Re: Word VS War - Ronnie:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mohican WWWboard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Vita on July 08, 2000 at 13:01:52:

In Reply to: Re: Word VS War posted by Ron Fecerici on July 08, 2000 at 12:31:44:

Dear Ronnie,

Yup, who was first, the chicken or the egg?
Columbus could not have been born if there had been no Mother, and his mother could not have borne him without the Daddy's contribution....
And I said "who" to the chicken, instead of "which" because... hey, I had chickens (really, truly) "whom" I had hand-raised from the minute they stepped out of the egg, and... they had such strong, and different, characteristics....
you end up thinking: this chickie-poo too is a person....
Anyhow, Ronnie, yes, freedom of choice of behavior is an interesting topic to pursue.
The next question begs: are we ruled by Choice or by Destiny?
And it's also true that often, generation after generation, we fall into a pattern wherein your choice, due to the choice made by some older generation, has been taken from you. In other words, let's say in Pakistan.... the mother who condones her daughter's execution in the hands of her own brother (just because she ran off from home! and when she returned because they promised she will come to no harm... and then they went back on their word and the brother shot her and afterwards it was proven that she was a VIRGIN; poor little girl, she had not even committed the CRIME (!) she'd been accused of...)... anyhow, getting back to the said mother... who clearly approved of her son shooting her daughter to death to cleanse family honor... she too is a victim just as much as her daughter, the choice to disapprove of this execution has been taken away from her due to choices (some choices were of course, coerced, generation after generation) made by the females in that society, long long ago....

OK, I am rambling. Sorry. You know, when I was young, a happily energetic, combative (but logically so, I had discovered that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so I would coat my platform with logic and yeah, honey) idealistic activist in Turkey... the future I had drawn for myself, was to lead to my running for public office. A social democrat heavily involved in women's issues.
But the choice of walking towards this future was taken from me by Kismet aka Destiny. I've thought about the new road I had to take at the age of 23 (when I came to the U.S)long and hard.... over and over, and not only because of losing touch with the future I had envisioned for myself, but because I had to be separated from my only child, my son.... alas, the fact was I had almost no choice but to come here. Or, as I think it over again, now, OK, there were alternatives but they were not acceptable to me. Hmmm. The very fact that they were not acceptable, because they were so diametrically opposed to my inborn nature... made them a no-choice.
So it was Kismet which swept me off my feet and flung me off onto these shores.
So in the second half of my life, my original choice of spearheading towards holding a public office (congresswoman, senator - an office which would give me clout/breadth to be an instrument for positive change)had to be modified/downsized into working as a union representative/officer, and later on writing novels which involved hero/heroes who held public office.

Hmmm. Anyone wants to pick on the thread
Choice Versus Kismet????

Respectfully yours, Ye Olde TowneCrier
PS. Forgive the typos and upside down syntax and such.

WOW! What interesting dicussion is going on lately! I feel like I'm in a top of the line college course! Vita, as you say, coercion will bring at "best" temporary compliance. Inevitably, even in today's seemingly apathethic society, rebellion will occur in some form. You start to explain freedom of choice of behavior. You may want to take a look at Professor Tom Kelly's web site ( He discusses in his books, among MANY other things, what he calls "Choice Theory" in which he discusses how, in the end, we are individually responsible, by choosing so, for our behaviors.
: OK, now on a lighter note....Remember, according to Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason-"Honeymooners"), "There would be no America if it wasn't for Christopher Columbus!" To which his wife, Alice (Audrey Meadows) answers, "There would be no Christopher Columbus if it wasn't for his MOTHER!" -Ronnie
: : re. your question:Would the world be a safer, less brutal place, if it had been run by women?

: : Yes, provocative question. Regardless of the known aggressive female tribes ... OK, two opposite aspects to consider:
: : 1 - Testesterone seems (keyword SEEMS) to cause or add to aggression
: : 2 - Power (and GREED!) corrupts everyone, male and woman, noble and peasant, alike.

: : So, while women, SEEMING to be created by gentler hormones, and by nature, having been delegated the duty to bear children (species propagation), and thus endowed with the nurturing instinct versus the instinct for rapine, plunder and slaughter... it is my closely studied observation that POWER CAN CORRUPT.

: : Thus, when they are in charge of running things, it is quite possible that many of them will exhibit behaviour similar to men, their innate instinct for "mothering and nurturing" remaining reserved for their own offspring. To put it simply, many of them will coddle their own kids while mince-meating yours.
: : Now, does this mean if they are in charge of the world, as men SEEM to be today, will the world be in the same mess it is today?
: : There is not enough "known, recorded" evidence to say yey.
: : Archaeological and socio-biological studies have not yet said the final word. There is evidence which suggest during the Mother Goddess Era, in general societies fared better. Warfare was on, but it seems that matriarchal tribes engaged more in defensive warfare rather than aggressive, and the defense seems to have caused by male-ruled tribes raiding them - kind of wolves raiding cattle for the pickings.
: : Matriarchal tribes/societies seem to be more in tune with the earth, its cycles, its mysteries. They were not violence free, it's the nature of the beast (beastliness is in our core, after all)to commit violence. Be that as it may, so far, I have not found direct evidence supporting that females match males in violence, on an equal basis (in numbers, not in intensity or inventiveness; meaning they can be as cruel and vicious, etc., but in lesser numbers).
: : Another question I have researched, was ..."does violence rise in proportion of oppression, regardless of the sex of the 'violator?' "
: : The answer seems to be yes. The more oppressive the society, the harsher the rule of the movers and shakers, the higher the anger, bitterness, and the need to strike and to destroy. The violence extends itself to fratricide, matricide, patricide, infanticide... what have you. Also, brain-washing from cradle to grave is common, can blanket huge numbers of people, meaning entire societies and/or nations. The hypnotically achieved demonizing of a group of people by another, is a successfully employed weapon by the mass manipulators as well.(think of an otherwise gentle and loving Serb father or husband not blinking an eye while raping his Albanian neighbor's daughter/wife, or vice versa)

: : However, instances of unleashed aggression, be it en-masse or individual, seems to taper off in proportion to the raising of the societal life standards. Male or female, with the daily need for bread satisfied, daily need for comfort taken care of, and often, when freed from forced on rules re. individual behaviour, seem to commit violence to a lesser degree. For example, celibacy works when it is voluntary and not forced on (the force may not need to be physical, but mental, in other words because your parents, or mate, or priest, or what have you, say so, expect so, and not because YOU want it), or when life-long marital fidelity succeeds when the couple says: I choose to be faithful to you, even when I am tempted to stray, I CHOOSE to remain faithful because this is what I want, even when no one looks over my shoulder, even when I am absolutely clear of being found out, absolutely sure of freedom from any consequences, I remain faithful because you are special and I do not want to endanger that bond in any way possible.
: : Indeed, freedom of choice of behavior, seems to be the best facilitator of a less aggressive, more benign and harmonious society, regardless which sex is at the helm. In fact, this very freedom of choice also seems to pave the way to an era of co-rule.
: : Freedom of choice seems to lessen the gender psychosis, heighten self awareness and self esteem. Many a male versus female aggression is rooted in lack of self esteem and the male's need to dominate/torment/annihilate the one person or people who make them feel less than they assume they are.

: : Anyhow, as we search for a better society, we will also bear in mind that nothing is painless, nothing without pitfalls, and even in the most perfect societies, there will always be those who will give in to their darker impulses.

: : Hey, in this day and age, I can talk, see? There was a time when they poisoned me for daring to open my mouth. OK, but then I wasn't as soft spoken and humble as I am now. Man, was I a brazen, red-haired, kick-ass lassie in boots and spurs!
: : ;-)

: : Vita

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 
Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mohican WWWboard ] [ FAQ ]