Conquest (crosspost)

[noamnety]

of interest maybe to this group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x57904

Feedback on it is appreciated, either here or on HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/conquest_b_66051.html

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Wow.

I noticed our friend from the other thread was back to let us know that it's all the wimmenz fault. :eyes:

I think we have ourselves a NiceGuy(tm) on our hands.

[Chovexani]

2. Someone should link him to HBI. (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

3. Behind the patriarchal quest to dominate is fear and lack of self-esteem . . ..

perhaps even self-hatred behind the violence -- ??

Once the few/patriarchy establishes status thru power over others, then it will be both males and females who will be drawn to the powerful in self-protection.

And, I think the idea that we have to "define" masculinity in a rigid way, in itself, suggests that males have to be united in some uniform display of behavior. Nature is diverse -- there are probably many ways to be masculine, but patriarchy has been controlling and defining masculinity as aggressive, exploitive -- especially of females.

The idea that males are naturally violent I think is probably wrong because nature isn't suicidal and violence -- whether against nature, natural resources, animal-life -- will bring suicide to humanity as we can see right now from overpopulation, pollution and Global Warming.

Women are patriarchy's primary enemies --
exploitation, violence, intimidation, oppression the tools of control.
Patriarchal leaders feared nature, especially in the new world --
almost everything in nature has been attacked -- exploited, ripped down, destroyed.

What I mainly see behind patriarchy and conquest -- basically, the desire by the few to dominate others -- is fear.

I've always looked at violence as a problem with self-esteem . . . .



"The loveless crave power because they lack both love and self -- "

Betty Friedan