Male infanticide employed "to end tribal war"

Let's see, how many ways are there to end a cycle of violence in any given situation? I can think of a few. Intervention via "force majeure" often works. Examples are the many "Pax somethings" in history, as in "Pax America" or "Pax Romana". There is also education and good old-fashioned negotiations. Consumer goods helps, too. Rarely do people with a an abundance of consumer goods go to war with each other, ever notice that?

Now, infanticide... will that work? I suppose it would if these babies were "natural-born killers", but I ask you, is killing a baby boy going to prevent him from growing up to be a violent man or is raising a baby boy to be a peaceable man not more likely to give far-better outcomes? The rationale, if you can call it that, behind what is happening here is the belief that 1) only boys can be violent and 2) boys inevitably grow up to be violent and 3) in this case anyway, violence is not what the society in question wants right now. All three assertions in this case are utterly wrong. The third assertion is wrong because clearly, there is room for violence in this society, provided the victim is an infant male.

Murdering babies rarely leads to good results, regardless of their sex or who is doing the murdering.

Folks, can you ever imagine this statement: "This situation shows the extreme frustration the men have with the women in these areas," a spokeswoman said," as a rationale for female infanticide?

Yes, I remember seeing this in the gender and women's studies section (which I use to denounce feminists and the like) of Yahoo answers, all the women there were whining on about how difficult a time the women were having (I don't doubt that but that's besides the point) and constantly painting the women as victims with no regards whatsoever for the boys being slaughtered. Absolutely disgusting, the Salvation army should be interferring.

Here is a quote which I see as applicable:

"Genocide is often the result of a "perfect storm." A country reeling from political and economic turmoil, a fanatical leader promising to make things better and a vulnerable population targeted for blame -- all combine in a blueprint for mass murder."

It is from a CNN story on the web today:

See: " They killed their neighbors: genocide's foot soldiers."

Do you remember a few posts back the article entitled "let women tame macho excess". The article basically described how men where agressive cavemen-like idiots and then contrasted that with women and how superior their thought process was compared to men's, etc.

Here's a quote from that article:

There is a feminine approach to leadership, which is not, of course, confined to women. It is about being intuitive as well as rational. It is about multi-tasking and being sensitive to people's needs and emotions, as well as relationship-building and generous listening.'

So why don't these tribal women use their rational, sensitive, emotional, relationship-building thinking to come to a better conclusion than committing infantcide as a means to end war? What about "listening" to the rival tribes needs? Why don't these women use their feminine leadership skills to negotiate a truce? Instead they commit an act that is so grotesque and sicking as a means to ending war. Where's the sensitivity in killing your own child? These women are committing acts far greater than anything you'd see in a tribal war between men. Men are fighting against equals, someone who's capable of fighting back. These women are killing defenseless harmless boys that they are supposed to nurture and care for. And what of the men of these tribes? Why are they letting this happen, they should take action against all the women who have killed their sons.

"This situation shows the extreme frustration the women have with the men in these areas," a spokesman said.'

Don't try and tell me the women play no part in the reason the men are fighting. There is no excuse for what the women are doing.

What's incredible is that the Salvation Army spokesperson did NOT condemn these acts, just merely described and tried to explain them away. Contrast that to the international rage against those Chinese peasants who commit female infanticide. At least they aren't killing all of the girls.

Male infanticide doesn't even get on the UN general plenary agenda much less anything else. Female infanticide? That gets an entire committee and its own budget-- as well it should. But so should male infanticide... not that UN committees are very good at stopping or starting anything...

If the way to stop babies growing into murderous adults is to kill them at birth, then there seems to be no escape from the logic that it should be the female babies that ought to be slaughtered. That will prevent them growing into women who kill babies.

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women

manonthestreet

These women are murderers. Let not call it infanticide, call it what it is - murdering the defenceless.

There is a real problem in the depiction of tribes in the press. They are always depicted as backward, dirty and downright evil without any attempt to understand them. For your information, at one time the tribes in New Guinea avoided war by agreeing every so many years to a short war. At sunset the "war" ended and everyone went home, with the victors keeping the enemies wives for one night. Losing sides agreed to whatever the winning side had negotiated for prior to the ritual warfare. Although bloody, they were relatively peaceful and the women were not killed or further molested. Contrast to our European wars which can go on and on, women being raped over and over, and no resolution.
However, the tribes were generously furnished with guns and the wars lasted longer, became more and more violent and there was no agreed upon end to it. The women know that the leaders of the tribes will do a head count and if not enough males are born to furnish "troops" they will be less likely to seek revenge as they know it would be a tactical error. While I do not advocate infantcide, it was a pracitce commen to many people in ancient times to "cull the herd" so to speak as the harsh effort to survive required a lot of travel and struggle. Those who could not keep up endangered the entire tribe's wellfare as extra effort would be required to care for them. In most tribes, every one's contribution is needed, down to small children. It is not that tribal people do not love thier children, but rather they are living in survival mode, quite another thing from industrialized Western man. We have the luxury of caring for our disabled children,but some tribes do not. Please note every tribe is different and some did care for the disabled child or individual. However if they are really struggling, it is likely they will leave them behind as there is not much else they can do. Missionaries and others are good at distorting things. Now will somebody tell me why here in the U.S we are using disabled children for medical experiments? We are a rich nation. What is OUR excuse? So don't believe me? Look it up! Dr.s injected infants with plutonium and carefully documented thier death, winnin an award in the process. Tribal people have been singled out for "experiments" like the deliberate exposure of non-English speaking Alaskan natives to radioactive materials during the '50's and the "testing" of radioactive materials near to traditional hunting and gathering spots, resulting in caribou and elk "radioactive" that the tribes eat. Anyone wonder why Native Alaskans have a five times the national average of cancer? That's why. We need to put our own house in order first.