More Palin Derangement

Just came across this opening paragraph from an article on Sarah Palin, in the Atlantic (via Hot Air):

“To paraphrase Lillian Hellman, I don’t agree with a word that Sarah Palin says, including “and” and “the.” And as a liberal feminist, it drives me absolutely bonkers that Palin is the most visible working mother and female politician in America, that she is the best exemplar of a woman with an equal marriage, that she has put up with less crap from fewer men than those of us who have read The Second Sex and marched in pro-abortion rallies and pretty much been on the right side of all the issues that Palin is wrong about.

re. the author….

ELIZABETH WURTZEL – Elizabeth Wurtzel is the author of Prozac Nation: Young and Depressed in America and More, Now, Again: A Memoir of Addiction.

Does anyone but me see hysterical humor in this juxtaposition?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Interesting to see how Liz slipped and used the forbidden expression”pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice.” A slip of the increasingly unhinged feminist psyche, no?

    Also note the pharisistic attitude toward Palin. Apparently the formula calls for reading the proper book and marching in the proper parades to qualify for the status of feminist.

    The feminist lack of awareness (not surprising but always astounding) is Liz’s observation that Palin has put up with less guff from men than her oppressed peers. It could be that because Palin is a strong non-victim type who has coping skills that go beyond sniveling and complaining. The men in her life have instinctively taken her seriously and acted accordingly. Kind of hard to do the same with a Liz and her ilk, who come across as the type of people you’d be stranded with on a desert island for exactly 3.5 minutes before you started fingering the trigger on your pistol.

  • suek

    “‘…that she is the best exemplar of a woman with an equal marriage, that she has put up with less crap from fewer men than those of us who have read The Second Sex and marched in pro-abortion rallies and pretty much been on the right side of all the issues that Palin is wrong about.”

    In other words…”Damn it!  She does all that Christian stuff and she’s got all the stuff _we_ were supposed to get by rejecting those limits that biology, religion (and tradition) put on us!”
     
    In other words – it’s individual accomplishment – _not_ necessarily the glass ceiling after all!  And _energy_!!  my gosh that woman has energy!!
     
    We’re limited by our _selves_  – not by our culture – at least, in this country.  Neo has had a thread running in which one person was horribly offended by another commenting that generally speaking, women tend to be more submissive, men tend to be more dominant.  Of course, if that’s not true, then we humans are different from all other mammals.  The truth is, it’s a generally true statement with exceptions.  You simply cannot have all chiefs and no indians in a society, and people simply have to fit in.  In spite of the feminists, women have not been “oppressed” in this country for about the last century, although  it’s true that until chemical birth control became widely accepted, their roles were usually limited by their biology.  Their biology – what a novel thought!  So if we somehow reverted to a time when chemical birth control was not possible, women would once again be “oppressed” – not by men, but by .. ta da…their _BIOLOGY_!!
     
     

  • suek

    >>who come across as the type of people you’d be stranded with on a desert island for exactly 3.5 minutes before you started fingering the trigger on your pistol.>>
     
    Heh.
     
    Double “Heh”..!

  • Danny Lemieux

    Actually, I was looking at Elizabeth Wurzel’s credentials.

  • Gringo

    a

    You have to give MS. Wurtzel credit for admitting that Sarah Palin has trumped the  liberal feminists [her words]. There is considerably more than a bit of envy there. Sarah Palin didn’t follow the paint-by numbers path of the conventional liberal feminists, yet ended up with more of the respect that liberal feminists were craving.
     
    I am reminded of an observation about  a difference between artistically minded males and females in high school. Girls join the drama club. Boys form their own garage band. [As this is a generalization, exceptions can be easily found.] There is more of a tendency for males to strike out on their own and create their own rules, and for females to join a group and follow the rules. Some of the current differences in academic achievement between males and females can be attributed to these differences. Females have a greater tendency to follow the rules, such as doing what the teacher says.
     
    The liberal feminists followed the rules by reading the right books, by marching in the right rallies. Sarah did yucky things like commercial fishing, not to mention shooting and dressing moose. For Sarah, dressing-up meant something different than it did to most feminists.
     
    Sarah Palin didn’t follow the rules, and ended up in a better position than the liberal feminists. That is what infuriates them.

  • http://www.celiahayes.com Sgt. Mom

    And if I can be pedantic, it was Mary McCarthy who made the “including “and” and “the”” crack about Hellman – and kicked off one of the great modern literary feuds.
    Heck, come to think on it, maybe Elizabeth Wurzel could be considered overrated, too.

  • JKB

    What can you say?  Some people write about the dream, some people live it.
     

  • Danny Lemieux

    I think you hit it on the head re. “liberal feminists”, Gringo.
    Can we list all the reasons that people hate Sarah Palin and can they be overcome by the next election?
    I know she has many perceived negatives but so did Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, both of whom were perceived as appealing to too-narrow segments of the electorate.

  • SADIE

    Does anyone but me see hysterical humor in this juxtaposition?

     
    The prosaic writing about prozac ;

  • bizcor

    I love to listen to them blather on. Sarah has more courage and conviction than any of them. It would seem her daughter Bristol has some moxie too. Think about what it took for a shy country girl to go way beyond her comfort zone and dance in front of millions. Death threats! what is that? I dislike President Obama and his cronies because of what they are doing to our country but I don’t wish them dead. Conservatives see a bad situation and set about correcting through the ballot box. Liberals issue death threats.

  • Oldflyer

    My daughter and I were alone driving from the recycle center/dumpster in my truck, so I took the opportunity to ask her quietly why she disliked Palin so much.
    She thought about it for awhile and then asked why she had quit as Governor.  I went through the litany of how her detractors had tied up the state and her office with ethics complaints to the point the bills were getting out of control, the government was becoming completely distracted, etc.  I also mentioned that not one complaint had resulted in any finding.  I mentioned that Palin had certainly benefited because it freed her to make money, a lot of money;  but the state was undoubtedly better off.  I also pointed out that she had a competent LtGov who shared her philosophy, so she had the option.
    I also mentioned that although the Punditry is trying to make it a big deal, I am not sure by any means that she will run in ’12; and frankly hope that she decides not to.  Not her time.
    She was real quiet;and then after a bit said ” I guess I am just a hater”.
    Hopefully one person is thinking about her attitude after today.

  • Gringo

    Sgt. Mom:
    I tot dose libs wur suposta knoe all dose faks. Dey was dem who was gwan to kerect us ingnoramuses. Speshlee sumwun hoo rote a buch.
    Hellman, Schmellman. It’s all mayo to me.
     

  • Danny Lemieux

    Aaargh! Sadie, you are too much!

  • Danny Lemieux

    Oldflyer, you might also want to mention to your daughter that Palin had an amazing record of accomplishment in her 2-1/2 years as governor, from reforming (and imprisoning) the “Corrupt B*s Club” of Democrats and Republicans in the legislature, to renegotiating all the oil leases in favor of Alaskan citizens, to knocking back the earmarks in Alaska’s Federal budget requests, to cutting back on spending and, finally, to negotiating the largest construction contract in North American history (the AlCan gas pipeline project), just to mention some of the accomplishments. Let’s contrast her record with what was accomplished or not accomplished by some of the other big-name governors in our nation.
     
    The reason she was so successful, I suspect, is that she knew how to delegate and build-up allies, plus she does not have the words “quit” and “blame” in her lexicon. In her book “Going Rogue”, she constantly references “we” (not “I”) and gives full credit to her lieutenants for successfully pushing her agenda to successful conclusions. Contrast that with our President “Me, myself and I” in the White House.
     
    Of course, people wouldn’t know this unless they read her book.

  • suek

    >>She was real quiet;and then after a bit said ” I guess I am just a hater”.>>
     
    Holy Moses!  Did she _really_ say that?  What does she mean by it???  That’s an incredible statement – do you think she means it??

  • http://www.celiahayes.com Sgt. Mom

    Gringo —
    *giggle*
    Conservatives read books too!

  • SADIE

    “we” (not “I”)

     
    Worthy and very relevant point, Danny, the choice of pronouns whether in public office or in private life.

  • Oldflyer

    Danny, as a matter of fact I did.  I also pointed out that SP had no family political dynasty and no political machine to boost her up the ladder.  She started at the grass roots level and advanced step by step solely on her own accomplishments.
    As I said, after a couple of years of knee jerk negativity, I think she may have listened and hopefully will give her position some serious thought.
    A little family funny.  In ’92 Ross Perot got one vote in Walton County, Ga.  It was my daughter.  Now, how she went from voting for Perot to talking like a flaming liberal is a real mystery.  Maybe migrating to California had something to do with it.

  • Danny Lemieux

    What an interesting story, Oldflyer. Let us know about her journey’s progress.

  • Indigo Red

    Elizabeth Wurtzel didn’t get her first sentence right, “To paraphrase Lillian Hellman, I don’t agree with a word that Sarah Palin says, including “and” and “the.”

    She was corrected by a commenter and Liz amended the first sentence, “To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman, I don’t agree with a word that Sarah Palin says, including “and” and “the.”

    Typical of Liberals – close, but not so much.

  • Ellen

    One of my students, a major in Women’s Studies, had her eyes opened by all the Sarah Palin hatred.  She told me that Sarah had done all the things her women’s studies teachers said that women were supposed to do, and yet they all hated her.  The hypocricy of it all really got to my student.  She later told me that there were two reasons the women’s studies crowd hated Sarah:  She was a Republican, and she was pro-life. 

  • johnfromcolumbus

    “there were two reasons the women’s studies crowd hated Sarah:  She was a Republican, and she was pro-life. ”
    I’d ad a third reason, her Christian Faith.  Sarah is an unapologetic Christian and that drives the left bat-shit crazy.  (same deal with George W. Bush)

  • Libby

    “Can we list all the reasons that people hate Sarah Palin?”
     
    Let’s see…
    * She’s gorgeous and has embraced her femininity (I wonder how many liberal men hate themselves for being attracted to her?)
    * Yet she’s tough – hunting, fishing, etc – while still maintaining her femininity
    *She settled down with her hot HS boyfriend and is still happily married. This really ticks off feminists who would have you believe that you can either have the career OR the traditional family – you can’t have both (women need men  like a fish needs a bicycle, right?)
    *She’s very capable, never a victim – not when taking on fellow Republicans in Alaska, or facing the unbridled media hatred, or choosing to have an imperfect child. And she does this without the proper credentials – ivy league diploma, family connections, trophy husband.
    * She’s unapologetically Christian
    * She loves her country
    * She chose to have Trig, which shames all the women who claim it’s the brave and merciful thing to have an abortion. She’s shown them that it’s a life, not a “choice”.
    *She’s happy. With all of the above, she’s proof that most of the feminist choices/values are not good for women at all.

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com Don Quixote

    Libby, I think that last is most important.  Most feminists I know are fearsomely unhappy people.  How dare a woman find happiness by not following their roadmap!  How dare she not be as miserable as they are!

  • Charles Martel

    The British comedienne Tracey Ullman did a skit on her mid-1980s TV show where two women and a man are competing for a vice presidency at a prestigious firm.

    To test their chops, the three candidates are seated in a windowless room that has no furniture other than a long conference table and three chairs. Atop the table is a large cardboard box filled with all sorts of odds and ends.

    The candidates are challenged to take a simple test: Each is given three minutes to reach into the box and use something(s) in a way that shows their intelligence and ability to improvise.

    The first woman reaches in and pulls out a saw. A further reach brings out a tattered violin bow. Within seconds, the woman is playing a flawless Beethoven sonata on the saw, warping and bending it at will as she draws the bow over it to coax out weirdly beautiful notes.

    Meanwhile, the man, played by Dan Castellaneta (the voice of Homer Simpson), sits stunned by the woman’s quickness.

    The second woman, played by Tracey Ullman, reaches into the box and pulls out some tape and a couple of small bottles. From the bottles she pours a combination of powders onto the tape, then attaches sections of it to her heels of her stiletto pumps. She jumps onto the table and begins a flamenco-like dance, stomping her heels. Each time she does, her chemical mixture, reacting to pressure, creates little explosions, like kids’ cap guns.

    By now Castellaneta is gaga-eyed, shaken and near panic. As Ullman jumps down and it’s his turn, he looks frantically into the box. No salvation appears. Finally, at his wits end, he finds two chopsticks and pulls them out.

    He then inserts a chopstick into each of his nostrils. The look in his eyes says he knows he has been thoroughly outclassed.

    However, the company gives him the job because he is a man.

    Why did this skit come to mind? Because Castellaneta was the equivalent of a rabid feminist—clueless and unimaginative, and clearly outclassed by the two Palins he was competing against. His ace in the hole was that all he had to do was show up, because the powers that be were going to hire him anyway. Similarly, all that feminists have to do is show up: How else to explain how some of the dumbest-ass broads on earth keep being handed prestigious positions in the academy and media?  

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Suek,

    “Of course, if thatfs not true, then we humans are different from all other mammals.”

    The dominant sex is not always the male but sometimes it is the female in the animal kingdom. In things like pack or herd hierarchies, basically whoever is around that is confident and able to defend the territory, does it and all the else will follow. That’s pretty much like most human interactions you see.

    The more accurate phrasing is that in certain fields in human behavior, such as baby care, cooking, hunting, warfare, or diplomacy, who or what is dominant differs based upon who/what is the best at that field. In most situations women are more dominant in cooking and baby care. In most situations, men are more dominant in hunting and warfare. But it isn’t set in stone. If a woman is able to hunt with more efficiency than a man, then that local culture and place will look towards women since they are more efficient due to whatever. There’s innate ability, which determines a lot of things and then there is the cultural framing which often attempts to conform people to the status quo expectations. If people expect women to be unable to hunt because everyone they knew that was a good hunter was male, then individual prejudice, societal limitations, and lack of risk taking will ensure that all hunters are males. When the choice is between survival or starving to death, people weren’t too keen on social experimentation (unlike the Left living in their luxury hotels playing with other people’s lives).

    Individual women may be better hunters than some men but as a group, society prefers them to not be risking life and limb while hunting: given women are more valuable to a tribe than their equivalent age males. That’s society’s justification for such engineering. What’s the Left’s justification?

    “yet ended up with more of the respect that liberal feminists were craving.”

    I think she was actually complaining that Palin had it easy by comparison and didn’t go through the same trials as feminists. She did not mention why it was so.

    I think you hit it on the head re. gliberal feministsh, Gringo.

    Can we list all the reasons that people hate Sarah Palin and can they be overcome by the next election?

    List all the reasons people hate America. It’s the same thing really. Whatever America does, is not going to remove the “hatred”.

    I dislike President Obama and his cronies because of what they are doing to our country but I donft wish them dead.

    That’s probably because conservatives have the capability to make that wish into reality, thus we simply can’t fantasize about it and then evade responsibility by claiming that we can’t actually get it done. We can get it done. It just takes time, munitions, work, and C3. The Left, however, always says they are against violence and so they unconsciously tell themselves that their threats have no serious consequences and thus are “okay”. To the Left, there is no such thing as verbal violence. I’d like them to tell that to a lot of abused women.

    Liberals issue death threats.”

    Progs call themselves pacifists and anti-war though.

    “I mentioned that Palin had certainly benefited because it freed her to make money, a lot of money;  but the state was undoubtedly better off.”

    Palin’s going to need that money to buy enough lawyers to fight off all those stalker creeps and death threat artists. One’s camping out next to her frontyard even. Palin’s going to need that money for future lawsuits.

    “Letfs contrast her record with what was accomplished or not accomplished by some of the other big-name governors in our nation.”

    Don’t forget that Palin, as Governor of Alaska, was responsible for the National Guard nuclear defense systems that’s basically part of America’s national defense system there (ain’t nothing in the rest of the US with the time to reach there).

    “Of course, people wouldnft know this unless they read her book.”

    They wouldn’t even understand it until they understood why Army war colleges design staffs the way they do. Ignorant people often think that a leader has to have the capability to do all these miraculous things but the real thing is that leaders call upon the resources of others. If they lack capable subordinates, that leader is going to fail.

    “Thatfs an incredible statement — do you think she means it??”

    “Hater” is a popular phrase among young people on the internets to refer to people who constantly complain and can’t offer something better. Since it has a very specific definition, it’s hard to make a joke out of it.

    “Maybe migrating to California had something to do with it.”

    The Left corrupts all that they touch in time.

    “Typical of Liberals – close, but not so much.”

    Close only counts with nukes and hand grenades in a confined area, as they say.

    “The hypocricy of it all really got to my student.”

    Have her look up LibProg positions on Afghanistan’s women pre 2001 and then match it with post 2002 attitudes on the war. There’s a noticeable lack of pro-women statements after 2002 on Afghanistan, when before it was constant talk about freeing women from the Taliban’s bondage. Funny how that worked out.

    “(I wonder how many liberal men hate themselves for being attracted to her?)”

    She winked at the camera in the debate and they felt like she had cut them off at the balls.

    “because the powers that be were going to hire him anyway.”

    *snorts* Right o, Martel.

    Apologies for the “h” replacing the ‘ in the various quotes here. Probably due to a non-English locale I’m using that’s affecting copy/paste.

  • SADIE

    The Left, however, always says they are against violence and so they unconsciously tell themselves that their threats have no serious consequences and thus are “okay”. To the Left, there is no such thing as verbal violence. I’d like them to tell that to a lot of abused women.
     
    Ymarsakar…your words above really summarize it all for me. Emotional violence, belittling and verbal battery just doesn’t matter if one is afflicted with PDS.

  • suek

    >>The dominant sex is not always the male but sometimes it is the female in the animal kingdom. >>
     
    Name me one mammalian species in which the female is normally the dominant…
     
    >>In things like pack or herd hierarchies, basically whoever is around that is confident and able to defend the territory, does it and all the else will follow.>>
     
    True.  And while a female will protect her young at all costs, other than that, males are dominant.  This is even reflected in the fact that males are 99.99% of the time, larger than females.  Considerably.
     
    The rest of your comments regarding this particular individual fact are of the “if a square had rounded corners it would be a circle” sort.  Humans add intelligence to the mix, and as a result have some different responses and means of attaining their ends, but the fact is that most of the time males are the dominants and females are the submissives.  And obviously – we also have some very different social conditions.  Animals are strictly physical, humans acquire power through wealth, and wealth can be acquired regardless of sex.  Ditto skills.

  • MacG

    Oldflyer: “She thought about it for awhile and then asked why she had quit as Governor.”
    Did you ask her why Obama quit his senate 143 days after taking having promised during the campaign that he would not and during that campaign stated he was not ready for the job being a firm believer that one should be ready for the job that they seek?

  • MacG

    Remember this?: “I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan”
    Not only will she bring home the bacon, she’ll shoot and dress it first.  She has taken the liberal message and run with it.  She has not hated men for being men she has embraced men at a core level of survival as an equal.  Eve was not formed out of Adam’s toe bone to be walked on and not out of the head-bone to rule over but out of a protective rib bone, from the side to walk side side as equals.
     
    The scope on Sarah’s rifle is another reason men will respect her.  It’s hard to out run a .30 caliber bullet :)

  • SADIE

    Apologies for interrupting this thread to make a public announcement; but it some odd way I believe there’s a connection to this thread and derangement syndrome. I listed the key points from the link. It’s quite an undertaking but with a population of just over 300,000 certainly doable. Should there be a law that forbids ‘derangement syndrome’?
    Questions or comments anyone?
    Danny, since this link is your creation, maybe you should decide (how’s that for democracy).
     
    First the public announcement:
     
    Iceland is drawing up a new constitution
    (they’re currently using a revised Danish version)
     
     
    The constitutional assembly will be made up of 25 to 31 delegates, the final number to be determined by a gender and equality ratio.
     
    It will be made up of regular citizens elected by direct personal voting.
     
    Anyone is eligible to stand for election, with the exceptions of the president, lawmakers and the committee appointed to organize the assembly.
     
    They will use material from project earlier this year in which 1,000 randomly chosen Icelanders — aged 18-89 — offered their views on what should be in the constitution.
     
    523 people are in the running. Truck drivers, university professors, lawyers, journalists and computer geeks are all among the candidates. All have been given equal air time on Icelandic radio to make their platforms known.
     
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101126/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_election_2
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Suek,
     
    http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-information/cesar-millan-dog-whisperer/article_balanced.aspx
     
    Another example are horse herds.
     
    www equusite.com/articles/behavior/behaviorPecking.shtml
     
    don’t want to hit the spam filter so not making that a link.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    “And while a female will protect her young at all costs, other than that, males are dominant.”
     
    Dominance isn’t defined by physical strength.
    http://hubpages.com/hub/WomenandPower
     
    Dominance is a term applying to social hierarchy. If you take any group of humans, there will be a hierarchy, a totem pole in which somebody is at the top and somebody at the bottom, then there will be a bunch of people seeking to climb the ladder in the middle. They either want to go a step higher than their fellows or they want to contest for the actual top position. This is notably seen in Japan or in India’s caste system since they are glaringly obvious compared to more subtle Western versions of hierarchy.
     
    So basically, the dominant person in a group is the one everybody else respects and follows. To take a few examples, they would be Bookworm, who is dominant in the group associated with Bookworm’s Room. Another example is the President of the United States. When he gives an order, the US military obeys, even though the US military has the power and ability to destroy the entire Presidential command chain from the top down.
     
    This is, in fact, almost exactly the way hierarchies work in the animal kingdom, if we speak of mammals explicitly. There is a ranking system for horses, dogs, monkeys, apes, and probably dolphins too. All you do when you discard self-awareness and tool use is to limit the number of options available. So while humans figured out a way for a CEO to be man or woman, depending on capabilities, the horse herds are always going to have an alpha mare and a stallion to serve as physical bodyguard. They cannot invert that relationship because they can’t use tools.
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    On the topic of tool use changing the nature of how hierarchies work, that just isn’t so. Even though humans can make and use tools, and even though we have a higher level of intelligence than mammals, the way we deal with hierarchy is 99% the same as how dogs or wolves deal with theirs. Or perhaps the more relevant example is monkey groups.
     
    This is what it is meant by “human nature not changing”. The sphere is still a sphere, the block still a block. It is the nature of dominance to require specific capabilities and whether a male or female fits that role best, nature really does not care. Only humans care about whether the leader is a man or a woman. All nature cares about is efficiency and chances of survival. If it is more efficient to have a male be dominant of a group, then it will be so. But if it is more efficient to have a female be dominant and a male be subordinate, except in some things, then that also shall be so. In wolf and dog hierarchies, it’s more interchangeable depending on how evolution made things be. Meaning, there’s no genetic predisposition one way or the other. In larger animals, the resource allocation is risky so there’s more requirement for specialization. Jack of all trades setup isn’t much favored given the risk inherent in devoting muscle mass or resource consumption to one sex.
     
    Much of the evolutionary or developmental bias towards males actually occurred because we were able to use tools. If you look at the history of humanity, most of it was spent where muscle power was the only thing able to increase the effectiveness of tools. Mechanical advantage didn’t really go into full steam until the industrial revolution. So I might say that the human expectation that males are dominant and females are submissive, came more as a result of our focus on tool use than anything else. If we hadn’t developed tools, we would have associated dominance traits much more with wisdom and instinctual awareness than with physical power and ability. That’s because the person that could make use of tools better, could get more resources and create more safety for the group. Dominance is an evolutionary method for ensuring survival and once humans made use of tools, strength was seen equivalent with survival, even though that’s actually not the case in the rest of the mammals.
     
    I think the reason is not very complex all in all. For an animal to use strength, it has to be physically close to the threat. That’s like a man wrestling with a grizzly. Maybe he’ll win and maybe he won’t. But even if he does, he’ll get gangrene or other infections and maybe have to amputate a limb or what not. This is not a good survival strategy. Thus most animals, in fact, do their best to avoid fighting if at all possible. The only time they will fight is preserve their life or the life of their group, or fight for social dominance (once) to ascertain hierarchy. The rest of the time, they are not using their strength against potential threats but avoiding them. Thus strength is not a particularly all important trait for animals. Instead, wisdom and the ability to instinctively avoid dangers are seen as better uses of resources.
     
    Humans, however, often deal with anything imaginable using “strength” due to the fact that the usage of tools allows us to transmute our physical strength into many different solutions. Animals trying to escape? Make a wall. Got problems freezing to death? Haul wood. Can’t find any deadwood laying around? Cut wood. Raining makes people sick? Build a house. All that requires physical labor in the absence of automation. Even with mechanical advantage of the pulley, it took a lot of “manpower” to pull stuff up and over to do any good. Even so, many frontier groups had women as their self-chosen leaders? Why, given that a woman has far less physical ability to get the needs of survival done than males? Because dominance is associated with ensuring survival and even though humans invented tool use, our fundamental nature has not changed since the days of apes and monkeys.
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    This is even reflected in the fact that males are 99.99% of the time, larger than females. 

     
    When nature develops a male to be larger, it is predominantly to test which males are genetically superior to other males in order to compete for best mating chances. While a male may be called upon to physically fight and kill threats, this is only used to warn off competing males of the same species most of the time. That’s because any animal that tries to fight off another animal, and it isn’t about food or surviving, becomes a huge waste of resources. Injured animals are not considered viable for survival by nature. Thus animals do all they can to avoid injuries. Even when wolves compete for pack supremacy, they don’t do so with the intention of crippling or killing the other. Given that predators often target the weak or disabled for killing, everybody else actually has a motivation to let the weak get killed. There are not often cases where an entire herd, lead by the strongest physically, comes back and tries to kill off a pride of lions that had taken a calf. I say not often because there are species of buffalo in Africa that actually do that from time to time. That includes doing it to humans who hunt them as well, of course. “Vegetarian” is also not equivalent to “non-aggressive”.
    Animals are strictly physical, humans acquire power through wealth, and wealth can be acquired regardless of sex.
    Humans can be considered more specialized in physical aspects than animals if you use that term to judge by. It did not come about in these days but back before the industrial revolution. In a muscle powered society, almost everything was done by hand. Because of this, physical power became chiefly linked with social status because if you were weak you could not get enough resources to survive on. Nor protect anyone else. You had to either be capable of wielding military power, which was derived from strength, or be capable of obtaining the loyalty of others who wielded military power. This can be chiefly seen in such figures as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Cleopatra. The male came to be specialized in the usage of tools and the female came to be specialized in all the things required for survival that did not involve the use of physical strength. For example, females have a deeper color perception due to the fact that knowing what color a berry was, could be the difference between getting a ripe one, wasting an unripe one, or getting poisoned. Males, however, do not really give a damn about color differences or shades. That’s why females prefer color coordination while males are generally dysfunctional on that point. That hasn’t changed, even though we no longer even use this color perception for survival.
     
    Most of human social quirks came as a result of hunter-gatherer conditions. I can write a lot about how male and female traits you see today originated back from when a man was the hunter and the female was the gatherer. A lot of things. An animal would often times avoid danger by using their senses. A human hunter in the bronze age relied more on tools for survival and those tools required physical power to use well. This is why I say that humans place far more emphasis and care on physical power than animals ever did. If males are 99% of the time bigger than females, that would be the reason.
     
    This is a comprehensive subject and I’ve dialed down some things into general statements that it is true most of the time, without going into particulars. Wealth now a days can perhaps be acquired regardless of sex, but that wasn’t the case back in the day. And it still isn’t the case in places like Saudi Arabia and such. Things like wealth or human tool usage are specialized fields branching off of animal dominance traits and social hierarchies. They can be interesting subjects but the primary point has always been that human hierarchies function technically equivalent to certain mammalian hierarchies. And mammal hierarchies do not often or most of the time have the male as an alpha. Dominant traits that make an alpha, are independent of male or female sexual identifies. That is as true of animals as it is true of humans on this matter. Tool use or no tool use.
     

  • suek

    Heh.  Don’t talk to me about horses and dogs, Y…I have owned both all my life!  And in multiples.  I have bred both. Males are dominant.  Females submissive … except around their young.  As for Cesar…he’s good.  And he exerts male dominance – in his human relationships as well as his interactions with the dogs.  His show is pretty funny, actually.  I have a hard time believing people actually live with and tolerate the behavior of some of the animals he deals with.  His main skill, though, is acute observation.  He “reads” the animals – and the people.
     
    When I bring a new horse into my herd, I normally put them in a side stall adjacent to the main field.  They have a chance to get acquainted without being in direct contact, and they are protected if they need to move away.  They stay that way for about a week before I turn them out with the others.  One particularly dominant mare moved into the field and approached the lead mare (I had fed them in order to provide distraction so they wouldn’t gang up on her.  Unnecessary in this case – but it was better for _their_ protection!) and threatened her.  Lead mare said…ok…and moved off her feed pile, yielding to the new mare as more dominant.  That mare went down the line and did the same thing to each other mare in turn.  Same results.  I’d never seen anything like it – before or since.  She was the lead mare from that point on.   She was not an easy mare to handle.  I had a special halter that I used on her to enforce control.  On the second occasion I used it, she resisted getting the halter on, but once I did – and she _knew_ it – she threw such a fit…slamming her forefeet down like a 4 year old stamping their feet in a tantrum!  Tough mare.  By the way, I never got her bred – her hormonal cycles were out of whack, which says something I think.
     
    >>Much of the evolutionary or developmental bias towards males actually occurred because we were able to use tools.>>
     
    Disagree.  Males generally were able to go out and hunt, do the distance etc. and bring home the bacon.  Women are retricted by pregnancy and childrearing.  Civilization has made it possible for women to achieve leadership roles because it has reduced the need for strength – although I think there is still a male/female relationship to their earlier roles by observing that men tend to be more single task focused and women tend to multi-task.  Each ability has it’s pluses and minuses depending on the task being performed.
     
    Part of the problem, I think, lies in the term “submissive”.  It is not a term that means that one accedes to bondage, but rather that dominance is the attitude that prepares the individual to fight and protect as opposed to being protected.  _Most_ females will run or yield rather than fight.  Not all…but most.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    http://web-prowler.blogspot.com/2010/04/social-media-monkeys-primate-hierachies.html
     
    An interesting experiment that shows male testosterone does not in fact make someone climb or assume a higher social position. Aggression is not a social dominance trait. Meaning, just because some guy you see is bigger, meaner, madder, and stronger, does not mean he has a higher position than someone smaller, quieter, calmer, etc.
     
    For some reasons, humans follow angry people. Don’t ask me why, I don’t know. I guess you could say that there are natural born followers and they’re always looking for people to lead them, whether it is Obama, a death cult, or some angry person that can appear to be confident precisely because he is angry.
     
    SSG Dave here mentioned before that he would get certain looks (I call them angry-fearful beta stares) from other guys when he went into a pool or some such and brandished something related to the NG and that got female attention. Why would females pay attention to a man if he was smaller, looked less strong, and was older than the youthful males around if dominance was in fact based upon what people think it is based upon? You know, things like size, strength, and so on.
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Males generally were able to go out and hunt, do the distance etc. and bring home the bacon.  Women are retricted by pregnancy and childrearing.
     
    Using what? Their barehands, no. It was using tools. Bows and arrows. Spears. Chipped obsidian or stone or iron. Or just some deadwood laying around to dig a pit trap. Slings and stones. Those are tools. Ever since the stone age, it has been impacting human evolution, which in a sense, bred certain traits into specialized roles for men and women. Because women had to be dependent on others physically for 9 or so months, males because the natural selection by nature to be specialized in powering up and using tools. It did not make sense to invest the amount of metabolic penalty to a gender that had such a high downtime: lack of efficiency for resources used. The fact that women are so restricted, did not in itself increase the size of men as opposed to women.
     
    So how can you disagree with my statement that “much of the evolutionary or developmental bias towards males actually occurred because we were able to use tools”?
     
    Don’t talk to me about horses and dogs, Y…I have owned both all my life!
    Then you already know which mammalian species has a dominant female. Btw, how horses and dogs behave around humans is not 100% equivalent to how they are in the wild.
    If you believe humans have adapted to the products of civilization, why do you not think animals domesticated by humans have done the same?
     
    Since we are talking about the animal kingdom, why should I not speak of how dominant mares behave in a herd? Alpha mares in fact the herd leader of a wild herd. Why do you not believe this qualifies in the animal kingdom, given horses are mammals too?
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    “When I bring a new horse into my herd”
     
    Oh? ; ) How can you, a female, be dominant over a herd that includes stallions and geldings, if you say males are dominant and females submissive?

  • suek

    >>How can you, a female, be dominant over a herd that includes stallions and geldings, if you say males are dominant and females submissive?>>
    First, my herd does not include stallions and geldings in the communal sense.  I segregate by sex in order to minimize conflict.  Stallions are stalled separately, or next to geldings to minimize conflict.  One ranch I visited had the interesting practice of stalling stallions between pregnant mares.  The pregnant mares reject any sexual advances by the stallions, and the stallions wouldn’t challenge the stallions on the other side because of the presence of the mare in between.
    Second, rank is not absolute.  An individual can be dominant in one situation, and submissive in another.  Most marriages are a partnership, with the male dominant in certain areas, the female dominant in others.
    Third, training results in establishing dominance.  Problem horses (as with dogs) are usually the result in a lack of training to submit, although in both horses and dogs, there is the learned response which is habitual to the point of being ingrained if done correctly.  The result is what we call “well trained”.  There are some trainers who specialize in handling horses who require “socialization” (which actually means learning to submit) as adults, but like Cesar, there aren’t a heck of a lot of them.  Buck Branaman is one of them.  I’ve watched him work – like Cesar, his primary “trick” is acute observation – of both horse and rider/handler.  Most horses – especially stallions – are socialized at an early age.  Most geldings lose a lot of their aggressive nature when they’re gelded – no matter what experiments may say about testosterone!  Why do you think castration of domestic cattle and horses has been used for so long??
     
     
     

  • suek

    Additionally – human/horse relationships are going to vary by conditions.  If you have a wild stallion with a band of mares, he isn’t likely to accept entry into his territory, even by a human.  I wouldn’t attempt walking into a situation like that.  Even a domestic stallion who is in herd situation may challenge a human who walks into his territory.  They don’t like to be taken away from their mares…they’re very possessive.  It depends on the horse and his conditioning.  And the situation…in the wild, they run.  If they can’t run for some reason, they’re likely to get aggressive.  Just because you’re human does _not_ make you safe in such a situation.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Going back to the subject, are you still on the position that males are dominant and females submissive when in fact I have presented to you that wild horse herds are lead by alpha females with the stallion taking a security and support position?
     
    The traits you have associated with dominance isn’t coming from only male or female. And in the animal kingdom, it isn’t divided up that neatly either.
     
    The original assertion that males are dominant and female submissive, I disagree with. I will only agree with the statement that dominant traits are neither male nor female, with a disclaimer that nature has made specialized modifications so that males may seem more dominant and females more submissive for some species.
    That, however, is not a statement of truth. Meaning, just because you see some females that are submissive, does not mean the world is round. Independent statements of fact do not change each others’ attributes. Thus the same is for specific groups of humans and animals. Humans do not behave diametrically different to animals in nature, nor are males dominant and females submissive in nature solely because humans have created this artificial society that focuses on specialization.
     
    So what is your position now?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    “Why do you think castration of domestic cattle and horses has been used for so long??”
     
    Because the number of humans that can dominant a stallion, any stallion even, is vanishingly small. It’s the same reason why you use bits and halters to control animals. Some people can do so with voice command alone but most cannot. Thus since the value of a domesticated animal for sale or use depends upon how much use it is to a human, humans use geldings and halters and any number of other control mechanisms.
     
    Human convenience is a higher priority than animals. That is why humans, as a species, are dominant over many other species. If we need a spot or food to eat, they make way for us. Just as a lower status horse will not contest a higher status horse’s right to eat first, even if that leaves nothing left for any other horse.
     
    A lot of people say that this is unnatural or too humanocentric but coming from my understanding of nature, it is actually more natural for humans to do so than try to “take care” of animals and build habitats for them.

  • suek

    >>So what is your position now?>>
     
    Same as before, Y.
     
    >>Because the number of humans that can dominant a stallion, any stallion even, is vanishingly small.>>
     
    That’s a bunch of hooey, Y.  Any human that is knowledgeable in “horse 101″ can dominate a stallion.  They may need to go through “horse 201″, but if they complete “horse 101″, that should not be difficult.
     
    >>It’s the same reason why you use bits and halters to control animals. Some people can do so with voice command alone but most cannot.>>
     
    Well…no.  Not that either.  You have to teach them.  First you dominate them, then you teach them.  You can teach them commands, but they don’t really understand words – they understand sounds which must be followed by certain actions to either receive a reward or avoid a punishment.  It’s all a matter of conditioning.  The guys laughed when they brought in a horse from Mexico, and I asked if it “understood” English – but the sounds – even the body language – can be different.  The animal responds to the sounds and body language to which it’s accustomed.  In English (and Spanish) you say “whoa”.  In German it’s “haltung”.  In English, you say “walk on”…in German, it’s “Vorwaerts”.  If you say “Vorwaerts” to a horse that has never heard that before, it will respond with nothing.  The sound has no meaning.  Halters and bits have an actual physical restraint – but even that requires conditioning to get a good response.  Put a halter on a horse for the first time, and chances are excellent that he will sit back and throw his weight against it trying to get free.  A horse that is trained learns to give to the pressure – to move forward.  Likewise the bit.  Some will set their jaw, but with training they learn to give.
     
    Clicker training is excellent as well – but you still need some kind of a cue, either verbal or physical.
     
    And you haven’t addressed cattle…  Or sheep.  Or goats.  Or pigs.  All of which are domestic animals, all of which – as domestic animals – are castrated.  Rams, boars  and bucks as entire males are significantly larger than the females of the same species.  And more aggressive.
     
    I suspect that we’re mixing up the concepts of “leadership” and “dominance”.  I don’t think they’re the same, but I’m not sure exactly how to discriminate between them.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    That’s a bunch of hooey, Y.  Any human that is knowledgeable in “horse 101″ can dominate a stallion.  They may need to go through “horse 201″, but if they complete “horse 101″, that should not be difficult.
     
    Yet it is not common, neither now nor even before. Assuming there even was a horse 101 in 1600 or 1800 or 50 BC. So I don’t think it’s hooey at all. Whatever knowledge you have now about horses, is simply neither as popular as it may seem to you nor was as readily available back in the day when people had to travel months just to sail from one continent to another.
     
    Any human that knows how to use a gun can shoot a target at long range. But how many could? Not as many as might be expected, even back in the day of the Wild Wild West.
     
    You find it hard to believe that there are so many people that Caesar meets that lets their animals do such inappropriate behavior. You said it yourself. Is it so hard to believe that there are just as many people out there who can’t dominate a stallion even if you told them how? Just because you have the ability, does not transfer your ability or viewpoint to them.  And just because the information is “available” does not mean people will make use of it. The internet and Caesar Millan has been around for awhile. How many dog owners have taken his advice? I already see one dog owner down my street that has dogs that try to chase down any strange runner going by their house. And these were small dogs. A stallion? Most people would indeed not be able to handle it, regardless of what they read in a book or who told them what. Even amongst ranchers that break horses, there are stallions that can’t be safely approached except by a few individuals with the skillset, honed over years. Plus enormous self-confidence and mental determination. These are the ones that cannot be broke to the saddle simply by forcing them to carry a rider. Ornery bastards is one term used to describe them.
    You have to teach them.
    Most people cannot teach animals because they don’t know how. That’s why they have used methods such as castration and what not. Simply because it made more economic sense. It’s the same reason why people don’t study farming any more. Better to pay somebody else that can. More economical that way. While it is possible for an individual to learn how to handle a stallion, it’s cheaper to pay someone else to do it instead. Certainly I would say it can be taught. But that’s not to mean I believe many people will actually learn how to.
    I suspect that we’re mixing up the concepts of “leadership” and “dominance”.  I don’t think they’re the same, but I’m not sure exactly how to discriminate between them.
    I believe from looking at what you have wrote, it is because you are using your experiences with domesticated animals to apply dominance and leadership to. In those situations, they do not lead anything really. You are the leader and they attempt to use aggression to dominate others or to resist your control.
    My use of dominance and submission, whether it be a state or traits in that category, applies to humans, domesticated animals, wild animals, and basically is very broad and all encompassing since it utilizes principles that are true for every species of a certain kind (mammals that uses hierarchies).
    Why do you need to consider leadership when there is no question of who commands and decides where domesticated animals go and do? The human, of course. Has there ever been a question or idea in your mind, suek, that the animals around you are the ones telling you what to do and where to go? I would guess that it’s not an often thing on your mind.
    I consider leadership and dominance to be two sides of the same coin, because it is the same coin in the end. Principles are only true if it applies over every example given and dominance is not dominance if requires one thing in the animal kingdom and another thing with humans and still another thing with domesticated animals. Either it has the same purpose and is built using the same components, or it is an entirely different thing, not a principle at all. It would be right and proper then to call it not “dominance” but “human dominance” or “dog dominance” or “herd dominance” or “pack dominance” or “goat dominance”. If they are not the same, calling it by the same name would be inappropriate.
    To look at what differences are inherent in human leadership vs animal leadership is very easy. There’s a ton of em. It is much harder to find the core principles that apply to both cases. However, once found, those principles are the closest thing to a bedrock foundation truth.
     
    So what do you think is true of animal hierarchies that is also true of male and female hierarchies, suek?

  • suek

    >>Most people cannot teach animals because they don’t know how.That’s why they have used methods such as castration and what not.>>
     
    Not true.  They use castration because it changes behavior.  It reduces aggressive tendencies.  While it’s true that training/teaching the animal to behave in certain ways when in certain situations, it doesn’t mean that if the situation changes, the behavior won’t change.  A long long time ago, I knew a man who had a stallion that he used for breeding in a herd situation.  The stallion was well trained, and he could turn him loose with a saddle and bridle on, and although the stallion would herd mares, he’d make no effort to tease or breed them – even if a mare was in heat.  Take the saddle and bridle off, turn him out and he was once again a breeding stallion.  Not a common situation.  I’ve only seen that the one time.  In racing, for example, the general theory is that you cannot allow a young stallion to breed, or he’s ruined for racing.  Period.
     
    >>Even amongst ranchers that break horses, there are stallions that can’t be safely approached except by a few individuals with the skillset, honed over years.>>
     
    Y… where _are_ you getting this stuff???
     
    >>So what do you think is true of animal hierarchies that is also true of male and female hierarchies, suek?>>
     
    I think you lack experience with animal hierarchies, and perhaps human male/female hierarchies.  What you are saying simply doesn’t have any consistency with my experience.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    They use castration because it changes behavior.  It reduces aggressive tendencies.
     
    That’s part of my point. It makes them more easy to handle by humans. And it can be done without specialized training knowledge on the part of the owner. Why would someone who can make use of aggressive tendencies in a stallion wish to remove it? Because other people he deals with would prefer that it be removed as it is causing them problems. Otherwise, what is the point of geldings? People already control the reproduction of their horses so it is not like it is for birth control.
     
    What you are saying simply doesn’t have any consistency with my experience.
     
    That depends entirely upon what you think I am saying. For example, I did not say that castration was not used for changing behavior. Nor did I say castration would not reduce aggressive tendencies.
    So what is not true about this statement of mine?
    Most people cannot teach animals because they don’t know how.That’s why they have used methods such as castration and what not.
    I do not see where castration affects whether most people cannot teach animals or not. Nor does castration of a horse affect what people know or do not know about horse behavior. My point was simply that geldings are easier to handle for people in general than stallions. Are you then claiming that novice riders would prefer to ride stallions than geldings? Are people going to fall less from riding a stallion than a gelding? Assume the horse is trained equally regardless. Which one would you first let a novice rider ride, suek? A stallion or a gelding, with both equally trained.
    I also said wild herds of horses in nature, are led by an alpha mare, not a stallion. Do you consider that also not consistent with your experience?
    Y… where _are_ you getting this stuff???
     
    Do I take that to mean you have never heard of horses that simply resisted being trained to take riders? I wouldn’t say such horses were impossible to train but I have heard a couple anecdotal stories of horses, stallions in particular, that were difficult to handle or train to the saddle. These were wild horses of course. Meaning, they were taken from a mustang herd and the stallion was probably taken from his herd.
    I think you lack experience with animal hierarchies, and perhaps human male/female hierarchies. 

     
    Whether you think I lack experience with animal hierarchies or not, should not affect your thoughts on this other matter. So how about it, suek. What do you believe is true for both animal hierarchies and male/female hierarchies?