Mismeasuring Women

There's a chart graphic in the article that summarizes the "d" values (differences among averages)for various traits.

The highest "d" value of 0.74 was for women's use of indirect violence. This is a statistically "large" value, meaning it clearly shows an aspect of behavior and psychology that differs significantly between women and men.

If you consider the tactics in the arsenal of indirect aggression, they include: gossip, rumor-mongering, slander, lying, attacking reputations, social ostracism & isolation, using friendship and/or intimacy as a weapon, using third-parties to do your dirty work.

One might argue that Feminism as a social movement focused on redistributing power from men to women is a classic model of systematic indirect violence employed as a strategy for dominance.

What is VAWA if not a masterful example of using third-party surrogates to implement your violence against targeted persons?

The Anti-Family Courts? Ditto. The DV Industry? Ditto-cubed!

From one perspective, if women's preference for indirect violence is innate, then feminism is a quite natural and logical expression of female pathology.

In other words, Kim Gandy and her comrade sisters (and all the silent "non-feminist" women especially) represent the norm, not the aberration.

In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that the really sophisticated predators are the "But I'm not LIKE THEM!" self-proclaimed iFeminists who benefit greatly from radical gender feminist tactics, all the while professing their personal integrity and innocence.

How do we reorganize the system to pick up on and punish those females who use indirect aggression to destroy the lives of others?

The current system is very efficient at picking up and taking care of male direct aggression, but when mom hires a hit man to off her husband, she never gets punished or recorded as a murderer, yet it was her who directly caused the death of another through her actions. Ditto for female rapists and pedophiles, they use less direct methods then males and the system does not catch them despite the fact that the end result (a deeply wounded victim) is the same.

So, how should we advocate for changes to the various legal systems, while protecting liberty, to not only catch the females who mis-behave in male like ways, but also deal with females who misbehave like females? That would be the only way to gain an accurate representation of crime between the genders.

Punishments should be the same wether male or female because the outcomes on the victims and society as a whole are the same either way, but we need to effectively recognize and catch female deviant behaviors.

"How do we reorganize the system ... ?"

That's a really great question, Paragon!

Lurking behind the original article is the whole field of evolutionary psychology, which proposes that modern human beings still behave and respond on the basis of ancient DNA-encoded patterns that worked very well for survival during "cave days" eons ago.

What we today view as civilization (depending on how minimal your criteria) has really only existed for maybe 10,000 years.

Carbon dating of human bones suggests that homo sapiens as an evolving species has been around for five, maybe twenty times that long.

So, genetically, most of what we are at a cellular, brain-structure, neuro-physiological level was formed during millennia of primitive and threatening circumstances.

During these times, it was very successfully adaptive for females to focus on being able to survive not through direct aggression, (because they would lose) but rather through building connections, becoming part of the communal network, building support systems with other women especially.

So the theory goes that women are hard-wired for indirect aggression; while men are hard-wired for the opposite. (Two equally valid strategies for survival under the immediate circumstances and rules of the gender wars circa 40,000 B.C.)

If you imagine that what our contemporary society actually consists of is STONE-AGE PEOPLE (women and men with brains that are not at all different from their 50,000 year-old ancestors) confronting a so-called MODERN landscape....

Things start to make sense.

So, evolutionary psychology suggests that it's not the SYSTEM that needs reform, it's the very structure of human cognition that needs to evolve.

And, there's no quick fix, because Mother Nature, Darwin, and cellular mortality have decreed that it takes a LONG TIME to turn an ape into a .... semi-civilized ape.

PS - The first VAWA was passed in 4,700 B.C., unanimously by all the women in the cave. They just didn't write it down. Because men hadn't invented writing yet.

It's not within our control to change the DNA of the entire species and like you said, nature takes along time.

So in the mean time we must first recognize and restructure the "civilization" in order to take the biological differnces into consideration and adopt new methods for dectecting and dealing with female deviant behavior.

The current system rewards female deviant behavior (snitches are rewarded and not prosecuted which plays into the female form of revenge by slander).

A couple examples of the thousands that exist:

Instead of putting away real sexual abusers (because even females have some sence of loyalty to blood relatives and 90% of sexual abuse is within the family) we get national sex offender registries full of guys who pissed of their girlfriends and teenaged girls affraid to admit to their families they wanted to have sex with the boy down the street. For every guy on any sex registry who poses a real threat there are about ten thousand who do not.

Instead of female murderers being counted, we get the number of males who die of heart desease exagerated because the system does not look to see if he was posioned.

Since we can't change the DNA we must at least do everything we can to change the system in order to pretect males and females from female forms of violence.

We must recognise and address female patholgy and stop rewarding it like we do now.