I typically hate primate ethology arguments since they are usually used to brush off women that “evolution likes rape, honey, so it’s a-okay” or “but girls like hawt sexxx, too!” But this is interesting. All it took was one massive shakedown, and it revealed a completely new way of being a baboon that was much less stressful and pleasant for all animals.

Humans are as complicated as any other animal or certainly as any other primate. A similar wipeout of alpha bullies would probably have the same effect on us, meaning that the way we are now is not the only way we can be.

But is there a path to getting there? I doubt it. The whole point of that tuberculosis die-off was that it was random and out of the control of the animals that were left over. A lightning bolt from the blue was the only way to ensure that only the nonviolent animals were left behind; had the “nonviolent” ones risen up and killed the bullies off … it would have been more of the same.

Hence, while there is probably a perfectly stable universe out there someplace filled with humans who live pacifically and in equality, short of an outbreak of tubercular pizza on Superbowl Sunday worldwide … I don’t see a path to getting there from here.

Men and women have the capacity to be much, much different than we are in our genes and brains. But if we can’t get there from here, it doesn’t matter. I just don’t know what the answer is.

And I agree with you on your last comment (she said wryly). I wish I didn’t. But to riff off of the choice I mentioned in one comment, if men had to choose between the following:

1) A world with war, disease, global warming, traffic jams, and women treated like garbage, and

2) A world with peace, health, a healthy environment, clean streets, and women as full equals,

they’d pick the first because the full equality of women would be too much of a down side for them. I used to like to tell myself that it wasn’t the case, but the older I get, the more I realize that it is. Neither men nor women even know what “equality for women” means.

I think that’s more easily dealt with than the problem of saying that your pro-issue or something-ist. The inevitable response from both people who legitimately disagree and from contrary pains in the ass is, “What if I’m NOT one of those?” Pro-woman can’t be picked at like that. There is no way to say, “I’m not at their lunch table.”

Yes, you are. If you try to run for office, and the media would pay more attention to your earrings and shoes than to your position on the issues, then you’re one of us.

I also think that the “new movement” needs to narrow itself down. GET WOMEN IN POWER. That is literally all that needs to be done. No more laundry list horseshit to keep everyone from feeling excluded while we truly do exclude women who “aren’t of the tribe” to be ripped apart limb from limb by the media for the crime of disagreeing with us.

Just elect women. After that, then you move to step one. An argument can be made that that IS setps zero, one, and through to infinity, because once women are in overwhelming positions of power … well then each one gest to put forth her own positions, and we decide and get down to the neverending business of running things and jockeying back and forth. The game isn’t going to end. Playing the game IS the point.

No -isms, no philosophies that can be nitpicked. Pro-woman, and if anyone asks, yes. That IS all women, and we’re not apologizing for it. No more ideological boundaries. Women from all sides get this shit, and THAT is all that matters. Hillary was ripped to pieces for decades, Sarah Palin has been attacked savagely, Cynthia McKinney has been made fun of for her hair and clothing, Nancy Pelosi was all but called a pussy, and Michelle Malkin was threatened with a “hate-fuck” in a globally published magazine. CLEARLY, the enemy isn’t working any harder to distinguish between us any more than a smallpox virus would.

Pro-woman.

Janis, thanks for more fully elaborating that idea; that’s what I was striving to get across: the “let it begin” with me idea.
I admire Amy of The New Agenda and Riverdaughter of The Confluence for their incisive political analyses. At the same time, I find Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin articulate and admirable. I don’t feel like hating them because they are younger, better looking, and have more conservative values. And I certainly am not going to disparage them because some liberal male is invested in discrediting them.

With respect to the feminist label, as a 60′s feminist, it seems my daughters and their friends (women and men) have in many ways INTERNALIZED feminism because of what the women of my generation did. I come from a working class environment and went to college the long, hard way thru night school. But what I see in the next generation were young women who went to college right after high school, are self-supporting, and obtained jobs in finance, technology, law enforcement. I’ve seen their pride in themselves and felt gratified to have helped pave the way.

Meanwhile, let me wish everyone a Happy New Year. Every post and poster here contributes to a resurgence of sanity and justice that our country sorely needs. The New Agenda is always a terrific and heartening refuge these days.

Glad to see the “woman” part instead of some limiting, girley term but fear the PRO would soon be misconstructed as whore – a pro, a prostitute.

Also agree out with the “ist”. When did you ever hear of a masculinist? Never will. Men do not divide their gender; they do encourage and facilitate women to do so. Divide and conquer has worked well for them.

# abortion. I really like the comments from AC and Jeniffer in Texas. was always pro choice and will be despite that I find abortion a very troubling procedure. as pathologist have seen thousands and it is not a bunch of cells but tiny human beings. but this is a woman’s body and it has to be her choice. but our focus should be unwanted pregnancies. I see impregnating young females against their wishes as crime. as so many here said the sex industry defining all women as nothing but body parts, and sexualizing younger and younger girls and brutalizing boys. TV is addicting and hardly any youngster can stand up against it. Our TV is most of the time gone, otherwise we would have no peace in the house. and the kids get indoctrinated that sex is always fun. and if the want to be with the crowd they have to be sexy. and they have no idea that sex has something to do with procreation. since they believe sex is always fun and everybody does it and you are not belonging if you think otherwise, we have to teach them the ugly side of sex. that sex can be violent, boring and only sometimes fun, right time right person etc. and that may not always want sex even if you are older and have the right partner. this whole theme fo sex starts way before they know who is a true friend and not a friend today and not tomorrow. by elementary school time gender stereotyping is so prevalent, no matter what you as parent do, that girls likely do less for school or their hobbies to impress the boy. and then the dramas I hear from my 8 y/o from her friends who have boyfriends, the break-ups.
I would have never thought I talk about rape, prostitution, sex industry, sexual violence to my 8/9 y/o. but she needs to know why I will not approve of early sexual relations. CNN had recently a story on rape in college, about 20% and only 5% reported. Rape victims were telling their stories to other female college students. date rape drugs and now also sprays, they need to know and how to protect themselves.