more women but differently to how the women of modern society today reproduce with men.

Edited by Voltman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be fewer wars. There could not be less wars since a war is a discrete unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And assuming only women existed and that they reproduce more women but differently to how the women of modern society today reproduce with men.

 

No. Whether a society of men or women there will be wars as long as the competition for land and survival resources exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do know what would have happened if it had been three wise WOMEN instead of men, don’t you? They would have asked for directions, arrived on time, helped deliver the baby, cleaned the stable, made a casserole, and brought disposable diapers as gifts!

 

This is an old joke - but it does underline the fact that many people believe women think things over more rationally than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that women, as the traditional gatherers, have a much larger strategic focus than men do, as the hunters. For the majority of our existence, men had the tactical responsibility of flushing game and then hunting it down, a more tactical role, while women had to keep on the lookout for a wider variety of things to gather. I don't think one gender is more rational than the other, it's just that their overall focus is different.

 

War is often a strategic option so I don't think there would necessarily be fewer of them if women were in charge. I also think some modern wars are waged because of arms economics, but I'm not sure if women would see the need to use weapon production to grow the economy as a strategic advantage the way the current powers seem to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked no one said anything about not being able to reproduce without men. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there would be less war (fewer wars, or smaller or less destructive). I think women are less inclined toward physical aggression.

 

I was recently pondering an idea that matriarchies might be a more natural societal power structure in the absence of physical conflict, for humans and other animals as well. I think that if there was less war, there would be more women in power. So a decrease in the influence of men might be enough... you wouldn't have to get rid of men completely! I definitely think there is a correlation between men in power and the prevalence of war, but a causal relation between the two may go both ways. A group of animals that has more conflict may desire more male leaders, and a group that has more men may result in more conflict.

 

I suspect that past conflicts in human history have allowed men to gain more power, changing matriarchal societies into patriarchal ones. Then, once in power, those in power tend to want to stay there, so they may prolong or seek out additional conflict to perpetuate their "usefulness". This may be intentional (as with "war presidents") or not (aggressive leaders may simply be naturally aggressive even in the absence of conflict). That is, patriarchies perpetuate war, and wars perpetuate patriarchies.

 

 

There are probably cases to support this idea, but I don't know if it's strong enough to claim it's true in general, and certainly it's not true of all men and women as individuals.

Edited by md65536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's entirely speculative, obviously, but I would guess so, just because it's true on smaller scales. Something like 95% of murders are committed by men. Women just seem much less prone to use violence. (That's not to say that women get along more harmoniously, just that physical violence is a much less used "weapon" when they don't.) You could argue that wars aren't started for the same reasons that individuals murder each other, but perhaps more fundamentally they pretty much are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was recently pondering an idea that matriarchies might be a more natural societal power structure in the absence of physical conflict, for humans and other animals as well.

I agree with this. Based on the reasons I gave earlier, I think women would think more "big picture", and make more long-term plans than men would. Like it's more tactical to put out a forest fire, but more strategic and better in the long run to let it burn.

 

I'm already starting to hear this kind of talk after the devastating earthquake/tsunami in Japan. It could be of long-term benefit because a lot of those old facilities needed updating and now they'll be built state-of-the-art instead of just refurbishing the old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
many people believe women think things over more rationally than men.

Extremes to be sure, and all probably involved a lot of "thinking things over", but these women are at least as violent as men. The only difference is that women are allowed to say that Satan told them to do it.


  •  
  • The all too common reality of increasing aggression in girls and young women that's often caught on video
  • Wanda Holloway attempted to murder the mother of her daughter's cheerleading rival.
  • Tonya Harding hired thugs to eliminate her figureskating rival from the competition.
  • Pamela Smart, a pedophile who coerced her victim to murder her husband (but don't traumatize her pet dog).
  • Louise Woodward shook a baby to death, was convicted of murder but served only 9 months.
  • Dorothea Puente ran a boarding house where she murdered old and disabled men for their money.
  • Andrea Yates murdered her five young children by drowning them in the bathtub.
  • Lisa Montgomery murdered an expectant mother in order to kidnap her unborn baby.
  • Katherine Knight murdered, skinned, cooked and ate her husband and attempted to feed him to his kids.
     

And, sadly, we make light of violent females through movies such as Arsenic and Old Lace, So I Married an Axe Murderer, Keeping Mum, and Serial Mom (which also included a cameo by notorious bank robber Patricia Hearst).

 

“If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; however, the line between good and evil runs through every human heart.
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

The reality is that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart, and I don't see women any different than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reality is that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart, and I don't see women any different than men.

Uh, I guess you gave some good examples linking women to war. blink.gif

 

 

But it's not about good vs evil, or women vs men, or stereotypes or unfair generalization.

 

Men tend to have more testosterone. Testosterone levels are linked to aggression. Aggression is linked to war.

 

A hypothesis that (a lot) fewer men would result in less war, is a good one. I expect that it's true.

 

 

It might be false... perhaps the link between aggression and war is superficial. Perhaps war is inevitable, and any group will tend toward war as much as any other. But I don't think that's true.

 

I think that if you removed all the males from a group, females would naturally fill any of the necessary roles that the removed males previously had, as well as some of the unnecessary roles. I don't think war is necessary or natural (though conflict in general appears natural), and I don't see any reason why women would maintain war at the same levels that the world does now (with war currently being dominated by males).

 

Some possible indicators:

- Do societies predominated by women tend to be significantly more or less prone to physical conflict? (Lesbos and the Amazons being examples of either side of the argument, but I don't know what is history and what is myth).

- Do societies with female leaders tend to engage significantly more or less in war? (This may be more correlation than cause, as warring nations may prefer male leaders rather than that female leaders are better at avoiding war).

 

 

I'm fairly certain that there's a strong link between men and war that is more than coincidence or circumstance. However, I don't want to bother doing the research and it's possible I am biased due to stereotype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, I guess you gave some good examples linking women to war. blink.gif

Joan of Arc, Queen Victoria, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If women didn't exist, would (artificially gestated) children get nurtured and raised?

 

sorry, I know people complain that I challenge the premises of thread, etc. but I just wanted to throw in a similar question to point out that gender-associated culture doesn't necessarily mean that the culture is a response to a need caused by the associated gendered individuals.

 

Put another way, I wouldn't assume that war is caused by men as much as it is caused by social/cultural/economic conflicts that emerge from peaceful everyday life patterns. Would women attempt to deal with these conflicts differently than men? Maybe. Would they perpetually peacefully accept it whenever they felt abused by other people and never become aggressive/violent in response? I doubt it, but if they did it would still result in power abuses and conflicts, imo, that would constitute a form of warfare, however little that warfare may resemble the stereotypical image of war as you would imagine it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you have to realize the cognitive modes of humans.

With this you can more closely predict behavior.

 

"Normal" humans operate in a cognitive mode based on reverese error sorting of their memories.

When under stress they revert to a cognitive mode used both for survival and is also the normal starting point for infants.

 

The "emotional tag" sorting of memories allows for packs, tribes, etc.

With it humans create emotional bonds with their memories. These memories will create a preference for some humans over others.

 

The primitive cognitive mode reverts to pure logic, hardwired sensory/memory information and cuts all emotional bonds.

 

So we run in "packs" and if stressed revert to animals.

 

Doesn't matter if they are male or female. (though male do less "sorting").

 

 

The combination causes wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ants have wars. Many ants are females.

I guess a good way to think about it would look at the animal kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ants have wars. Many ants are females.

I guess a good way to think about it would look at the animal kingdom.

 

 

Animals are *very* logical.

 

If there were an advantage to war they would find and use it.

 

It *is* a logical strategy in some survival scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ants have wars. Many ants are females.

I guess a good way to think about it would look at the animal kingdom.

Not only that, but only female ants fight (males are only "stud ants"). http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_soldier_ants_male_or_female

 

Ants also have matriarchal societies, though they don't have a central control power structure.

 

So it appears that war as a behavior can evolve regardless of gender ratios.

 

So the question might be restated something like: Is humanity's current "level of war" an evolutionary advantage rather than a disadvantage? And would it remain so if the gender ratio was severely different? If 'yes', then perhaps there will be just as much war in our inevitable future world where women have found and implemented a way to live (just not peacefully) without any men.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it wouldn't change much. Those of us who are old enough might remember Margaret Thatcher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#Foreign_affairs .

 

I think it is more the systems that lead us to war, than human nature (but yes, there is probably some degree of human nature in there as well). If you think about it, the people who are most driven to lead and to put their desire to lead above other concerns are more likely to become leaders. This, of course does not mean that someone who isn't as driven can't become a leader, only that they are less likely to because other concerns can dominate their limited time, attention and resources.

 

So, with these strongly driven people also comes a certain form of aggressiveness (because if they are too passive the aggressive people will defeat them). With aggression comes war.

 

So, although it is human nature (aggression), it is the system that selects for the more driven and aggressive people to become leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.