Well, Squeers in order for people to solve a problem they have to have as an absolute minimum a common language. I cannot understand most of what you say so I will not be able to contribute to your problem solving endeavours.

Aristocrat,
I didn't post on Cetalhayuk and so cannot respond.

You said "Anyway, academics and feminists aren't interested in solutions. They want revenge. They perceive men as the cause of the ills of their lives." This is entirely reflective of your own myopia and not of this discussion.

Phanto you say I can't say men more violent than women, how do I know what women would resort to in similar circumstances? I've heard of one culture where women are regarded as more aggressive. However in general men are regarded as more violent and displays of aggression are considered manly. The video on US servicemen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owVm053wEb8 shows one reason they're so violent and brutal to women and gays is that both these groups are allowed into the arena that they consider to be the preserve of men, ie the military. I agree with you boys are socialised into being warlike men.

",,they are forced by their governments into a situation where their very lives are at risk." That would be the same governments that are mainly men sending the young men off to die for resource grabs (that is what war basically boils down to). Why not critiquing the men in power? There is a very long history of calling men cowards if they do not want to become brutes.

This is the point of Kathleen Barry's book "Unmaking War, Remaking Men." If men are expected to be cannon fodder they are at some level understandably angry. Therefore no one should be considered expendable and war should be regarded as unthinkable. Unless of course you like it. See Chris Hedges on the attractions of war and my previous post on human emotions.

Finally Aristocrat Your "White Man's Burden" version of history is a colonial construct. I certainly would not have liked to live in the Aztec empire. The early days of the Roman Republic would have been interesting but the later times of eternal war and slavery would have been hell. Once again watch Chris Hedges on this.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_takes_on_the_global_culture_of_violence_20141015

Lillian:

What would you have men do in the face of war? The Argentinean soldiers are having the crap beaten out of them by an army forced into battle by Margaret Thatcher. What do they do? Do they turn to each other and say “common chaps let’s not be violent. Let us lay down our arms and let the enemy come and take over our country. Let us not defend our sovereignty or our women and families.” Would you have had men not defend the west against Nazi Germany?

War exists for a whole range of reasons and has nothing to do with men’s violence. Your argument is so illogical. Men are violent in war therefore men are inherently violent and this explains all the violence that exists outside of war as well.

In childbirth women scream and yell and show that they are unable to tolerate the pain. They have no choice because the baby has to come out of the womb. From this we can conclude that all women are fundamentally weak and incapable of tolerating pain. Women are a burden on society because of this and make life for men much harder than it would be without them.

Boys are not ‘socialised’ into becoming warlike men –they are pre-occupied with war because they are instinctively pre-occupied with what can harm them. What could be more natural than to respond to your fears?

Your argument about politicians sending men to war because they are men is as illogical as your argument about men being violent in war because they are men. Politicians send men to war because wars sometimes have to be fought. Should they have let Hitler conquer the world? What would a woman have done?

It seems you are not dealing with reality but fantasising about some Utopia where there is no more violence. Maybe the world you want to rid of violence is a little closer to home for you and you do not want to face it.

I believe most people raised in a homogenised Western environment have lost touch with the way humans evolved.

Men had to range further away from settlements to hunt, they served as physical protectors to the community. It makes complete sense to me that the male of the species is more prone to physical violence. It was an evolutionary imperative.

Women in general fed the community. They roamed close to home, gathered food, they "farmed". Even now in countries where mechanised monoculture hasn't taken over, women are the prime raises of crops, grains and leafy crops, they prepare the grains, prepare all the harvest for food. This was principally women's work - and still is in some societies. It was only with the mechanization of farming, the introduction of machinery, modern fertilisers and pesticides that it became overwhelmingly "masculine".

In a societies like those of the West, which have been around for the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, the role of gender is somewhat blurred compared to traditional societies.

Poirot and phanto etc have shown themselves incapable of understanding arguments or reading links.They're discussing things I haven't said preferring instead to make things up and ignore history.

They claim problems are caused by women and nothing that men do (patriarchy, violent manhood promotion, military, organised religion, government etc) has any effect. Horrible women/feminists are to blame for everything. No evidence need be produced it is just obvious. Like it's obvious anything good has come from white men, except it hasn't.

According to phanto etc Nazis, Argentinians etc, come out of nowhere. Violence is the only response and its lucky we have men to fight. Women are feeble childbearing things of no use. This is some fantasy stereotype land with no relation to actual events or people.For example WW1 ended due to a mutiny by German sailors being led out to certain death by aristocratic top brass. They had had enough of the madness of Thanatos that had nothing for them but organised murder for the glory of the deluded. Good on them! Unfortunately they were betrayed by the Treaty of Versailles that wanted financial revenge on Germany and laid the ground for the Nazis.

Phanto etc amusingly display men stuck in inchoate, reflexive hatred of women. Paradoxically if you read what they say it is not actually real women they hate but the system that makes men expendable and easily manipulated. Where does that system come from?...patriarchy, where this whole discussion started. Challenging patriarchy means exploring why powerful men think ordinary men are expendable. It is easier for this type of blinkered man to band together in common hatred of their imagined oppressor, women, than actually look at what is going on and challenge what they think is their own.

Here's my argument in simple language. Human emotions are powerful (Hedges on Thanatos etc). How a society directs them determines everything. (Suggestions of teaching empathy as an antidote. Hispanola as an example of success) Male and female are entangled, if you want justice for one gender it means justice for the other too, otherwise it is just perpetuating abuse

lillian,

"They claim problems are caused by women and nothing that men do (patriarchy, violent manhood promotion, military, organised religion, government etc) has any effect. Horrible women/feminists are to blame for everything. No evidence need be produced it is just obvious. Like it's obvious anything good has come from white men, except it hasn't."

I wasn't addressing anything "you said" in particular, I was making a comment in general on this subject.

Male and female "are" entangled....especially if you view the human species as an organism ranging over the planet.

Are you addressing the advancement of human ingenuity, which brings forth mechanisation and allows us to rampage over the earth and slaughter from afar?

And that women, as a supporting foundation, are as much a part of that advancement and contingency as men?...(".... military, organised religion, government etc...")

That our evolutionary mores are somewhat warped in a modern setting where women as much as men luxuriate in and partake of the status quo?

(Btw, I'm a woman)