"Domineering Maidens"

[Faust|]

I'm fascinated by the modern success of certain types of humans that would not fare well in terms of natural or sexual selection in a more primitive time like, say, the hunting-gathering or subsistence-farming period. In my title I used rather polite words, but I can think of some others to describe the sort of person I have in mind. I'm talking here about the type of girl that must dominate, and not in the good way... the control-freaks, the man-haters. If you don't know what I'm talking about then allow me to bless you and you can now stop reading.

Anyway, what was this type's outlook in more primitive times? My general attitude about them is that they are usually not attractive, and when they may be considered so, they are not fertile-looking. A human's ability to get along with the rest of its group was generally a large factor in both its survival and reproductive success, and something strange is going on when a female prefers generally weaker companions over generally stronger ones. Anyway, any educated or uneducated opinions regarding what their outlook was in older times when survival was not guaranteed? What about their place in the hierarchy of the (relatively small) social group? What about their likely relationships with various other specific human types? Or from another perspective... what do the ones who like these women say?

[Rodion Romanovich]

The way civilization has looked has had an impact on how human genes have developed even since civilization begun. Some people say it's too little time to make big differences, but it's important to notice that evolutionary time is a relative concept, relative to how heavy the pressure is, and how specific it is. We can see a few tendencies that are a direct result of how we behave in civilization, as opposed to how we behaved before civilization:
- strong people being removed by wars - the physically strongest are chosen for war. They either die or stay away from home. Women who wait for them are less likely to have offspring than those who cheat on them and marry some person who stayed at home, who is either weak, coward, or a person who started the war but refuses to fight it. The heavy casualties and the long time wars in civilization take, as opposed to the light casualty skirmishes that common chimps have, means there's here a wide gap between nature and civilization society. This development changes man to become more cowardly, physically weak, and more likely to be a warmonger who lets others fight his wars, while turning woman more likely to cheat, and choose less physically strong men.
- work is now long-time, low-intensive, with long-term low-intensity mental stress. In nature it was short time, high-intensive, with short term mental stress. This creates another evolutionary pressure on who survives.
- we reproduce more, so a single casualty means less to us. If it continues long enough it will remove much of our moral values. Most animals with high reproduction speed and large numbers of offspring tend to end up valuing individual lives lower. In the changeover period, each individual will still have his own strong fear and pain instincts left, but consider it less and less horrible that others die. It causes more killing, while killing still remains an as horrible thing for the victim.
- the movement of populations back and forth means there's more genetical variety available for each individual. Therefore, large harems and few men having most of the women is now possible without causing inbreeding, which will after a while result in fewer men taking part in reproduction, and the average man being turned into more of a drone and slave than a full-worthy human being. In the changeover period the men who lose their ability to have sex when it's delegated to fewer men, will still have left his instincts for feeling pain and fear over not getting sex. Later, he'll probably lose them if massive population mixing and massive population sizes remain. The result is a more ant-like reproduction behavior.
- the cases where civilization makes sure evilness wins. By giving power to people they can do quite a lot of damage without being able to punish as easily as if they didn't hold power. Thus, there are many cases of evilness paying off. This results in people who seek power and money, and don't hesitate to abuse these things, to be genetically favored over people who seek peace and stability, who were important in nature because the flock was more dependent on each individual in order to survive.
- the most scary thing might be that when the self-reinforcing process where more warmongering and less peaceful people get more power, they usually end up turning society to favor evil and warmongering people even more. This reinforces the above development, which then reinforces this development, and it goes around in circles until world gets more and more evil.

Of course it's impossible to tell how far we've "advanced" in these aspects, but there are noticeable developments in all these directions, and it's very obvious that if the society remains the way it does for long enough, these developments will advance even further. What is good is that we haven't gone too far into these directions yet. What's bad is that we are making society more and more heavily favoring these dangerous developments. To summarize the society philosophy consequences of this, the problems are:
- war
- power structures which favor social-level evilness and immorality
- power structures which favor political-level evilness and immorality (not yet that well developed, luckily enough)
- that wars and power structures which favor evilness and immorality creates more wars and power structures which favor evilness and immorality
- the sometimes fascistical and unnatural requirements on humans in modern society, because most people are naturally adapted to short-time high-intensive work, rather than long-time low-intensive office work. Often however, those who are incapable of long-time low-intensity work are discriminated and seen as inferior and often oppressed.

[Major Robert Dump]

I strongly doubt that primitive females couldn't be complete bitches. It would just be more likely it would get them killed or maimed, which as you may know, will not dissuade most women. And don't think they wouldn't poison their husbands squirrel soup, or push him off the thatch bridge, or make dirty, unwashed caveman sex with another caveman who had his eye on her hairy buttocks and a taste for her delightful biosonberry jelly he got a taste of at the annual Agunga bonfire buffet, in exchange for killing her husband. And women had dreams and goals back then as well, maybe she didn't fream of spearing the biggest boar or having the smelliest fesces, but I bet she dreamed of the most magically enchanted fires, or making a working set of fertility beads before any of the other cavewomen.


While we are animals, most animals don't live with societal rules, taboos and traditions. Or science. And remember, maybe its better your scenario
isn't the case because it also suggest that even if you are a strong male, another strong male might come along and take her from you. And kill your kids.Thats not a real good way to propegate the species.

It sounds to me like your girlfriends dumped you for A Wimp. The first thing you should do is find out what hes got that you don't, like maybe more brains, or maybe hes a musician, or maybe he has a penis the size of an eggplant. Then you compete with him on those grounds, too, like get smarter (or, in most cases, just stop being a dumb ass), take up hobby that competes with musician, or learn other ways to please a woman in bed. Second, you find out if she has any sisters and if she does, have sex with them. Also do her best friends. Her mom as well. If you're from Austin, try her dad, too. And third, make it a point to stop trying to make relationships with girls who drop you for
wimps, and instead just use them for one night stands. The keepers are the ones who won't dump you for shallow crap, and it doesn't hurt if she makes some uber boisonberry jelly.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I strongly doubt that primitive females couldn't be complete bitches. It would just be more likely it would get them killed or maimed, which as you may know, will not dissuade most women. And don't think they wouldn't poison their husbands squirrel soup, or push him off the thatch bridge, or make dirty, unwashed caveman sex with another caveman who had his eye on her hairy buttocks and a taste for her delightful biosonberry jelly he got a taste of at the annual Agunga bonfire buffet, in exchange for killing her husband. And women had dreams and goals back then as well, maybe she didn't fream of spearing the biggest boar or having the smelliest fesces, but I bet she dreamed of the most magically enchanted fires, or making a working set of fertility beads before any of the other cavewomen.

A woman who killed would immediately have to be killed for the flock to survive. That's where our instincts to punish criminals come from - if someone is enough of a threat it's necessary to remove that person or he/she will kill so many that the flock is weakened. It should be noted that this "justice" instinct isn't a perfect solution, and that it's often very bad in a modern society, but in a natural setting it was the best solution that could be developed in that time. In modern society these fear and lack of trust based insticts often backfire and make people go against people who are really innocent.

Also, cheating with others existed in the natural setting and was very normal, but it wasn't cheating in the sense that there was never a promise of staying faithful. Plus the Bonobo which is most closely related to humans of all animals seem to have a few favorites, it's not like they go **** around with anyone.

While we are animals, most animals don't live with societal rules, taboos and traditions. Or science. And remember, maybe its better your scenario
isn't the case because it also suggest that even if you are a strong male, another strong male might come along and take her from you. And kill your kids.Thats not a real good way to propegate the species.

Society rules and morals are a very central part of pretty much every flock of mammals or birds. Traditions have been proved among several species of birds, primates and cats. Also, another male killing your kids is only something carried out by very few species, like lions, who are by the way showing inbreeding sympthomes, which means lions are probably an evolutionary time bomb that will destruct itself very soon. Genetical variety is important so most species, including the bonobo chimps (the closest relative to humans) is taking great care that many of the males and females bring their genes to the next generation. The form of the species and it's cloest environment is very important for deciding the moral rules, though, so the changes in society form among humans is likely to cause a drastic change in moral values. What those are I mentioned in my post above.

[doc_bean]

Also, another male killing your kids is only something carried out by very few species,

Humans do this too, just not on an everyday basis. Killing the offspring of your enemy is a pretty 'natural' thing for a human to do. Where else does genocide come from ?

A woman who killed would immediately have to be killed for the flock to survive.

most women wouldn't get caught, or let another man do the job and take the blame. They're a sneaky bunch

[yesdachi]

There have been some cultures that women have played the dominant role, but none that have been very progressive that I am aware of. IMO back in the day regardless of who you are, man or woman, if you were not a productive part of society they would have probably kicked you out or beaten you down. Survival of the fittest and all.

[Avicenna]

The Amazons in Greek legend, but I'm not sure if they existed or not. Kerala was largely dominated by females (now one of the poorest areas but with low birth and death rates, and a much higher life expectancy than the rest of India).

Legio: perhaps there are still some strong, who are cunning? Those who managed to give good excuses for not going to the wars of the past. Also, the strong would be more likely to survive, but in the end would still be a minority in the population.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Humans do this too, just not on an everyday basis. Killing the offspring of your enemy is a pretty 'natural' thing for a human to do. Where else does genocide come from ?

Genocide is cultural. It is an exaggeration of the "justice" killing instinct caused by tremendous demonization of a group. The only other case it appears in is during serious resource conflicts, such as the starvation in Rwanda. There, the group identity what was made the people choose a side in the horrible slaughter, which by the way was also reinforced by demonization. Under normal circumstances there's no desire for a sane being to commit genocide - if that had been the case, we wouldn't have made it as a species past around 3000 BC.

most women wouldn't get caught, or let another man do the job and take the blame. They're a sneaky bunch

It's not very easy to hide the truth in a pre-civilization society. Trust me, not many women would be able to kill a single male in a way so that someone else could be blamed. In fact, it's mostly recent technology that has made framing others for murder so easy. And the family-system as opposed to the flock concept. Now people are separated by walls and other things, behind which it's easy to hide what is going on. Besides a woman who would be that sneaky would hurt her flock so much, that eventually the entire flock would be either wiped out or so much weakened that it would suffer greatly, thus having much smaller chances of survival in the long run. And finally - how many women you see in everyday life today would have instincts to kill you, do you think? If it had been a good way of surviving for a woman to kill then there would have been more of those today.

There have been some cultures that women have played the dominant role, but none that have been very progressive that I am aware of. IMO back in the day regardless of who you are, man or woman, if you were not a productive part of society they would have probably kicked you out or beaten you down. Survival of the fittest and all.

No, that isn't very natural. Very few species actually bother to actively bully or kill inproductive members of their flocks. Only weak species who haven't got good margins in their survival strategy need to do this. In fact most natural selection is done by nature killing someone, or an individual not being chosen for reproduction. Actively killing an unproductive member is extremely uncommon. Some animals deliberately leave the flocks and try to live on their own if they are unproductive. But killing of unproductive members is very, very rare. It's a thought that is cultural, not natural, for humans to have. All who hate to pay taxes to the poor do so because they have to work long-time low-intensity work which is boring, stressing and disease-causing, and they feel their life is wasted because they have to fight so hard for every penny, they don't want to give anything away. However if you would be given more room, more rest, and more humane working condition, a labor market where you could be sure to get a job with decent pay if only you want one, then even the most extreme conservatives wouldn't mind a small tax so much, and one thing that's certain is that they wouldn't mind putting the people who are unproductive (but not disabled enough to not be able to work) to have their own country somewhere, thus wanting them to "leave the flock" rather than actively killing them. There's no desire to kill inproductive people in our instincts. Only in a sick society can that idea be born.

The Amazons in Greek legend, but I'm not sure if they existed or not. Kerala was largely dominated by females (now one of the poorest areas but with low birth and death rates, and a much higher life expectancy than the rest of India).

The Amazons have been found to be a myth.

Legio: perhaps there are still some strong, who are cunning? Those who managed to give good excuses for not going to the wars of the past. Also, the strong would be more likely to survive, but in the end would still be a minority in the population.

It's not like all have been removed, in fact the development hasn't gone too far yet. But the way society structure looks it's guaranteed to progress towards that direction unless society structure is changed, and that's the main lesson to learn. How many have died already doesn't matter, there's no way of bringing them back.

And the strong actually aren't most likely to survive in war. The short-statured romans showed that stronger gauls and germans could be defeated, for example. Lately we've been having the concepts of carpet bombing of cities and random artillery on enemy positions, both of which are just as devastating against the stronger and more intelligent soldiers, as they are to the rest.

[yesdachi]

Hey Legio, I did say survival of the fittest but I was also careful to say “kicked you out or beaten you down”. Rarely do I think a member of a society was killed because they were bitches. The threat of exile or constantly getting beaten when mouthing off or slacking may keep that person at the bottom of the pecking order but not dead.

I do think it is a very natural thing for the weakling to be bullied in nature. I can think of dozens of examples on the farm and around lakes and even for humans in grade school and such.

[doc_bean]

Under normal circumstances there's no desire for a sane being to commit genocide - if that had been the case, we wouldn't have made it as a species past around 3000 BC.

It wasn't too uncommon for steppe nomads such as the mongols, they're probably the closest to pre-civilization society that you can get.

If it had been a good way of surviving for a woman to kill then there would have been more of those today.

True, I was reacting to a point made earlier, the killing thing is an extreme case. However, if a woman wanted to kill someone, she wouldn't just bash his head in, their ways tend to be more 'refined'.

(general comment on the thread)

I think this thread is pretty sexist in places, women tend to be the backbone of society while men reap all the glory. It's a male ego thing i guess. Women keep society running in difficult times. Many early societies probably had counsels of 'wise women'. Many great men had strong connections to certain women. Caesar and Alexander had a close relationship with their mothers for instance, and even Genghis Khan listened to the advice of a woman from time to time.

Strong women in ancient times might have been a benefit to the tribe, after all they would think alongside the males instead of just quietly obeying. Women also tend to think of different things than men. Trivial matters such as food and taking care of the children, while men would worry about their honour.

Women are just as important to society as men, we're two parts of a whole, neither is really better or more important than the other.

[Faust|]

I think you are taking some concepts and applying them rather sloppily to humans and their culture, carrying alot of points to hyperbole, but I agree with some things, Legio:

- work is now long-time, low-intensive, with long-term low-intensity mental stress. In nature it was short time, high-intensive, with short term mental stress. This creates another evolutionary pressure on who survives.

Individuals with high-testosterone levels are generally favorites for the latter activity and are at a disadvantage to carry out the first activity. I am beginning to believe having a high testosterone level is disadvantageous nowadays in terms of financial success... and financial success does seem to have an impact on sexual selection in at least some cases.

Some other of your points got me thinking about the b*****s. One possible answer is this: Each and every member's potential work output and skills were greatly needed in primitive settings, thus, as the group is already breeding as much as possible or as much as to their liking, each member is valued for this. A person's survival would have been closely linked with how valuable their skills were to the group, because if the group values a person more they may in the end get a greater share of the limited usable/processed resources. It would be of vital interest for even a relatively undesired or low-ranked female (even if she perceived this as a slight on the part of the group) to contribute her skills to her fullest. And as much as I hate to admit it, this type often has the drive and self-centeredness to have been able to become a specialist, something that was probably mysterious and much-valued. In modern times, the girl can do whatever the **** she wants and still survive, consuming as much resources as the job that she stepped on other people to achieve will allow her. Now that survival and mutual-dependency is out of the picture, it is just a lone psyche weathering a long storm of perceived slights... and so the desire for psychological comfort now is unfettered and free to direct her behavior.

[doc_bean]

In modern times, the girl can do whatever the **** she wants and still survive, consuming as much resources as the job that she stepped on other people to achieve will allow her. Now that survival and mutual-dependency is out of the picture, it is just a lone psyche weathering a long storm of perceived slights... and so the desire for psychological comfort now is unfettered and free to direct her behavior.

And this is exclusive to females ?

[Faust|]

Strong women in ancient times might have been a benefit to the tribe, after all they would think alongside the males instead of just quietly obeying. Women also tend to think of different things than men. Trivial matters such as food and taking care of the children, while men would worry about their honour.

That is very interesting. Jung once wrote something along the lines of: the will to command is not an adaptation to survive (physically). The noble type of commanding has to do with the "betterment" or continuation of society (and here, note, that society may not include all humans... slaves, peasants etc) and is chiefly concerned with commanding actual things, people, resources. The other type of commanding has to do with the protection of an inflated psyche and is chiefly concerned with commanding ideas, thoughts, the attribution of traits, perceived ownership, power itself, the course of events that would otherwise reveal truths, etc. It only commands people, as the last listing suggests, when that is in line with the maintenance of an inflated psyche. If you can show me an example of a woman that is the first type of commander and not the second type, I may admire her, especially if she's beautiful. I've known at least some girls like this, and I found it really pleasant... so this type exists. Unfortunately, in practice, I think the second type is much more common.

That's a crucial distinction. Not all "strong" women are b*****s.

[Faust|]

And this is exclusive to females ?

No, I was also going to add, that this why where previously weaklings were commonly moralists (The oppossite phrasing DOESN"T apply, please note), they are now commonly the most rampant amoralists of all (again, the opposite doesn't apply).

[Rodion Romanovich]

edit: removed boring comment

edit: removed boring joke

much better

[doc_bean]

If you can show me an example of a woman that is the first type of commander and not the second type, I may admire her, especially if she's beautiful. I've known at least some girls like this, and I found it really pleasant... so this type exists. Unfortunately, in practice, I think the second type is much more common.

Women aren't natural commanders (although their have been a few female leaders, with varying results), they're more background figures. It doesn't make them less important, someone has to raise the children and take care of the crops when the men are of storming another castle. I also think women are less likely to bond like men do, and accept the leadership of one woman, so a woman rising into a position of power would face opposition from (all) other women, making female leaders often impractical.

Women are huge traditionalists, when the headscarf debate flared up in Europe, it were pretty much only women complaining about it, most (muslim) men didn't really care (except as seeing it as a discriminating rule, they didn't seem to attach all that much importance to it). Women also gossip more than men, at least, they seem to judge people more on gossip, while men just gossip to have a laugh.
This doesn't make women the best leaders of course, since being a leader often involves recognizing the need for innovation and change.

NOTE: extremely broad generalizations, I know.
NOTE2: your comment on beauty: sexist much ?

[Faust|]

Women aren't natural commanders (although their have been a few female leaders, with varying results), they're more background figures. It doesn't make them less important, someone has to raise the children and take care of the crops when the men are of storming another castle. I also think women are less likely to bond like men do, and accept the leadership of one woman, so a woman rising into a position of power would face opposition from (all) other women, making female leaders often impractical.

Very good points, all seem kind of valid. But I didn't say they were less important, don't know where you're getting that.

NOTE2: your comment on beauty: sexist much ?

No, I think you're reading into things. I respect men who are "beautiful" more than others too.

So you're way off with the sexist thing. But the topic of this thread is domineering maidens, which I find more fascinating than domineering men, so they will be the focus of discussion most of the time.

[Faust|]

double post

[Faust|]

edit: removed boring comment

edit: removed boring joke

much better

deleted

[doc_bean]

Very good points, all seem kind of valid. But I didn't say they were less important, don't know where you're getting that.

Hmm, i guess I misinterpreted your tone.

No, I think you're reading into things. I respect men who are "beautiful" more than others too.

Now, that's just weird.

So you're way off with the sexist thing. But the topic of this thread is domineering maidens, which I find more fascinating than domineering men, so they will be the focus of discussion most of the time.

Maybe you could give a more accurate description of those domineering maidens then, with a few examples perhaps ? just to make sure we're on the same page...

[solypsist]

sounds like there's a severe shortage of real men in this forum.

[doc_bean]

sounds like there's a severe shortage of real men in this forum.

Err...what's that supposed to mean ?

[Faust|]

Doc and Solypsist:

Your concerns and opinions are understood. But this is just discussion, how else are we supposed to exchange ideas? If you don't have anything constructive or substantial please just refrain, because it will kill the thread otherwise. Its a rather Nietzscheian thread, no holds barred; this doesn't mean I'm a sexist or insecure male. Like I said in the first sentence or so, it really does interest me. If you read the first post completely you will see I made room for those who don't understand my question and for those that see no problem in the area I am focusing on. Opinions from these people are useful as well, as long as the intention is not destructive. So please lets get back to the topic if its not already too late.

Now, that's just weird.

Handsome people in general get more respect than others... and if I was forced to talk about the issue, (which I was) I would say they probably deserve it. What's so odd about that?

[doc_bean]

Doc and Solypsist:

Your concerns and opinions are understood. But this is just discussion, how else are we supposed to exchange ideas? If you don't have anything constructive or substantial please just refrain, because it will kill the thread otherwise. Its a rather Nietzscheian thread, no holds barred; this doesn't mean I'm a sexist or insecure male, that's way off. Like I said in the first sentence or so, it really does pique my interest. If you read the first post completely you will see I made room for those who don't understand my question and for those that see no problem in the area I am focusing on. Opinions from these people are useful as well, as long as the intention is not destructive. So please lets get back to the topic if its not already too late.

I'm sorry but a statement like

I'm talking here about the type of girl that must dominate, and not in the good way... the control-freaks, the man-haters.

Doesn't tell me much, are you talking about women who want 'real' power, politicians like Hilary Clinton. Are you Talking about Fem-Nazi's like in that other recent post (link from churchofeuthanasia) ? Are you talking about cheating women in a relationship ? Just whining women in a relationship ?

I honestly do need more information to know what you are talking about, control-freak and man-hater are pretty common insulting terms. I'm sorry I drew the wrong conclusion about the sexist nature of your posts, message boards don't always transmit the message as intended.

[jimmyM]

Hmm. one person's domineering maiden is anothers sweet n'sensitive misunderstood type. Depends how well you know them.


Actually, I lie, It's how much chocolate you buy them...

[AntiochusIII]

[Hijack]Dangit! Where is the understanding of relationship in this thread! How obviously confusing and unnecessarily abstract this is!

*goes back to read his shoujo manga. Current favourite: Nana*

A little more seriously, you guys are taking quite antagonistic, and rather simplistic views of difference in sex and psyche. May be understanding of human nature and different roles played by the actors on the stage of the Doll House could be found in something as easily found as literature and not pure abstract debate?

[Faust|]

A little more seriously, you guys are taking quite antagonistic, and rather simplistic views of difference in sex and psyche. May be understanding of human nature and different roles played by the actors on the stage of the Doll House could be found in something as easily found as literature and not pure abstract debate?

Simplistic how? By the generalization where I am classifying a group of women as b*****s? This is backed up by empirical data and is not purely abstract. Furthermore I asked pretty specific questions, and am not just unaccountably floating around in broad, irresponsible hypotheses. Literature can be useful in understanding human nature, but there are b*****s in literature too. Yes, they are human and there can be depth there, but they're still b*****s.

I swear... if you have a good point then why don't you at least form it in a way that is conducive to useful debate instead of entering and smiting the thread as the bearer of common sense?

[Ser Clegane]

By the generalization where I am classifying a group of women as b*****s? This is backed up by empirical data and is not purely abstract.

I doubt that empirical data allows for a classifying a group of women into a category that is equivalent to an offensive term.

@ all:
I expect you to refrain from using derogatory terms when labeling a group of people who you happen to disagree with. Replacing individual letters with "*" is not an acceptable solution.

Thanks for your attention

[Faust|]

I doubt that empirical data allows for a classifying a group of women into a category that is equivalent to an offensive term.

So its impossible to label and categorize a human, or other animal for that matter, based on their observed behavior? Then the terms "thief" or "murderer" are of no use to us?

[Ser Clegane]

So its impossible to label and categorize a human, or other animal for that matter, based on their observed behavior? And the terms in Webster's Dictionary such as "battle-ax" refer to a group of people that has never existed?

The term you (and others here) used is generally used in an abusive manner to label women (just as other terms a used in an abusive way to label members of certain nationalities and races).
I am sure that it is within your lingual capabilities to describe the women you are talking about using terms that are not generally viewed as derogatory.