If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I have known as many ruthless women as I have men. They just exhibit their ruthlessness and tenacity in completely different ways.
And admittedly I'm basing this on that Tribe programme on the BBC, but it often seems that in some of these cultures, it is an older woman that everyone goes to for advice or permission for things, and she seems to be at the centre of the tribe. But I'm only going off a documentary, so you can't be sure.
OK.
But don't these animal packs and groups almost always have leaders, and these leaders are almost always the most agressive animal in the pack?
And throughout nature are there not instances where the female chooses her mate through impressive displays and power?
Do I have to? That will require actual deep thought /whining
I thought it was generally the male with the impressive plumage/scary spikes coming out of neck/mad scrapping with other animals to prove strength and virility etc.
But maybe I'm just thinking of peacocks and those weird frogs :chin:
Throughout nature that is pretty much invariably the case. Males will always hold more "official" political power simply because of psycho-physical difference - the fact that men produce large amounts of testosterone whilst women produce oxytocin being a good example.
What is also the case is that femininity and masculinity work together as a successful dynamic. One is no more "useful" than the other, 'coz they're dependent on each other.
That's the sort of thing I mean.
Of course that animlas, but at the end of the day that's all we are. In the scheme of things it wasn't all that long ago all we had to do to pull was crack a club over a birds head and drag her back to your cave.
I think this also treads on the divorce settlement territory as well.
I didn't say it was.
And let's not forget that there are animals that eat their own or others' young.
Well women are attracted to power I think, far more then men. But that's not saying that all women are gold diggers.
Women are attracted to masculine qualities, and men to feminine qualities.
Just had a thought - bees and ants have queens, where the huge enormous fat female is in charge, and has hundreds of soldiers and workers beneath her. <<this is probably not relevant!
I clearly didn't claim an abundance of testosterone is a pre-requisite to becoming a politician, although its usefulness in rising to the top level of politics and various competitive professions surely doesn't require explanation.
Depends how you define agressiveness - there's plenty of groups that choose the best killer as the leader - for obvious survival needs. But it might be a misnomer to see that as agressiveness.
The lion that can bring down a wilderbeast quickly is going to be in a more dominant position - especially as it eats more and expends less energy. However an agressive lion that constantly fights amongst the pack is often ostracised and removed from the pack.
And the leader of the pack tends again to be the most successful rather than the strongest. A good sense of where water or the next meat might be found would keep the pack well fed - animals don't fight for leadership until there are problems in their lifestyle.
And there are examples of other animals that don't work in this way - vampire bats for example show no evidence of any leader and will often share blood amongst the hungry - later returning to the bat they helped for blood when they need it in the future; implying a group mentality rather than a leader/servant relationship.
And leadership itself is a difficult thing to define in nature - other than sexual benefits - although many animal packs exhibit group sexual behaviour, multiple sexual partners for male and female - it's actually a position of responsibility with many dangers rather than the human view of leadership often being one of exploitation.
In may be that 'power' in a human sense doesn't really relate to anything in nature.
:yes:
I was making an observation, rather than an opinion, I think.
Competetiveness is good though. I mean, you may have loads of really good qualities but are such a pushover that someone else beats you because they are moe competetive, and nobody ever gets to benefit from your good characteristics. Being competetive doesn't necessarily mean that you can't be anything else, but if you've got no gumption you're not going to get anywhere!