Add new comment

There's just no way around that. We're at the top of the food chain for many, many reasons, and one of them is our innate aggression. I do think when speaking in terms of cultural direction, one really does need to speak in binary terms. Direction can be fairly well defined as the progressive, relative distance between two points (where you are, and where you'd like to go, for example) so when speaking in terms of direction one does need to understand that it can, fairly simply, be reduced to a binary question:
Are we getting closer to Point A, or further away?
I think most of the people who have contributed to this particular discussion are speaking in those terms: have we moved further toward the aggressive (i.e. masculine) end of the behavioral spectrum or away from it? What you're bringing up when speaking about how to HARNESS aggression, to me that comes off as a separate (but linked!) set of topics: morality, ethics, values, etc..
I think that easily 90% of people would agree that less violence would be better for everyone. But it's a complex issue when you talk about breaking down what are fairly fundamental components of at least half the world's population's basic, physiologically-driven character and trying to refocus those energies into something you view as more productive/desirable. Respecting the complexity of the issue is an important aspect of devising a better solution to any problem. Which is to say nothing of the likelihood that any group, no matter how powerful or enlightened, could universally impose its own morality/ethics/values on the world, however benign such changes might be, or even whether or not the new system is abjectly superior.
Say, for example, you've got a son who's physically average for his age. He starts having trouble with some of the other kids at school because only about half of the other parents agree with your philosophy (which, for the sake of argument, let's say is what I grew up with: take the high road, don't descend to their level, let the authorities sort it out, etc..). The end result is that your kid ends up getting whaled on by the 'bullies' and really not much happens to curb their behavior because, as previously elucidated, only about half of the other kids' parents agree with your family's philosophy - the other half are of a 'dog-eat-dog' mentality. (I, personally, had very little trouble in high school, being 6'2", bench-pressing 310lbs as a sophomore and competing, albeit poorly, on the wrestling team...but plenty of my friends faced the outlined scenario and *I* had to get their backs on more than one occasion since it was clear no one else would help them - including the supposed authorities).
I'm not trying to be condescending (far from it!) but when I look at the general direction of society, which is no longer 'shackled' by religious morays and values, I see a necessary shift toward the AGGRESSIVE end of the spectrum in order for people like me just to hold serve with what the world will be dishing out. If 90% of the parents at the aforementioned high school agreed in general terms on conduct, they could fairly well police the aberrant 10% without much difficulty. But when the divide is closer to the middle of the group, it becomes necessary to take protective measures purely for the purposes of holding onto what one already has, in terms of freedom and opportunity for success.
When you continue this train of thought with an eye toward global social, political, and economic situations, it becomes pretty clear that the complexity of the issue is a serious hurdle. If an entire country becomes less aggressive (which is, as you say, generally considered to be a positive trend throughout human history) then how will their neighbors behave? Will they follow the example? Possibly. Will they try to exploit a perceived weakness? Probably. Again, we're speaking in general, historic terms about how our species has proven it will behave in a given circumstance.
Said all of that to say (as Doc would put it): I generally agree with your post above; it's 'how I roll out of bed in the morning,' if you know what I mean? It's basically how I came pre-programmed genetically and socially via my particular upbringing. I actually do take small issue with saying that men have historically held as much power as modern culture would like us to think (any husbands in the audience out there wanna speak as to the influence a wife can have on a man's decision-making?), but even allowing that bit to stand for the purposes of the discussion...and I'm sure some people will get angry about this, but it's a natural direction of the conversation...how many successful matriarchal societies have there been throughout human history? I'm not speaking to superiority vs. inferiority, so hold onto your breath for a second and re-read what I've already written. What I'm asking, without any malice whatsoever, is this: Is feminization (or, if you prefer, 'demasculinization') of an entire society a viable, successful strategy in GENERAL terms?
Obviously a lot of people think it is. And obviously a lot of people think it might not be. But above all of the conjecture, and beyond all the hyperbole, I think the body of human history gives us a fairly extensive record to peruse in order to find the answer for ourselves. I honestly don't know the answer. I do know there have been a few long-standing tribal societies which were essentially matriarchal, but most of the decentralized cultures of the world (matriarchal OR patriarchal) have gotten hammered into the ground by the various empires of their day in a New York minute.
So the big question, again, is this: Is minimizing the 'masculine' characteristics of an entire society a generally good idea? I think the direction should be, as you *seem* to suggest, less about removing the masculine behavior and more about accepting it within the confines of a societally agreed upon code of conduct/morality. Like, say, the one found in the Judeo-Christian philosophy... ;-)
Unfortunately there are no perfect solutions, only perfect problems...well, something like that anyway. I do think that this particular vein of discussion is one which goes largely ignored in the 'mainstream' areas of the global media, but I think it deserves some examination.