Violence is a Hallmark of Gynocentric Cultures, not Patriarchal!
Feminism and its misandry are very well known for blaming men and only men for all existing evil in the world and beside the myth of female exploitation by men feminist mythology heavily relies upon the fiction of a blissful and peaceful society in the pre-state peasant society as well as the patriarchal violence, war and as the result the rise of militarism, warrior culture and it's relating culture.
However, as Nathanson and Young elaborate in their excellent book "Sanctifying Misandry", "the Neolithic world – often involved intense competition and sporadic conflict, not peace and harmony". Given the female incentive for resources, the biological differences between men and women as well as the disposability of men alongside with the male risk of losing one's own life, it was a female interest that led to the rise of militarism and to the creation of the warrior culture, not patriarchy. Violence is a by-product of gynocentric societies, not patriarchal ones. But were these realities solely or even primarily the result of inherent male wickedness, war generals or early kings and monarchs, let alone the inscrutable lust for power of men or as feminists call it patriarchy?
In fact, the problems of shortage of resources for survival that "emerged for women had at least as much to do with fallout from the advent of agriculture", as Nathanson and Young write, and in my opinion also the scarcity of economic resources. This also "included the continuing need for more land and easier access to water, the storage of surplus crops (which made raiding attractive), the growth of hierarchy due to specialization, the rise of individualism at the elite level (which fostered imitation at lower levels), and the advent of private property which can't be attributed to patriarchy", as Young and Nathanson explained, but can also be attributed to the results emanating from the transition to a more sophisticated agriculture enabling larger production of food. And this goes along with the fact that men had faced real problems in gynocentric societies, which forced them to invest in the children of their sisters instead of in their own"
Now, because in this reality men were the raiders (but also the defenders), and because raiding created new wealth, therefore the economic status not only of men increased, but even so more of women, because it were women admiring men giving them more reproductive access than the men not willing to fight, for that, as Carrol Rogers proves in her Research, it were women who yielded the true power after the power division between men and women, securing them the more important domestic sphere and given men the formal power
Now, before delving into Rogers' research, let's look and see how those dynamics reflect realities in nature based on primatological research. The following primatological discussion begins with an article that has surveyed two-year conducted Swiss research in south Africa on vervet monkeys. I am going to quote the most important findings from this research as described in the original article and explain the importance of the findings and then relate to the dynamics expressed in this essay. Then I will show how this all is displayed in the Gynocentric reality we live in. So, let's start. The survey begins by noting that female vervet monkeys manipulate males into fighting battles by lavishing attention on brave soldiers while giving noncombatants the cold shoulder, researchers said Wednesday"
This is, of course, an extremely important finding and statement on many levels. And, for sure, it proves many of my points on an empirical level. It is important not only in terms of the above underlying notion that male strategies depend on female behavior but specifically that Alpha male archetypes are in fact a male response to female indoctrination rather than being a male necessity which is also true for chimpanzees whereas based on other necessities Beta traits are female necessities and exploitation of males like in the Bonobos (hence females need less external resources so they keep the internal ones for themselves, keeping males out of those resources while fighting over them between the females themselves - which once again shows that it is a female need rather than being a male rational and incentive.
Furthermore, this dynamic shows us also the typical manipulation of men through controlling and giving the males access to sex which makes females to obtain the most important power dynamic namely that of the informal one. This on the other hand shows two aspects:
a) If animal, do it, it is not a social construct but rather a biological evolutionary survival aspect
b) our structures are in harmony with the nature and animal kingdom so it is once again not a patriarchal construct but a universal law of species which makes it even more reliable.
The survey then further states they "as in humans, it turns out, social incentives can be just as big a driver for male monkeys to go to war as the resources they stand to gain from fighting, whether it be territory or food". Again, this is an extremely important finding. Not only that it refutes the feminist lies those men are responsible for wars but it also show that male violence is basically a female indoctrination rather than a problem of "toxic masculinity". Furthermore, it gives empirical evidence to yet another research that proved that in the last 500 years female queens waged wars more than kings at approximately 27% more. It is again empirical evidence that based on the female needs for resources male violence and aggression is evoked through social engineering in males to accommodate female needs rather those of men. In fact, it can be seen and considered an empirical basis and evidence of the female roots of the later concept of male chivalry
Then, the survey quotes the research team that reinforces a very important fact. "Ours", they confirm, "is the first study to demonstrate that any non-human species use manipulative tactics, such as punishment or rewards, to promote participation in intergroup fights," study co-author Jean Arseneau, a primate specialist of the University of Zurich, told AFP". And this is the statement that based on empirical findings proves that all of this is female social indoctrination and engineering of males
We the further read that the research team "observed that after a skirmish with a rival gang, usually over food, females would groom males that had fought hardest, while snapping at those that abstained. When the next battle came along, both those singled out for attention and those aggressively shunned would participate more vigorously in combat, the researchers reported in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B". This, on the other hand, "is an important insight into how the Alpha archetype in males has been instilled by females and into its very dynamics. In conclusion, Arsenau said, that "females appear to use grooming as a reward for participation and aggression as punishment for defection", said Arsenau". Again, a mind-blowing resemblance to human female tactics in using sexuality for their benefit.
"Success in battle ensures control over territory and food sources -- a key concern for females, who take care of the young", is another important insight of Arsenau's research. This is a crucial point I have touched above and is yet another evidence that through basic gynocentrism male violence is instilled in men so they can accommodate female needs and necessities. "But why would males risk involvement in a potentially high-stakes battle just for a bit of female attention", continues Arsenau and asks? His answer is obvious "it's all about sex, the researchers believe. Therefore, the answer is of course evident. The mix of sex as well as the survival of the specie is the driving force behind those dynamics.
"Receiving punishment" for not taking part in battles "could damage the... male's social relationship(s)" with females in the group, the researchers wrote. On the other hand, being rewarded could "potentially signal to other female group members that the... male is a valuable social partner", likely boosting "male mating success". And this not only gives us an insight into the above dynamics but also once again into the very basic dynamic of how the Alpha male archetype is indoctrinated in males by females even if it does not benefit them at all. For the better overview when we sum up the Swiss research on the vervet monkeys, this is how this dynamic looks like and is depicted in the research: "Success in battle ensures control over territory and food sources — a key concern for females, who take care of the young. Female vervet monkeys manipulate males into fighting battles by lavishing attention on brave soldiers while giving noncombatants the cold shoulder, researchers said"
"Males are larger than females and have longer canine teeth, making their presence valuable in the front lines", continues the survey by quoting the research findings. "After a skirmish with a rival gang, usually over food, females would groom males that had fought hardest, while snapping at those that abstained. When the next battle came along, both those singled out for attention and those aggressively shunned would participate more vigorously in combat, according to a study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B."
"Receiving punishment” from females for not taking part in battles “could damage the male’s social relationship(s)” either with the female in question or “other female group members”, the researchers wrote. On the other hand, being rewarded could “potentially signal to other female group members that the male is a valuable social partner”, likely boosting “male mating success”. This is how the Alpha indoctrination takes place in nature and is conditioned in male through female social engineering.
Now, how does this work in human societies? Here, we have excellent historical accounts which once again proves that at its deepest, most profound, level also male violence is the result and workings of female indoctrination. So, on Purple Motes, Douglas Ghalbie's, website we find the following account. We read: “What would you do when someone comes to kill you?” women chanted to men. “We will kill them,” men chanted in response. Then, on September 16, 2014, in a farming village in West Africa, villagers killed eight men from outside the village. The men who were killed came to the village to teach about the health risks of Ebola. The men who were killed were local officials, doctors, journalists, and a popular pastor. By the way, this is also exactly what Boko Haram resist and the type of men they kill.
"Early Arabic poetry", continues Douglas Ghalbie, directly faces women inciting men to kill other men. A well-recognized genre of early Arabic poetry is lament for the dead. Such a lament is called marthiya. Among Arabic poets born in the pre-Islamic period, the most famous writer of marthiya is the woman poet al-Khansā. In a marthiya for her brother Sakhr, killed in inter-tribal fighting, al-Khansā described him as “a spearhead whose blade illuminates the night.” Men warriors, particularly those who take on the most dangerous missions, are today also figured as the tip of the spear". They are the point of impact for a weapon that women direct".
1. S.C. Rogers, Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: A model of female/male interaction in peasant society: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227707567_Female_forms_of_power_and_the_myth_of_male_dominance_A_model_of_femalemale_interaction_in_peasant_society
2. Paul Nathanzon/Kathrine Young, Sanctifying Misandry:https://www.amazon.com/Sanctifying-Misandry-Goddess-Ideology-Fall/dp/0773536159
3. Phys.org, Female monkeys use wile to rally troops: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-11-female-monkeys-wile-rally-troops.amp
4. Female monkeys use both the carrot and the stick to promote male participation in intergroup fights, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, rspb.royalsocietypublishing.or … .1098/rspb.2016.1817 Journal information: Proceedings of the Royal Society B : https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.1817
5. Douglad Ghalbie, here marthiya: women’s distinct voice for killing men: https://www.purplemotes.net/2015/04/19/marthiya-women-men/
This article of mine was first published on the site Newsofx at: