Once we have understood that the nature of all living things is to compete, we must realize that all attempts to eliminate such competition in human societies will fail, because such attempts run counter to the basic nature of life itself. The best thing possible, therefore, is to civilize this competitive instinct, so that society as a whole benefits from it.
In order to see how competition can be civilized, we need to examine the various spheres in which humans compete. Humans, like all animals, compete for sex, resources and survival. All three forms of competition are inter-linked: We must survive, gather resources and reproduce in order to pass our genes.
Competing for survival:
Initiation/ escalation of force are considered acts of uncivilized competition for survival. Preparing for and acting in self-defense are considered acts of civilized competition for survival.
When a significant percentage of actors in a particular society engage in initiation of force, the nature of that society changes and becomes more violent. On the other hand, when a significant percentage of actors in a particular society are ready to act in self-defense, that society becomes more peaceful over time.
A neutral actor (an invalid who is not capable of initiation of force or self-defense) will benefit from living in a peaceful society, even though that actor is incapable of exercising self-defense.
Competing for resources:
Theft and fraud are considered acts of uncivilized competition for gathering resources. Trade and production are considered acts of civilized competition for gathering resources.
When a significant percentage of actors in a particular society engage in theft (violation of property rights) or fraud (violation of contract law) to gather resources, that society becomes less prosperous as levels of trust reduce. On the other hand, when a significant percentage of actors in a particular society engage in trade and production to gather resources, that society becomes more prosperous as levels of trust increase.
A neutral actor (a beggar) would benefit from living in a high-trust, prosperous society because such societies are more charitable.
Competing for sex:
Rape and cuckolding are considered uncivilized acts of sexual competition. Attracting higher quality mates for monogamous marriage through self-improvement is an act of civilized competition.
Consider a society in which the institution of marriage is not respected and all members of this society are left to reproduce naturally. Such a society will be barbaric with high levels of violence and low levels of trust. On the other hand, a society which respects the institution of marriage will be more peaceful.
Neutral actors (children) will benefit immensely from being born in a civilized society.
Our male ancestors were MEN. During the ice age, they protected their women in warm caves when they went outside in the freezing weather to hunt.
They were MEN. When a lion threatened the tribe, armed with wooden sticks, they would band together to go out and fight it, knowing fully well that though 15 went, only 12 would return.
They were MEN. They tamed the fire, invented the wheel, fought the lions, cleared the forests, built the skyscrapers, designed your computers; all so that a bunch of whiny neurotic Marxist-Feminists can chat in the internet about how evil our ancestors were and how oppressed their women were.
Our female ancestors were NEVER oppressed by our male ancestors. The Marxist-Feminist view of the Patriarchy is simply FALSE, a MYTH, a collective NEUROSIS. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Certainly you can see how protection could seem like oppression as technological and political advancements changed the landscape and priorities. Lions have been replaced by voting booths. The war forced women into the workplace, and they were no longer happy being so dependent. Did the pendulum swing too far? Of course, it always does. Also, of course the biology lags all of this and women are still attracted to "cave men". It's a messed up situation for sure, but that's life.
"Also, of course the biology lags all of this" - Do you not understand how Natural Selection works? If a society exhibits mismatches with biology, that society gets deselected. Natural Selection is a cruel mistress.
In a seemingly unnatural twist the woman that selects the caveman will likely have more children than the woman that goes for the nerdy intellect. You know, the "Idiocracy" syndrome. In lieu of disasters, natural selection works slowly. Very, very slowly.
As you pointed out, I also think that radical feminists do not understand the benign historical motives behind the male behavior they see as oppression. And woman are confused about why they are attracted to the "wrong" dudes over and over and men hardly even know what to do anymore. It's a mess.
RobertPiano: "men hardly even know what to do anymore" - I'm of the opinion that men need to start working it out for themselves, and stop being such pussies about it (present company excepted).
"Marxist Feminism and Friedrich Engel's attemps at explaining the dynamics of the nuclear family have no bearing on our ancestor's survival tactics OR the treatment of women." - Why not? Does TRUTH not matter to Marxists?
"But it has absoutely nothing to do with Feminist Marxism." - Again, why not? Does TRUTH have nothing to do with Feminist Marxism?
Be a SEEKER of the TRUTH, Belle. Have the courage to SEEK the TRUTH.
Do you agree with this statement at least ?
"There is no society today or in the past in which women experienced greater levels of homicide than men".
You have to agree with that statement because it is factually TRUE.And if we include other crimes like rape also, men are still more likely to be victims.
That is your first step, there are many more steps yet to go :)
I have a new post out - http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/humans-have-been-naturally...
Read it and we can discuss your second step :)
Earlier, you said:
"RE: . But, across time and across all societies, women experienced significantly lesser levels of brutality compared to men
Oh my god you did not just say that......I don't even know where to begin.......I'll start with, you are wrong. Just plain wrong."
Was I wrong or was I right? Come on, give credit where credit is due. :)
"I do not agree that men are more likely to be raped than women" - You're right about that, women are more likely to be raped in most societies except in US today. But, I never made that statement.
"So violence against women has always been happening." - Violence has always been happening. There is no society which is more violent to its women than to its men. Such societies would go extinct. A better way is to consider societies as being stable or violent.
"Many societies impose social norms that have an illusion of protection, but which end up being a norm that inflicts oppression." - Name them. All of them were put in place for biological reasons, not out of a cruel intent to 'oppress'.
One one side of the coin is competition. On the other is cooperation. I think that ethics is better framed from the cooperation side of the coin.
Empathy is supposedly evolved in us to foster cooperation. In social animals like us, cooperation is a must. It has a high survival value. Coming from a perspective of cooperation, instead of competition, is a better approach to ethics and morality in as much as it's a positive approach instead of a negative one. At least, that's how it seems to me.
Atheist Exile, what's happened to your blog post "Survival, Morality and Religion"? I was just warming up to that.