Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site midas.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!midas!jeffw
From: jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Why male dominance?
Message-ID: <188@midas.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 12:58:15 EST
Article-I.D.: midas.188
Posted: Thu Mar 13 12:58:15 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 20:57:11 EST
References: <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1290@homxb.UUCP> <179@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1235@mtx5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.singles:10963 net.women:9728

In article <1235@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>
>	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