Violence is not a male thing. The reason it seems to you as if violence belongs to (and will vanish with) the male sex, is because men, due to the patriarchy, are in the social, political and economical position to find a greater outlet/expression for their violence than women. Seems more reasonable to put all that we have into getting rid of the patriarchy (every trace of it; including the passing off of a male family name), rather than taking up this extremely arrogant position that we somehow know enough (about anything) to reach an existential decision regarding one half of our species, or that we can imagine what the outcomes could possibly be.
I'm sorry, but there are thousands of years of evidence arguing against your position. As example, almost every one of the mass shooters here in America are male, which has nothing to do with patriarchy. If you wish, you can read this article which explains why violent men can't be fixed by social strategies, such as you suggest.
You're right that the world without men concept is a very big idea, and a degree of arrogance is needed to consider it. I'm considering it only because thousands of years of effort by social strategies has failed to fix the problem.
I can agree with doing away with the patriarchy. I just don't think that's sufficient to solve the problem of violent men. And so long as violent men exist, there's no way to make that happen in the political realm, as the violent men like Putin will just kill anyone who suggests it.
Hi, and thanks for the reply. I’ve read the other parts in this series. It is an interesting idea with valid points to back it up and it is a position I myself have argued from because I saw it as useful for waking women up from patriarchal brainwashing. The roles of nurturing, building up and caring for life seems to fall mainly on women, and the roles of controlling, destroying and limiting life seems to be inhabited mainly by men. But imo, it has everything to do with the patriarchy. It is patriarchal brainwashing that renders women comatose; and incapable of fully responding to men as they are (as a threat to the very life they put so much energy into creating and maintaining), and instead lodges hard beliefs about men as “protectors”, “providers” into their minds. And it is patriarchal brainwashing that equally limits men from being fully responsive human beings, and degrades them to a state of survival where they have a strong need to control their surroundings, to carry on some story, name or whatever from the past, or just to feel safe.
If women were free from the mental constraints of patriarchy they would be able to check and deal with male violence. It wouldn’t be an issue to acknowledge that men are a greater threat to us than women, and to openly discuss ideas for solutions. There would be intelligence organisations aimed solely at mapping, categorising, understanding and managing male behaviour.
Healthy human beings, of either sex, are not violent. Limited, suffering humans in survival mode are harmful to themselves and others. With males, the effects are catastrophic because a) they build up political power between themselves/ pass it down between themselves so that their violence carries far more impact, b) have the bigger build/ muscle mass so that they inflict serious damage even in close relations and domestic situations., and c) have a self image/ identity, “manhood”, tied up to their ability to inflict violence
You make some good points too Fadumo. Thanks for making them here.
I share your distaste for patriarchy, no argument there. I do think that undermining that long standing factor would be a positive development. It would seem to be a step in the right direction for sure.
Also, your comments have made me reflect that different parts of the world are in a different conditions in regards to patriarchy. It's everywhere, but stronger in some places than others. This is a useful addition to my thinking, as it's made me realize that a reaction to the "world without men" idea will vary widely too. I hadn't fully considered that so far.
My reluctance in fully embracing your perspective as "The Solution" to violent men is that no social strategy in history has ever solved this problem. I'm just not sure that any idea system has the power to bring real peace. But, this is debatable of course, and I thank you for discussing it with me.
Do you have a substack blog? If not, you might consider one, as you have an interesting idea and the talent for expressing it. I would subscribe.
Just out of curiosity, how do you imagine such an idea could be implemented world-wide, even if a significant number of people agreed to it?
You said that doing away with the patriarchy is challenging because violent men are in the way. Wouldn’t the same be true of the shutting down of radical ideas like this, just to an even higher degree?
Those are very good points Fadumo. I'm working on the next article in the series now, which will try to imperfectly address this question. I certainly don't have all the answers.
First, I predict that the marriage between violent men and the knowledge explosion is not sustainable. If true, then we are headed for some large scale calamity, perhaps some version of nuclear war. Such a historic event has the potential to radically change what we currently consider to be "normal" reasonable solutions.
Second, advances in biology may at some point make it possible for some in that field to impose such a solution on us without seeking a broad agreement.
More on such speculation soon, please stay tuned. And thanks for your interest.
Violence is not a male thing. The reason it seems to you as if violence belongs to (and will vanish with) the male sex, is because men, due to the patriarchy, are in the social, political and economical position to find a greater outlet/expression for their violence than women. Seems more reasonable to put all that we have into getting rid of the patriarchy (every trace of it; including the passing off of a male family name), rather than taking up this extremely arrogant position that we somehow know enough (about anything) to reach an existential decision regarding one half of our species, or that we can imagine what the outcomes could possibly be.
Hey there, thanks for your input.
I'm sorry, but there are thousands of years of evidence arguing against your position. As example, almost every one of the mass shooters here in America are male, which has nothing to do with patriarchy. If you wish, you can read this article which explains why violent men can't be fixed by social strategies, such as you suggest.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/world-peace-is-possible-part-4
You're right that the world without men concept is a very big idea, and a degree of arrogance is needed to consider it. I'm considering it only because thousands of years of effort by social strategies has failed to fix the problem.
I can agree with doing away with the patriarchy. I just don't think that's sufficient to solve the problem of violent men. And so long as violent men exist, there's no way to make that happen in the political realm, as the violent men like Putin will just kill anyone who suggests it.
Hi, and thanks for the reply. I’ve read the other parts in this series. It is an interesting idea with valid points to back it up and it is a position I myself have argued from because I saw it as useful for waking women up from patriarchal brainwashing. The roles of nurturing, building up and caring for life seems to fall mainly on women, and the roles of controlling, destroying and limiting life seems to be inhabited mainly by men. But imo, it has everything to do with the patriarchy. It is patriarchal brainwashing that renders women comatose; and incapable of fully responding to men as they are (as a threat to the very life they put so much energy into creating and maintaining), and instead lodges hard beliefs about men as “protectors”, “providers” into their minds. And it is patriarchal brainwashing that equally limits men from being fully responsive human beings, and degrades them to a state of survival where they have a strong need to control their surroundings, to carry on some story, name or whatever from the past, or just to feel safe.
If women were free from the mental constraints of patriarchy they would be able to check and deal with male violence. It wouldn’t be an issue to acknowledge that men are a greater threat to us than women, and to openly discuss ideas for solutions. There would be intelligence organisations aimed solely at mapping, categorising, understanding and managing male behaviour.
Healthy human beings, of either sex, are not violent. Limited, suffering humans in survival mode are harmful to themselves and others. With males, the effects are catastrophic because a) they build up political power between themselves/ pass it down between themselves so that their violence carries far more impact, b) have the bigger build/ muscle mass so that they inflict serious damage even in close relations and domestic situations., and c) have a self image/ identity, “manhood”, tied up to their ability to inflict violence
You make some good points too Fadumo. Thanks for making them here.
I share your distaste for patriarchy, no argument there. I do think that undermining that long standing factor would be a positive development. It would seem to be a step in the right direction for sure.
Also, your comments have made me reflect that different parts of the world are in a different conditions in regards to patriarchy. It's everywhere, but stronger in some places than others. This is a useful addition to my thinking, as it's made me realize that a reaction to the "world without men" idea will vary widely too. I hadn't fully considered that so far.
My reluctance in fully embracing your perspective as "The Solution" to violent men is that no social strategy in history has ever solved this problem. I'm just not sure that any idea system has the power to bring real peace. But, this is debatable of course, and I thank you for discussing it with me.
Do you have a substack blog? If not, you might consider one, as you have an interesting idea and the talent for expressing it. I would subscribe.
Just out of curiosity, how do you imagine such an idea could be implemented world-wide, even if a significant number of people agreed to it?
You said that doing away with the patriarchy is challenging because violent men are in the way. Wouldn’t the same be true of the shutting down of radical ideas like this, just to an even higher degree?
Those are very good points Fadumo. I'm working on the next article in the series now, which will try to imperfectly address this question. I certainly don't have all the answers.
First, I predict that the marriage between violent men and the knowledge explosion is not sustainable. If true, then we are headed for some large scale calamity, perhaps some version of nuclear war. Such a historic event has the potential to radically change what we currently consider to be "normal" reasonable solutions.
Second, advances in biology may at some point make it possible for some in that field to impose such a solution on us without seeking a broad agreement.
More on such speculation soon, please stay tuned. And thanks for your interest.
Fadumo, I just published a new article which makes an attempt at addressing your question about implementation.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/world-peace-is-possible-part-9
I choose Door #3.