Forgive me Keith, I'll reread the rest of your posting tomorrow morning. However, one paragraph struck me as needing and immediate response:
> It wasn't inappropriate once. For millions of years, our primate > predecessors and early species of man needed this propensity so that the > small social groups in which we then lived could respond instantly when > facing a sabre-tooth tiger or other emergencies. There had to be instant > rank order, and this could only be the product of years of mutual > assessment and testing brought about by boys at play, youthful fights, and > then aggressive coups d'etats and new rank-orderings by new cadres of young > adult males when they felt that they were more able than their ageing > leaders. If the new leader turned out to be too oppressive in the normal > daily lives of the group, as must have happened many times, then the social > group was small enough, and the leader was accessible enough, for him to be > pulled down easily by coalitions of other males. > This seems to be an argument for male dominance, male leadership, or whatever. Did you know that the northern Dene Indian societies were historically matriachial - i.e. run by women? As one elderly Dene woman put it: "Men -- they are boys! We let them play until they're forty. Then we make them get serious." Ed
