Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    	Your model misses.  I'm going to use my son's history to demonstrate
    	the problems with it: [More info about this contained in 78.99]
    
    	My son was a "little person" when he learned how to fight.  (He was
    	4 years old.)  It was impressed upon him by other 4 year old boys
    	that he was expected to be able to fight other males (of the same 
    	or larger size than he was,) so he sought to learn these skills by
    	practicing non-stop on adults who were willing to "rough-house"
    	with him.
    
    	Rough-housing with adults was his attempted "training camp" for
    	violent behavior (since he felt reasonably sure that his Mommy and
    	her friends wouldn't clobber him, even though we were FAR bigger
    	than he was.)  So he sparred with us in his attempt to live up
    	to the "male ideals" that his pre-school male buddies convinced
    	him were an important part of his male identity.
    
    	The 4 year old girls I knew during this time were under no such
    	pressure to learn to fight or become violently aggressive.  My
    	son felt the pressure a great deal.  (Even at 4 years old.)
    
    	My son first mentioned the "male/female" models of muscles/violence/
    	aggression when he was much younger, though.  In the last version
    	of Womannotes, I told the story about my 2 1/2 year old coming home
    	from pre-school to let me know that he'd discovered "the truth" about 
    	girls (including me.) 
    
    	His discovery (which significantly reduced my stature in his eyes)
    	was that "Girls don't have muscles."  In his circle, this was the
    	same thing as saying, "Girls/women/Mommies are inferior."
    
    	A week later, he was willing to concede that "Mommies have muscles,"
    	but it was clear to me that he was on the path of learning how to
    	be a "proper" male in our culture (which included violent/aggressive
    	behavior *more so* than was required/expected of females.)
    
    	As I mentioned in the note on male violence, I was able to veer him
    	away from violent/aggressive behavior by *refusing* to provide this
    	"training camp" for him of rough-housing (wrassling) with me at home.
    
    	Once Ryan was veered away from the path of violence, he developed
    	a tendency to be very gentle with "little people" who were smaller
    	than he was.  He became very good at playing with little kids, and
    	one of his early best friends was a small boy with a developmental
    	handicap (the other boy would be regarded by most as "retarded.")  
    
    	Ryan was so kind and gentle with this boy (at the age of 6) that
    	the other child's parents came to me to tell me what a special
    	child they considered Ryan.  Evidently, Ryan found something he
    	valued more than the power he could get by being violent (even
    	though he was rapidly becoming a "big person" compared to other
    	kids his own age.)  Ryan was tall for his age.
    
    	Some little girls in our culture may feel pressure to develop
    	violent tendencies, but it's far more pervasive in the world
    	of little boys (to which our sons belong unless we raise them
    	in a vacuum.)
    
    	Overcoming these tendencies is not impossible (as my experiences
    	with Ryan demonstrate,) but it takes an awareness of how little
    	boys are being trained to develop violent/aggressive skills, so
    	that they can be discouraged before they are fully formed.

    The model seems ok (with certain mental reservations) as far as it
    goes.  What is the point of the model? 
    
    Questions
    
    Do the big/little people live on their world alone, or are there other
    species present? Are any of the possible other species predatory on
    big/littles?  Do any of the other possible species compete with big/
    littles for resources?
    
    Do the big/littles live in a technological society or are they members
    paleolithic or neolithic society?
    
    Do the big/littles all belong to the same family/clan group or are
    there other family/clan groupings?
    
    What is the food, water, other resource situation on this world?
    Do all possible other family/clan groupings have equal resource
    or access to resource within their geographical location.
    
    Are there any undisclosed biological facts about either bigs or littles 
    which would render members of either group singularly vulnerable during 
    certain stages of their life cycle? 
    
    

    
    
    I don't think size is the only factor deciding an outcome of some
    form of physical violence.  I am only 5'1" yet I have the capability
    (and have used it a few times) to bring down a person 6'6".
    
    It does not all depend on strength.  Smaller people are generally
    much quicker and strike faster.  I know where to strike and have
    been taught how to strike affectively.  
    
    The fallacy of smaller folks being unable to defend themselves merely
    due to their size is just that , a fallacy.
    
    Michele

    What if there were no violence?  Might they all not just coexist
    peacefully?  
    
    -Jody
    

    > Then it wouldn't be an accurate model.
 
    "Then"?  "THEN"?  You think it is [an accurate model] now?
    I find far too many important variables left out of this model
    for it to be representative of any real-life situation.  It fails
    to illumine anything useful to me.  I do plan to watch the development
    of this model and I may even learn something, though I doubt right now
    that it will go in a useful direction (one that would illuminate
    anything about human behavior) for me.
    
    Notice, however, that I do not choose to insist the constructor of the
    model consider anything else.  I am content to let any and all who care
    to discuss this model in its own terms do so with perfect freedom. 
    Would that its author had exhibited a similar courtesy with respect to
    others' models, with a similar inclination to be shown that his
    preconceptions may have been flawed, as mine may be.
    
    DougO

    This model differs from human reality in that it leaves out the
    little person attacking the big.  Perhaps this is because Harlan
    Ellison is not broad-spectrum famous.
    
    Harlan is about 5'4" (163 cm.), average build, [sun]glasses.  He
    is feisty.
    
    		An Aside:  In current English usage, the term
    		"feisty" is only applied to small people,
    		never to large ones.
    
    He has never felt qualms about hitting people larger than himself,
    whether physically, mentally, or emotionally.  He doesn't hit
    smaller people -- not advertently, anyhow.  Size is an independant
    variable from both toughness and pain tolerance, so these factors
    really should be taken into account in your model.
    
    Anyhow.  Two friends of mine did some work on something similar
    to your model.  They postulated a planet with two intelligent
    species, one herbiverous, and one carniverous.  (I will now link
    the two models.)  Assuming your implied postulate that the large
    people will be aggressive (because they can get away with it?),
    and that the small people will be co�perative (because they must
    be, for maximum individual survival?), I will map them to the
    carnivore and herbivore, respectively.
    
    (This leap is particularly a point at which you may object.)
    
    My friends found that, no matter how they juggled things, there
    was one invariable result:  The herbivores wiped out the carnivores.
    
    Now, they based this to some extent on Conrad Lorenz's observations
    of submission/dominance signals; carnivores have them and herbivores
    do not.  (To oversimplify.)  Humans, of course, have them.  You
    have not made it clear *when* the people in your model produced this
    dichotomy, and [thus] whether they have such signals or not.
    
    						Ann B.

    	RE: .2  edp
    
    	> The model is about how the ENTIRE distributions are pushed one way 
    	> or another -- it doesn't require that every individual fit into a 
    	> precise position.
    
    	While it's true that men tend to be bigger than women (on the average,)
    	the basis for male violence is more than size.
    
    	Young males are socialized to believe that aggression/violence is
    	expected of them.  Not all males buy into this, but the cultural
    	influences are there.  
    
    	These expectations (passed from males to males, generation after
    	generation) are the reason why males commit 91% of the violent
    	crimes against spouses in our society.
    
    	Your model doesn't explain what's happening in our culture, if
    	that's what you intended.

Referencing: 91.2, EDP:

   I think that Suzanne's son's history is very significant here, in that it
does provide an example of how the effects of socialization can create problems
in your model.

   Whether or not her son was expecting to be big some day, the fact is that
he was still small -- yet he had developed the tendency to carry on aggressions
against people much larger than him.

   Due to Suzanne's actions, her son grew up to be a big person -- who is
unlikely to utilize physical violence (against anyone who hasn't physically 
endangered him or anyone he loves) despite the fact that he is now more
than capable of doing so.

   Agreed: people are different. I can easily describe examples where boys
grow up to be violent men despite having the kind of socialization that
Suzanne gave her son. But an examination of these examples would reveal that
there were other factors involved in their childhoods/adolescence which reversed
the effects of their socialization at home.

   In other words, Suzanne's point is an important one. I think the model should
change in order to reflect this.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

    It seems to me that some groups of people hold other
    groups of people to be "inferior" because of skin color,
    belief system, birthplace, sex, or other factors.  Such
    groups that think themselves "superior" have often acted
    with extreme violence towards members of the "inferior"
    group(s).  How does the model explain this?
    
    Steve
    

    edp,
    
    It is very hard to *tell* that little-hitting-on-big interactions
    are part of the model since you describe all the other three
    basic-hostile reactions, leave this one out, and do not remark
    that you have *not* covered all the possibilities.
    
    Likewise, it is hard to tell if you are attempting to model human
    beings, since you do not say that you are, and since ... well, for
    other reasons.  So, are you trying to model humans?
    
    						Ann B.

    	RE: .14 edp
    
    	> Even if social pressures are added, we still have a situation in 
    	> which violence is no more inherent in males than it is in females.
    
    	There has been no widespread belief expressed in this conference
    	stating otherwise.
    
    	The point is that males commit violent acts more than females do 
    	(as a group) - this is indisputable! 
    
    	It is does not, however, imply that male violence is inherent,
    	whether you keep imagining that it does, or not.
    
    	Male violence is a problem (whatever causes it.)  We wouldn't
    	be trying to examine this in depth if most of us believed that 
    	all men are hard-wired to be violent.  This isn't what women
    	here are saying.
    
    	You're trying to disprove something that was never offered as
    	a widespread belief in this conference in the first place.

    	RE: .18  edp
    
    	> Widespread?  Is a person here only supposed to respond to widespread
    	> beliefs?  
    
    	No, but it would help if people confined their responses to beliefs
    	that are actually EXPRESSED (rather than arguing against one's owns
    	mistaken impressions.)
    
    	> They say "men is the problem".  Granted, the authors mean "some 
    	> men".  But still they say "men is the problem".  Not society, not 
    	> teaching, not something in both men and women that men are more 
    	> susceptible to because of size advantage, not an open mind at all.  
    	> A conclusion, a prejudgement.  "men is the problem".
    
    	You've missed the point of what people have been saying all along,
    	but rather than opening your own mind to listen, you've permanently
    	prejudged many of us to mean only what YOU say we mean.
    
    	We can't be hold responsibile for your refusal to accept it when
    	we tell you the meanings of OUR OWN WORDS.
    
    	> There HAS been a belief expressed REPEATEDLY in this conference that
    	> something inherent in men causes problems.
    
    	This is a complete and utter fabrication on your part (unintentional,
    	perhaps, but a fabrication nonetheless.)
    
    	This belief is only expressed REPEATEDLY by people in the process of
    	inaccurately characterizing the beliefs of others here.

    
    	> When many people misunderstand the words and ideas presented
    	> to a large audience...
    
    	Considering the size of the audience here, those expressing such
    	misunderstandings are a small minority.
    
    	> Telling the audience to "pay attention", or "this is what I
    	> really meant" is fine, until it happens again, and again, with
    	> regularity.
    
    	Some people who misunderstand are quite persistent about it.
    

    
    	RE: .22 edp
    
    	> Show me where the authors I quoted said their words did not mean men
    	> were the problem.
    
    	You're still missing the point.
    
    	Saying "men are the problem" is NOT the same thing as saying that
    	"something inherent in men causes problems."
    
    	Why won't you listen when we tell you this?
    

    
    	RE: .24  edp
    
    	You have equated "men are the problem" with "something inherent
    	in men causes problems."  The two are not the same thing!
    
    	> You are not the author.  Show me where the author says it.  Tell 
    	> me how you know better than me.
    
    	Your version makes assumptions that go WAY PAST what they said.
    	I base my understanding of their words without all the extra
    	verbage you added.
    
    	That's how I know.
    

    
    	RE: .26  edp
    
    	You show *ME* where the authors in question stated that "something
    	inherent in men causes problems" when they wrote "men are the
    	problem."
    
    	I don't need an excuse to refrain from putting words in their mouths.
    

    
    	RE: .28  edp
    
    	> They said it where they said "men are the problem" (or "is").
    	> "Men are the problem" means men are the problem.  The subject is 
    	> "men"; it is not society, teaching, or something in both men and 
    	> women.  The sentence identifies the subject, men, as the problem.
    
    	This still isn't the same thing as saying that "something inherent
    	in men causes problems."  You're still putting words in their mouths!
    
    	When I wrote my own note about the subject, I mentioned specifically
    	that my son was being *TAUGHT* to be violent as a little boy (until
    	I *TAUGHT* him otherwise, thus preventing him from becoming the
    	violent male he may have grown up to be otherwise.)
    
    	If my son were hard-wired to be violent, there is no way I could
    	have *TAUGHT* him out of it (the way I did.)  Furthur, if violence
    	were hard-wired into men, then ALL MEN ON THE PLANET would be 
    	violent (but we all know that not all men *are* violent!)
    
    	I wrote my note in response to the request that mothers write notes
    	about "raising non-violent sons."  If this author thought men were
    	inherently violent, then why bother asking how to raise non-violent
    	sons?  Such a thing would be impossible!
    
    	If it wasn't obvious to you that the authors weren't trying to say
    	that violence is inherent in men, you should have asked them what
    	they meant (instead of launching a gigantic protest over your own
    	misconceptions about it.)
    
    	ASK next time (and be prepared to listen to what people say back!)

    	RE: .28  edp
    
    	> I retract my assertion in the case of 78.11.
    
    	Why?  Did you get mail from this man, or did you suddenly
    	realize who you quoted?
    
    	Here are the quotes you found objectionable enough to engage
    	us in this whole mess:
    
    		78.9> The problem is not with women it is with men.
    
    		78.11> . . . the primary focus should be on the male 
    		78.11> problem that leads to such violence.
    
    		78.16> men is the problem [This is a title only.]
    
    	Two out of three of these authors are men, by the way.
    
    	Why is 78.11 less objectionable to you now than it was originally?
    	What happened to change your mind?
    

    
    	RE: .31  edp
    
    	>How can you claim I am changing words when you use "hard-wired" here
    	>instead of "inherent"?  They do not mean the same thing.  "Inherent 
    	>to men" means it is in every man; it does not mean it absolutely
    	>determines the behavior of every man.  
    
    	Ok, Eric, let's substitute the word "inherent" in every case where
    	I wrote "hard-wired."  It won't change the message I was trying
    	to get across to you!
    
    	Saying "men are the problem" is not the same thing as saying that
    	violence is inherent in men!!!
    
    	Accept it!
    

    
    	RE: .33  edp
    
    	> Unlike most people, I sought additional data.
    
    	Did you seek it from all three people, though, or just one man?
    
    	(Why didn't you seek this additional data before you caused the
    	mess created by your misconceptions??)
    

    	RE: .34  edp
    
    	> If it is only inherent, that just means it is inside your child 
    	> somewhere -- it doesn't mean it absolutely must make them violent.
    
    	Earlier, you protested that people weren't talking about "teaching" 
    	men to be violent, so I wrote you a note reminding you that *MY* note 
    	talked about this very thing - how my own son was being "TAUGHT" to
    	be violent!
    
    	It doesn't seem to matter to you, though.  You're still arguing with
    	me about it.
    
    	> If it is only inherent, that just means it is inside your child 
    	> somewhere -- it doesn't mean it absolutely must make them violent.
    
    	If the child could be taught not to be violent, then does it (or
    	does it not) mean to you that I believe violence is NOT inherent in 
    	males?
    
    	In .28, you wrote, "'Men are the problem' means men are the problem.  
    	The subject is 'men'; it is not society, teaching,etc." 
    
    	Do notes that talk about "teaching" men to be violent satisfy you
    	that the author believes that violence is not inherent in men (or
    	not??)

    
    	Ok, Eric, here's some information for you:
    
    	It is not my opinion that violence is inherent in men (any more
    	than it is inherent in women.)  If it is inherent at all, it
    	is inherent in humans in general.
    
    	However, men still commit most of the violent crimes in this
    	country, so men's violence is a problem (regardless of how this
    	violence is learned!)
    
    	Do you accept this as my belief?

    	RE: .40  edp
    
    	>> Do you accept this as my belief?
    
    	> Certainly -- but do other participants in this conference hold 
    	> the same or similar beliefs?
    
    	In all the years I've been involved with Womannotes, I don't ever
    	recall reading a note or a reply that indicates otherwise.
    
    	Do you expect this sort of deposition from *every* participant in
    	Womannotes (regarding *every* possible word that anyone could ever
    	possibly think to say about any and every aspect of the male sex?)
    
    	Do we all need to prove to you (to the last one of us) that every
    	word in this conference is backed by the belief that men are not
    	inherently "bad" compared to women?
    
    	Is this what it would take to get you to leave us to the business
    	of running this conference without your conference-wide attacks?

    	RE: .44  edp
    
    	> You are not as sensitive to things that do not insult you.
    
    	There are men who would agree with me about this (are they not
    	as sensitive to statements about men, either?)
    
    	Eric, you had to ADD WORDS to what people said to make the
    	statements insulting to men.  Doesn't that tell you anything?
    
    	> How about from the ones who have said insulting things?
    
    	Most of the examples I've seen you complain about were more
    	cases where you ADDED WORDS to what they said.  I don't
    	regard a phrase as insulting if you have to augment it
    	with your own offensive language.
    
    	> The participants of this conference need to refrain from making
    	> insulting statements and discriminating unfairly.
    
    	There is no way we can keep from insulting someone who ADDS WORDS
    	to what we say to make the phrases insulting.  
    
    	The only way we can prevent you from adding to our words is if we
    	stop writing words altogether.
    
    	As for discrimination, men are not being discriminated against in
    	this conference (except by some people's exceptionally narrow
    	definitions of the word.)  
    
    	As long as you're adding words to what we say, you could also 
    	redefine discrimination to cover almost anything we do.
    
    	There is no way to satisfy you (except by refraining from talking
    	about our experiences altogether.)  

    re .45-
    
    >     Such a comment without saying what is left out is not a useful
    > statement.
    
    The statement met my purposes.  It was useful to me.  If your purposes
    were the improvement of your model, that statement had useful
    information for you.  It is possible, I suppose, that lacking either
    of these purposes, you would find the statement less than useful.
    As we are disinvited to speculate upon your purposes, I'll leave the
    determination of what is useful for you, up to you.  But your statement
    is at best incomplete.
    
    DougO

    
    	RE: .47  edp
    
    	> NO I DID NOT.  "men is the problem" is insulting JUST AS IT IS.  
    
    	Not to everyone, it isn't (not even to all the men in this file.)
    
    	In any case, I've seen far, far, far, far, FAR worse individual
    	statements written about women here and elsewhere (without going
    	to the lengths - or should I say the depths - that you've traveled
    	tonight to protest this one little phrase.)
    
    	It makes me feel like you're holding a gun to our heads in this
    	conference (waiting for us to make one wrong move to blow our heads
    	off.)  These are my FEELINGS, Eric, before you start the protests 
    	all over again.

    	RE: .51 edp
    
    	>>> NO I DID NOT.  "men is the problem" is insulting JUST AS IT IS.  
    	>> Not to everyone, it isn't (not even to all the men in this file.)

    	> Does that make it okay?  
    	> Do you mind if women are limited to secretarial positions
    	> as long as not everybody is offended?
    
    	How is a small statement about men (in a note about how some men
    	are violent) analogous to women being systematically denied career
    	opportunities in our culture? 
    
    	Is it really necessary to pounce on this one thing (written by
    	two men and one woman in Womannotes) as having the significance
    	of being oppressed for thousands of years in our culture?
    
    	You're really REACHING, Eric.  Honest to God.

    >     What information was that?
    
    I do not find value in the further pursuit of this topic with you.
    
    DougO

    re: .54
    
>    Now, please answer the question.  Do you mind if women are limited to
>    secretarial positions as long as not everybody is offended?
    
    I think this is an insult to secretaries. 
    
    -Jody
    

    re 91.61
    
    		"Tu quoque, mi filii"
    
    				Caesar, to Brutus

    I have hidden a number of responses in this topic as being, or
    containing, violations of 1.7.  Most were oblique, but all were
    unacceptable.  
    
    						=maggie

    
                        <back to the topic part2>
    
     It is amazing that no-one has forced this issue back to the model.
     The model somehow got to meaning that men are violent to woman
     because big will pick on smaller.
     But big could mean that one has more power than another.
     Clout is bigger than the biggest man standing alone.
     Reading this file looks like vandettas are being carried on.
     Who is bigger when discrimination is alleged?
    
     Who has more court given rights?
    
     What is big?  What is small?
    
     Are we all starting at the same size?
  
     If I go to a cop and tell him my wife brow beat me he will laugh.
    
     If a woman claims child abuse the man is locked up.
    
    
    kp. 
                                                                 
    

Referencing 91.65:

   At last!!! Does this mean we'll stay on the topic this time??? By
the One, I hope so!

                      *             *              *

   The model is a good one, though it does have its flaws. The first flaw
I see is that there are some women who are larger than most men -- yet
most of the ones I know are non- violent. There are small people (men and
women) who are extremely violent.

   My belief is that larger people can be more intimidating, but not
necessarily more violent. Smaller people who don't know better may fear
violence from larger people, but expectations and reality seldom coincide.

   All people have an innate ability to be violent. Ignoring such artificial
equalizers as Martial Arts and weapons, a bigger person has a definite 
physical advantage over a smaller one in violent situations. But the tendency
towards violence is learned, not inherent. If the manifestation of a 
person's innate violent abilities is rewarded or encouraged, then that person
will tend to be violent.

   The early entries to this discussion called to mind an image of the
circus elephant. I had heard about how circus elephants were tethered
while young using ropes which they, as adults, could easily break. But they
couldn't break them while young, so as adults they seldom, if ever, try
to break the ropes that hold them. This kind of conditioning applies to
humans; if humans are taught to abhor violence, it doesn't matter how
big they get -- they won't be violent. If, on the other hand, they learn
that they can get what they want through violence, then they will be violent.

   It is possible that bigger people, if they learn to use their size as an
"edge" in violent situations, may be more prone to violence than someone 
smaller who is always losing such encounters. But our society has too many
"equalizers" that can remove the size advantage.

   Where men and women are concerned: perhaps more men have a tendency to
be violent because many societies promote the image of men as being violent.
Women, on the other hand, are as a group conditioned towards nonviolence. I 
am discovering that as their conditioning towards nonviolence is being
reduced, more women are becoming violent. The increase in violent women is
small (since women are still mostly conditioned away from violence), I 
expect that unless we start teaching everyone not to be violent, then it 
won't be too long before we have a society where violence is an "equal
opportunity" occupation.

   Then, life will really get interesting.

                                                        -Robert Brown III

    
    
    
     The model is good but interpretations have been narrow.
    
     Here is a sub set that my clear up a stance.
    
     Little=small=powerless=less rights=picked on= victom
     one.
    
     Well back to the model.
    
    kp.
    o
    
    
     

    
    
    A glitch interfered here is the rest.
    
    
    little= small stature= less votes= less rights= picked on = agressee
    big= larger= stronger= more vote= more power= bully= aggressor..
    
    Just because of a size difference does not show where the power
    is.   Politics leans toward those who lobby the biggest not size.
    
    He who holds the proverbial stick of words is the biggest.
    
    
    kp.
    
    sorry about the double entry....

    
    My immediate reaction is that the model reflects accurately the nature
    of existence on this world.  It is a world where survival is contingent
    on living things "living" by devouring other living things.  Males of
    most species tend to be larger than females.  The genetic legacy in
    mammals is the big eating the smaller as it is easier to kill and live
    off devouring smaller than larger.  Human beings became an exception
    where a higher level of "intelligence" enabled humans to kill any size,
    including the largest, such as whales and elephants, or the largest in
    terms of numbers, such as fish, trees, birds, whatever.  The genetic
    legacy continues, where humans, particularly males, continue to "live
    off others, including exploiting fellow human beings, especially
    females and the young.  Note how in third world agrarian nations (still
    the bulk of the world) where most of the work has been done for
    thousands of years by females and children, and where most of the work
    is STILL done by females and children.  What wonderfulness. :-(
    

    I've been reluctant to put the following in, mostly because I'm
    lazy, but also because I am reluctant to tell anyone, "Your model
    bears no resemblance to reality."  That isn't nice.
    
    Now, this model might apply to humans suddenly dropped onto some
    planet in the future, but it has no connection with the evolution
    of humans or their behaviors.  Surprising, isn't it?  We all learned
    about "Nature, red in tooth and claw" and primitive "Man the Hunter"
    with his [sic] spear against the mastodon, right?  Well, this is
    not, strictly speaking, a very realistic view of our prehistoric
    past.
    
    We humans do not survive individually; we survive because we are
    members of a group.  Without co�perative behaviors, we would still
    be just one of the anthropoid apes.  We've all heard about the
    discovery of Lucy, and of the First Family, but the significance
    of a *group* of adults is not something that leaps out and grabs
    you by the throat.
    
    So we humans went along for umblety years, walking upright, living
    together, and evolving big brains.  By a few ten thousands of years
    ago, humans lived in groups in what are called hunter-gatherer
    cultures.  Now, this name is misleading us.  In modern hunter-gatherer
    cultures, the hunting accounts for 10% to 15% of the food, and
    the gathering accounts for 85% to 90%.  So why the name?  Perhaps
    it is because the men [sic] who first studied prehistory held the
    unexamined belief that men [sic] are fierce, savage, powerful
    creatures, and that therefore hunting must have been the mainstay
    of human survival.
    
    These `primitive' cultures were not simple.  While scanning through
    _Books_in_Print_, I ran across _Prehistoric_Hunters-Gatherers:_
    _The_Emergence_of_Cultural_Complexity_.  This title tells me that
    a lot more is known about them than I know -- or am ever likely to
    know, since the book costs $74.50.  That it has two authors,
    R. Douglas Prie and James A. Brown, tells me that this is not one
    person's wild theories.  That the authors are actually the *editors*
    of a massive collection of essays on the subject tells me that
    this idea of complexity in early cultures is well-accepted in
    anthropological circles, and that there is a lot of physical
    evidence to back it up.
    
    If you remember what you learned about Neanderthals, you remember
    that they were hunch-backed brutes who shambled around, and wore
    crude skins that hung from one shoulder.  (I didn't say this is
    what you were formally taught; only that this is what we have all
    learned.)  This view is, of course, all wrong.�  The Neanderthals
    did suffer greatly from rheumatoid arthritis, and many were
    crippled into uselessness.  Nevertheless, the physical evidence
    shows that these people were cared for and lived out their natural
    life spans.  (The oldest portrait in the world is a carving of the
    face of a woman who must have been (as learned from the examination
    of her bones) disabled from birth.  Yet she lived into her fifties.)
    Thus, even as early as thirty-five thousand years ago, we see no
    signs of the ruthless domination of the strong over the weak.
    
    Then from the hunter-gatherer cultures came the first agricultural
    communities.  A lot more is known about them: there is nothing
    quite like living in one spot for a few thousand years to give
    archaeologists something to work with.  The oldest such community
    is Catal H�y�k in Anatolian Turkey, followed by Hacilar.  Both
    existed for well over a thousand years, and their existences
    overlapped.  As was mentioned some months ago, perhaps in V2,
    these communities had no walls, no weapons, no burials of people
    who had died of human-inflicted injuries.  We are still describing
    peaceful, co�perative societies.
    
    Where did the violence come from?  It seems to have come from the
    pastoral cultures.  (If this is true, then they win my award for
    Most Ironic Title of a Group.)  A series of invasions from northern
    Europe and the steppes occured beginning some six thousand years
    ago.  The original invasions were by the Kurgans, with later ones
    by the Luvians and others.  All these tribes were distinguished by
    a warrior caste, a separate priestly caste, the use of horses,
    a patrilineal descent pattern, and a patriarchal religious, tribal,
    and familial organization.  Cultural patterns involving war,
    slavery, a privileged priesthood, and other dominance behaviors
    then appear in the locations conquered by these groups.  The cause
    and effect relationship of these events has only been traced in the
    past twenty years, so it will be a while before it trickles down
    into our elementary schools.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    �  Don't get me started on this, okay?

    nothin quite like *owning* a bunch of rocks to want some more, eh?
    
    "Hey, their rocks look nicer than our rocks..."

Referencing: 91.69

   While you make a number of interesting points (many of which I don't agree
with, but I still find them interesting), there are some things which I must
point out:

1: The large eating the small is a basic pattern of life on Earth, but is not
   the only or even necessarily the primary one. The small often devours the
   large -- though admittedly they usualy do so when they work in groups. Human
   intelligence does allow the development of ways in which small humans can
   exploit/kill larger animals, but intelligence is only one pathway. Creatures
   such as pirhana fish (I probably spelled it wrong!), ants, wolves, 
   dogs (wild), and (under the proper circumstances) sharks are examples of 
   smaller animals which are capable of overcoming larger ones. Certain wasp
   and spider species are examples of the ways in which single creatures are
   capable of overcoming larger ones. And no lion or tiger will mess with a
   group of baboons, despite the fact that baboons are smaller. They might,
   when really hungry, attack a lone weak one, but in general most predaters
   leave baboons alone.

2: While it is true that many mammalian males tend to be larger than the 
   female of their species, this does not mean that (a) that is the primary
   pattern of all terrestrial life, or (b) that even among mammals the males
   are necessarily dominant. The fact is that there are millions of different 
   kinds of life on Earth (despite humanity's tendency to wipe them out!), and
   in most of them the female is larger (certain fish, birds, and insects come
   immediately to mind, though there are examples among reptiles and mammals,
   too). But even among mammals, larger does not mean dominant. Lions, for 
   example, are misnamed "King of the jungle", but a pride of lions is actually
   run by the (somewhat smaller) females (A proposal: we should change the 
   the term "lion" to describe the females; males should be called "lioner"
   :-)). Other examples of mammals where the male is not necessarily dominant
   are all canines (dogs, wolves, and bears), housecats, and sea mammals such
   as whales and dolphins.

   As it happens, males in most ape species tend to dominate by size. Since we
evolved from an unusual form of ape, humans share many tendencies with apes.
But we could very well have evolved from a different species, and things would
have been very different.

   Not trying to convey anything here; just disseminating information.

                     *                    *                    *

Referencing 91.70 (Ann):

   I'm glad that you didn't say that "Your model bears no resemblance to
reality". Aside from such a statement not being nice, it isn't entirely true,
either. The model has some merits -- though please note that as I stated in my
entry 91.66, it does have flaws. These flaws do, indeed, make it unusable in
its current form.

   But despite the above, I find your entry confusing. You state that the model
has no resemblance to reality, yet your arguments actually support it! 

   One of my many interests is prehistory and archaeology. The reference you
mention is a good one ($74.50 is nothing to someone who, on an average
bimonthly "book hunt", spends at least $150.00 for music books alone!), but
while it does correct the "Man the hunter" image, it does not really deny 
it. The earlier hunter- gatherer societies did employ violence -- though
primarily against animals according to the evidence. But then, little is
really known about those societies since they tended to be nomadic; details
about their everyday life can only be speculated on so we really cannot say
that the "families" did not employ violence to keep certain members in line. Of
course, we cannot say that they did, either. But the key here is that we
"really cannot say"; humans employing violence against each other may be a
relatively recent invention -- or it could be as old as humanity. If it was
recent (a development of the "pastoral" society), then as intelligence evolves
and technology is developed (the "technology" of the club, the spear, and the
sword), then those who are better at using the technology will tend to run the
societies using them. Since the weapons of the times were better used by the
bigger and stronger, then this argument says that bigger "bullies" in pastoral
societies set the values in those societies and were the originators of
violence and dominant behavior among all humans.

   In other words, violence was introduced by the bigger and stronger, and
continues to this day.

   There are other ways in which your entry seems to promote the model that you
view as "having no resemblance to reality", but I don't have time to elucidate
them all now. I will, however, reiterate what I said before: that while I think
there is some merit to the model, it is definitely a flawed one. In other
words, we are about 9/10ths in agreement on this matter -- though I do question
the need to go over our prehistory to try to debunk what is essentially a
(flawed) model of contemporary human life -- especially since the history as
you have presented it actually supports the model.

                                                         -Robert Brown III

    I'm sorry, Robert, I omitted some information in deference to the
    delicate sensibilities :-} of the readership.  (Oh, readership!
    This is the only warning you get.)
    

    Cannibalism is a notable feature of the early hominids.  Many (for
    a small value of many -- we are not talking armies of samples here)
    skeletons recovered from this lengthy period show unquestionable
    signs of this practice.  The skull has been opened up to remove the
    brain, and the long bones split to get at the marrow.  Any signs of
    this practice (despite the greater number of, um, samples available
    to archaeologists) had long since disappeared from human remains
    before the development of our species, Homo sapiens, in either the
    neanderthalensis or sapiens variety.

    Early hominids disposed of human corpses the way they disposed of
    all dead bodies: they dumped them at a convenient distance from their
    living areas.  However, to the delight of archaeologists, by the time
    of the Neanderthals, hominids had turned into people, at least to the
    extent of dumping their refuse into coherent piles (midden heaps) and
    burying their dead.  This meant that archaeologists no longer had to
    make judgement calls about whether object <B> should be associated with
    skeletal fragment <A> or was just found near it.

    The buried remains of our Stone Age ancestors� reveal a great deal
    about them.  (Surprise!  Surprise!)  They show that a lot died young,
    and some died old; that some died of natural causes, and some died
    by violence; that some were twisted with arthritis, and some were
    not.  What they do not show is people who died from being struck with
    the classic blunt instrument, nor people with arrowheads or broken
    off spear- or knife-points among their ribs.  They show people who
    survived (or did not) shocking injuries that could be attributed to
    crushing, or to great falls, or other natural disasters, but they do
    not show people who suffered the cracked and broken bones that we see
    among the chronically abused today.

    This pattern continues from the late hunter-gatherer stage through
    the early agricultural stage.  Archaeologists find skeletal remains
    that speak of natural death and of accidental death, but not those
    which speak of deliberate death, or of deliberate abuse.  In fact,
    the pattern is so continuous that early artifacts can be explained
    by tracing back from what they evolved into.  For example, the "Venus
    figures" found in caves occupied over the millenia puzzled archaeologists
    for decades.  Eventually, however, the Goddess statuettes of early
    agricultural communities, such as Catal H�y�k and Hacilar, had their
    forms traced back, and back, until they were shown to be those same
    Venus figures.

    Amazing though it sounds, we can now confidently assert that Neanderthals
    and Cro-Magnons believed in a life after death (from the nature of
    their grave goods), and worshipped a Goddess.  (Gimbutas has expanded
    enormously on this theme.)

    These two beliefs continue on right into recorded history.  Yet one
    must not (again) fall into the trap of thinking that a society which
    worships a female deity must of necessity hold women dominant over
    men.  No sign of such an arrangement has ever been found in any human
    culture.  Indeed, the signs of equal (or at least equivalent) treatment
    for women and men are frequently seen. For example, it is clear that
    at Hacilar there were male as well as female members of the priesthood.

    This pattern is only broken with the introduction of the male-dominated
    pastoral cultures.  Now, since men and women lived together for
    millenia without any signs of the domination of one over the other,
    I think it is fair to claim that this is neither an inevitable part
    of human behavior nor is it an inevitable part of *male* human behavior,
    but that it can become a part of such behavior (Note that I leave the
    antecedant of "such" to be ambiguous.) as part of a class (Note that I
    did not write "*the* class") of male-dominated cultures.

    							Ann B.

    � You may not have Neanderthal ancestors, but I believe I do.

Referencing 91.73 (Ann):

   The information you've expanded on is good in that at least we both can
say that we have the same information from (essentially) the same sources.

   But you have not addressed any of the points which I have made or
answered any of the questions I've asked.

   Assuming for the moment that I agree with all that you have said (which
I don't; I've indicated some of my reasons why back in Version 2), then your
information still supports the model which you've previously indicated 
that you believe "has no resemblance to reality". My confusion still exists.

   I have also asked about the relevance of this data about "prehistory" to
what is obviously a model of contemporary behavior (that is, I understand, 
what this Topic is about; an explanation which states that bigger people tend
to pick on littler people). This, too, has not been addressed by you.

   I eagerly await your answers.

                                                   -Robert Brown III

    Robert,
    
    What I have been trying to explain (and this may be entirely
    orthogonal to what you are trying to do) is that the idea that
    ~it is natural for big to dominate small~ is not *historically*
    correct.
    
    	(Exposition:  To claim that something is "natural"
    	is to claim that it is ingrained (genetic, even)
    	and thus to claim that doing/being otherwise is
    	somewhere between difficult and impossible.  Thus,
    	to eliminate such a claim is a method of chipping
    	away at the plaint, "But it's just too difficult
    	to change!"  I think we all know about squelching
    	such claims in terms of "natural" racial attributes?
    	Good.)
    
    My claim is that "it is natural for people to work co�peratively;
    a pattern of domination/submission is unnatural."  It's also one
    heck of a lot more enjoyable, and I don't see it being any less
    efficient.  (I can also understand it being *more* efficient.)
    
    The bad news is that I go along with Stone, Eisler, et cetera, in
    holding that this unnatural domination/submission pattern was
    introduced by a male-oriented culture.  (Oversimplified rationale
    available upon request.)  This culture dominated because it was
    willing to destroy, which meant that it has entropy on its side.
    Its "opposition" was "handicapped" by not having that mindset, and
    by not being willing to embrace it.  I don't think that that means
    such a violent culture is "better" or "more efficient" or anything
    like that; in fact, I think quite the opposite.  (Here's a good
    play on words:  I don't think it is more effective, just more
    affective.)  The obvious results do not impress me; I think we
    could have done a lot better without it.
    
    It is also not an easy culture to maintain; it requires enormous
    efforts on the part of its members to keep it the way it is.  (We
    are only just learning about the nature and degree of those efforts.)
    To think of it as a "model" is...is...is to think of a cone balanced
    on its point as a model.  I.e., you (generic) can if you want to,
    but it doesn't seem really stable to me.)
    
    	An Aside:  Does the statement about being unimpressed and
    	thinking "we could have done better" intend to denigrate
    	any and all male accomplishments?  No.  Most of them are
    	accomplishments of men qua human beings, and they impress
    	the heck out of me.  (I really feel that at least 90% of
    	the time all people are acting like people, and not like
    	members of one gender or one race or whatever, and I respond
    	on that basis.)  It's just things like war, slavery, the
    	pyramidal shape of power arrangements, that don't warm my
    	cockles.  Does this mean that I think "men" are somehow
    	inferior/wrong/evil for being part of this?  No.  They're
    	the product of their environment, just like me.  To the
    	extent that they find it pleasant, they aren't going to
    	fight it.  I wouldn't either.  But men, like other people,     :-)
    	like to be helpful, so the possibility for change is there.
    	Boy, have I left a lot unsaid!
    
    						Ann B.

Referencing 91.75 (Ann):

   While I disagree with you on the Stone, Eisler, etc. thesis (it is 
limited in its interpretation of WORLD history as well as full of
holes that I can drop my apartment through), you will please note that
I have said twice in the course of this discussion that I believe that
the model, in its current form, is unworkable. In other words, while I
do not believe that it bears "no resemblance to reality", I do believe
that I have made plain, a number of times, that I do not consider it
"natural" for the big to dominate the small.

   Please do not infer that I am supporting the model anymore. I am not and
never have.

Further:

   While you have clarified certain aspects of your position from our
previous discussion in Version 2 (while in the process addressing what
you THOUGHT were my arguments against your position as opposed to what 
they actually were), you have still not addressed the confusion that I have
been addressing in this Topic since my entry 91.72, nor have you answered the
questions I have asked you.

   The fact still remains that by your own rendering of prehistory, you are
still supporting the model. As I stated in 91.72, according to your arguments
the civilizations with the bigger people (men) were able to set the pattern for
all civilizations then and in the future (since, again by your arguments, 
civilizations since then have been male dominant). This contradicts your
claim to believing that cooperation is "natural" and domination unnatural. 
Anyone accepting your arguments must believe that the model is a correct one.

   I also questioned the relevance of this entire (model supporting)
argument since 91.72, since it attempts (and fails, in my opinion) to 
describe an aspect of our prehistory while this Topic is an attempt (also a
failed attempt) to create a model describing the causes of violence in our 
contemporary society.

  In summary, your entry appears to clarify your position concerning a 
subject which is not related to the topic at hand, while contradicting
itself by calling itself an argument against the model we are discussing
while at the same time supporting it.

   I am still confused.

                                                        -Robert Brown III

    Robert,
    
    I am sorry that you did not understand what I meant by writing
    that my purposes may be "orthogonal" to yours.  It means that
    they may be entirely different, with only one point (as in
    "mathematical point") in common.  I am sorry that you thought
    I was contending with you in the previous version, when I was,
    even then, operating orthogonally.
    
    What you may not perceive is that the men of the pastoral cultures
    were not "bigger" than other people; they were probably smaller.
    These SMALLER (but vicious) men defeated the larger, gentler men
    and women of the agricultural cultures because of their temperament,
    not because of their size.  A model based on size rather than
    temperament is thus totally inaccurate.
    
    I'm not surprised to find that we are agreed on the unnaturalness
    of the resultant culture.  The way of life it demands is so unnatural
    that it must be enforced on every person in its society from the
    moment of birth in order for it to be maintained (I don't think
    either of us can bring ourselves to say "for it to *work*".)
    
    						Ann B.

   Sorry this is late, since I am somewhat swamped with work. Future responses
may also be late.

   Ahhh, yes; forgot about your use of the term "orthogonal". It always
fascinates me how different agendas can be inserted into discussions like
this one using "orthogonal" arguments.

   Not that it matters, because while your angle of approach may be different 
the results are still the same.

   I find that I must disagree with you concerning the size of the "invaders"
from the pastoral cultures. There is not sufficient evidence to support
your suggestion that they were smaller, and I reiterate that the technology
of war that was developed at that time still favored those who were 
larger. Even if they were smaller, size still remained a factor in the use
of their technology, and a culture dependent on such technology would value
size over other factors. In fact, the people in such a culture would happily
assimilate people larger than themselves, since such people would only
strengthen their culture.

   Consequently, the model is still supported by your (orthogonal) arguments
because the moment the primitive war technology is introduced, size becomes
a factor in its use and the bigger people (who can best use the technology)
become the best and more dominant.

   There is equally insufficient evidence to support the view that the
"gentler" people you speak of were necessarily gentler; there are plenty of
ways to impose one person's will on another; physical violence is simply the
most primitive method. There are plenty of other forms of violence that cut
much more deeply than any sword, and there is no way any of us can prove
that the cultures you look so favorably on did not employ those forms of
violence.

   And I must also make you aware that in my last entry I stated that I
agreed with you on the unnaturalness of the big dominating the small. I
did not express agreement concerning whether or not the cultures that
resulted from the migration of the pastoral cultures you talk about was
"unnatural". In fact, despite your "orthogonal" approach I have not addressed
the naturalness or unnaturalness of either culture, since at the time I did 
not consider them germaine to this discussion.

   In other words, please do not misinterpret what we agree on. We merely
agree that the model has flaws. That is all we agree on. As for how good
or natural the cultures you are talking about are, this is something we can
debate in another Topic. But as far as your arguments relate to the subject
at hand, while I am no longer confused I still consider your arguments to be
contradictory to your stated position concerning the model.

   By your own logic, the big MUST dominate the small, regardless of the
average size of the peoples of two initially different cultures. Your 
arguments about ancient cultures support the model as it would apply to
ancient cultures, and supports the model as it applies to today's culture 
since according to you the "gentle" culture of ancient times was the only
such culture in human history.

                                                    -Robert Brown III

    Robert,

    (To be read in a mild, but reproachful, tone of voice):
        You are saying (among other things) that although there is no
        evidence to support the size-based claim, that this claim
    	can still legitimately be made, since my evidence is negative,	
    	and someday evidence to support that claim might show up.

    One of the ways you said this was to say "there are plenty of ways
    to impose one person's will on another" which is quite true.  You
    then go on to say, "physical violence is simply the most primitive
    method."  This is again true.  At this point you should have discussed
    the other methods.  (See below.)  But instead you wrote, "There are
    plenty of other forms of *violence* that cut much more deeply..."
    (The emphasis is mine, of course.)  You shouldn't have used the
    term "violence".

    There are three basic methods of killing someone.  There is mechanical
    disruption of the vital organs: slashing and bashing.  There is
    physical interruption of respiration: strangling and smothering.
    There is contamination of the metapolism: poisoning.  Only the last
    two can be done without leaving traces that last over the millenia.

    Let us begin by assuming that violence is the method-of-choice in
    getting someone to do what you [generic second person whatever] want.
    Now, since killing someone is a very unsatisfactory method of getting
    him [generic third person singular] to do what you want, you must
    be able to threaten him -- convincingly -- with death in order to get
    him to do what you want.

    Waving daffodil bulbs or apricot pits (They're poisonous, you see.)
    under someone's nose is unimpressive.  I don't think it will work.
    Threatening to throttle someone sounds more effective; however, there
    must be deeds to match the words, and the targeted victim is likely
    to struggle.  This will leave those physical traces, such as
    broken-then-healed bones and signs of repeated dislocations, which
    archaeologists don't find.  This just doesn't leave "other forms of
    violence" which are undetectable.

    (I am reminded of the Farside (?) cartoon:  Two cavemen [sic] stand
    on the shoulders of other cavemen, painting on the ceiling of a cave.
    One is explaining to the others, "This way they'll think we had
    ladders or that the floor subsided."  Believe me, early humans did not
    moderate their behavior to control what archaeologists would learn
    about them!  To suggest non-obvious forms of violent control as an
    explanation of its absence is to lose sight of this datum.)

    Now, the agriculturalists ate better than the pastoralists, since
    they had veggies *and* domestic animals, whereas the pastoralists
    only had the latter.  Size is a function of nutrition, after all.
    On the other hand, weapons handling is a function of speed, agility
    and stamina, as well as strength, so those should be part of the
    model -- but they're not, and you haven't considered them either.
    Tsk, tsk.

    You are also looking at the nth consequence, war, and relating it
    to a putative cause, while ignoring all the intermediate steps.
    (I can create Farside cartoons too:  A bunch of cavemen [sic] are
    at the entrance to a cave with height markings.  One announces,
    "Ogg is now taller than the shortest member of the Doog tribe.
    We must now invent smelting, so we can make swords and shields
    and attack the Doog tribe.")

    How and why would people have gotten from size (big) to war (yes)?
    Can you decide to wage a war of agression without first having a
    contentious society?  How can you have a contentious society when
    you need co�peration so much in order to survive?  What happened?

    Here is a quotation from a book by Marielouise Janssen-Jurreit
    (translated from the German by Verne Moberg) in the chapter,
    "Evolutionism as a Dead End":

    	Before the development of ethnology and sociology, it
    	was believed that all social relationships among barbaric
    	peoples were based on the right of the strongest.  Over
    	the long run, though, physical superiority would be of
    	little use to the individual.  The exercise of power in
    	human societies rests on the ability to form groups within
    	the group, to associate with others who have essentially
    	the same interests.  Some key means of building alliances
    	are propaganda, ideology, common experiences, emotional
    	dependence, and common secrets.

    So, let this be a lesson to the basenote writer and us.  We should
    learn something about ethnology and sociology before writing
    about those topics.

    						Ann B.

Referencing 91.79 (Ann):

Point 1:

   Mild but reproachful tones of voice are fine, but I would appreciate it
if, in the future, you refrain from telling me what I "should" say, the
points I "should" make, or the terms I "shouldn't" use. My style of noting 
in this Notesfile has evolved from bitter experience, and there is little
that I say (or DON'T say) that isn't deliberate.

   My style of entering notes here (in case you are interested) is to make 
a few basic points and give basic information in the hopes that people who
are interested in a real discussion will ask for clarification or further 
information. This gives me much more leverage when dealing with those who 
(all too often in this Notesfile) make judgements about me or my position 
based on what little I actually say in my entries. Since such people tend 
to be more interested in bashing than they are in discussing, all I need to 
do is point out how incomplete their information is in order to "filter" 
them out of a discussion I have entered. Those who ask for clarification 
and/or information are responded to as quickly as possible and (hopefully)
a real dialog which is useful for all concerned can begin.

   If you have difficulty following or understanding anything I say in this 
Notesfile, please ask for more information before telling me what I "should"
or "shouldn't" say. If you do this you may find our future discussions to be
much more profitable for both of us.

Point 2:

   My use of the term "violence" (a term you suggested I "shouldn't" have
used), expresses exactly what I wanted to convey in my previous entry.
Violence, by its nature, does not always have to be physical; as long as it
hurts people it can exist on a variety of levels. What the world is doing
to Iraq is a form of violence. What I've seen some mothers do to their 
children emotionally is another form of violence. Some forms of violence
do not have to kill or maim directly; if someone commits suicide because 
hir has been convinced by those aaround hir that hir is worthless, then that
person is a victim of a form of social violence.

   Because anthropologists study some latter- day agricultural societies in
order to understand how such societies work, there is plenty of evidence to
support the belief that such societies have required and have evolved 
mechanisms to ensure that their members comply with their rules -- no matter
how arbitrary those rules may be. These mechanisms have not always relied
on physical violence, but more often than not rely on forms of social,
economic, and/or emotional violence (especially in communities where 
"love", peace, and "nonviolence" are supposedly valued). It doesn't matter
that members of these societies MAY or MAY NOT have employed physical violence
in order to "dominate" other members; the fact is that physical violence
is only one form of violence that people can use to manifest their need to 
control or dominate others. Based on what we know about how agricultural
societies work, it is safe to say that, in their own way, they are (today)
and were (in ancient times) as violent as any openly military society that
ever existed.

   In other words, they didn't need swords or even daffodil bulbs to "threaten"
anyone. All that was needed was the knowledge that anyone who doesn't obey the
rules will experience (insert form of non- physical violence here) and the 
patterns of dominance and control are established.

   Of course, the above presupposes that your agricultural societies were
completely physically nonviolent. As I stated before, there is insufficient
evidence to support the claim that they were.

Point 3:

   You are correct that speed, agility, and strength are factors in the
ability to handle the weapons technology of those times, but you are incorrect
in stating that I have failed to consider these factors. A person's size does 
have an effect on strength (the bigger a person is, the stronger hir tends to
be), but size, agility, and speed are independent quantities. Bigger does not
necessarily mean slower or less agile, despite most people's expectations.
If, indeed, the agricultural peoples were bigger than the pastorialists
(having "veggies", as I will explain in my next Point, may actually prove
that they were smaller), then they would indeed, as I stated in my previous
entry, have been assimilated into the pastoral culture because with proper
training they could be better fighters than their conquerers and, consequently,
would be more useful in those cultures. Regardless of natural speed or agility,
size is still an advantage when using the weapons that the pastorialists had at 
the time, because no matter how big you are you can still be fast and agile -- 
and stronger besides.

Point 4:

   The fact that the agriculturalists had "veggies" did not necessarily make
them larger than the pastorialists because (a) the concept of a "balanced"
diet is very recent in terms of human history, and (b) members of all human
cultures that tended to orient more towards vegetables than meats have 
produced smaller people. I base this on studies performed on people of
some countries whose diets had previously emphasized vegetables who initially
were smaller until the introduction of more meat- heavy diets. There is also
insufficient evidence to support your contention that the pastorialists didn't
have vegetables, since such societies have tended to follow the 
"hunter- gatherer" pattern. The best you can say is that the agriculturalists
had "more" veggies than the pastorialists, and that the pastorialists ate
more meat. But in that case the chances are that the pastorialists were larger
because of the effect that meat protein tends to have on the size of those
who, for generations, depend on it to survive.

Point 5:

   I do not completely understand your references to the Gary Larson
cartoons. Are you implying that my beliefs concerning ancient societies are
Larson cartoon- like? Or that my opinions remind you of those cartoons?

Point 6:

   In response to the following paragraphs you entered in 91.79:


    "You are also looking at the nth consequence, war, and relating it
    to a putative cause, while ignoring all the intermediate steps.
    (I can create Farside cartoons too:  A bunch of cavemen [sic] are
    at the entrance to a cave with height markings.  One announces,
    "Ogg is now taller than the shortest member of the Doog tribe.
    We must now invent smelting, so we can make swords and shields
    and attack the Doog tribe.")

    How and why would people have gotten from size (big) to war (yes)?
    Can you decide to wage a war of agression without first having a
    contentious society?  How can you have a contentious society when
    you need co�peration so much in order to survive?  What happened?"

   First: I am not relating anything to anything. I am merely responding 
to your "orthogonal" statements about how ancient history "disproves"
the model we are discussing by pointing out to you how your "orthogonal"
arguments may actually support the model which you have said "bears no
resemblance to reality". Consequently I am not "looking" at causes or effects;
in fact, we aren't discussing my arguments about the model at all! What we
have been discussing is your arguments, and how they support (as I contend)
or disprove (as you believe) the model.

   It was YOU who characterized the pastorialists as "SMALLER (but vicious)"
(in your entry 91.77), saying that they "defeated the larger, gentler" people
of the agricultural cultures (also in 91.77) and imposed an "unnatural", 
"male- dominated" culture (91.73 and 91.75) on the agriculturalists. YOU 
characterized the pastorialists as the "contentious" culture which waged a
war of aggression on the "peaceful", goddess- worshipping agriculturialists.
All I have been saying is that (a) the pastorialists were not necessarily
smaller, (b) the agriculturalists were not necessarily nonviolent, and (c) that
your own arguments, no matter how "orthogonal" they may be, actually support
the model of the big dominating the small since (by your arguments) all 
cultures since the fall of the goddess- worshipping agriculturalists have been 
"male- dominated", and men tend to be bigger than women regardless of the
average size of the people in their culture.

   I am not the one to answer your questions about how a contentious society 
can exist when cooperation is needed to survive. I am not the one to tell
"what happened" to the pastorialists to cause them to carry out their war of 
aggression. These questions arise from your arguments and the picture of 
ancient history as you presented it. I don't agree with your picture, and part
of the reason I don't agree is because I have asked the same questions you just
asked when I was first exposed to Gimbutas, Eisler, and (much later) you.

   I suggest that you answer these questions yourself. Don't look for answers
from me. These questions are one of the reasons why I don't agree with your
view of ancient history, and why I find it a contradiction to use this view
as an argument, orthogonal or otherwise, against the model which we are
discussing in this Topic.

Summation:

   You still, as far as I can see, support the model which you state you
disagree with.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

    Ah, I see.  This is a meaning of the word "violence" of which I
    had previously been unaware.
    
    						Ann B.

    I can't but think of the mongols in this discussion. They were smaller
    (physically) than the peoples they over ran. It didn't seem to stop
    them.

    I also think of an old dog I had. She was fairly small, the size of an
    Austrialian shepard. One day while we were walking two large huskies
    jumped the fence and went after her. They had the size to eat her up
    but she responed to their attack with such vicious energy they backed
    off real quick. If you are vicious enough size might not be that
    important. liesl

Referencing 91.82 (Liesl):

   Ahh, but the war technology that the Mongols used (better weapons,
more evolved military strategy, etc) did not require a size advantage.
By the time of the Mongols, IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD, war was more
of a science and there were plenty of ways that a smaller- but- more
vicious person could easily overcome a bigger person. But as I have repeatedly
said, I am not arguing for the model at all. I have only been pointing out
how Ann's "orthogonal" arguments tended to contradict her belief that
the model was false. The civilizations she spoke of predated the Mongols by
a few thousand years, and their technologies and techniques of war were nowhere
near as well developed as those of the Mongols. Size WAS a factor for them,
but somewhat less of a factor for the Mongols.

   The example of the Mongols helps to disprove the model. The Indo- European
pastoralist example does not.

   And as for your dogs, I have already pointed out (in 91.72) how in
nature big does not necessarily mean dominant.

   In other words, Liesl, we really do agree with each other concerning the
model. Ann and I actually agree with each other concerning the model. Where
Ann and I disagree is in the arguments Ann has used to disprove the model. Ann
says that ancient history as she presents it disproves the model. I say that,
assuming that her picture is accurate (I don't believe that it is), it actually
SUPPORTS the model despite the fact that she doesn't agree with it.

                                                          -Robert Brown III

    
    re:.81
    tee hee ;^)
    i've been wanting to use that line for years!
    

Referencing 91.81:

   I must admit to suprise that you were previously unaware of my
"definition" of violence, since it has been used (most often by feminists)
for many years now.

Referencing 91.84:

   Too bad someone else used "that line" first, eh? Better luck next time.

                                                          -Robert Brown III

    
    I would rather be a small woman with a large following
    and aggressive goals to use that power...
    Than Arnold Swartzenneger (sp?) with no following or goals...
    
    The goals may be violent or not but the term aggressive is enough.
    
    Woman and Men pave our own path to power.
    
    Strength is a power mind set.
    
    Ken P.

    The A Model was one of the best Fords. I'm sorry that Henry ever
    decided to supersede it.
    
    Don
    **-)