"Are you addressing the advancement of human ingenuity, which brings forth mechanisation and allows us to rampage over the earth and slaughter from afar?"
Yes, see Chris Hedges link, the will for death and destruction has to be present first.

"And that women, as a supporting foundation, are as much a part of that advancement and contingency as men?...(".... military, organised religion, government etc...")". I object to being seen as a supporting part of the current dysfunctional structures of power. I'm sure many men feel the same way. Women, people of colour, the poor and many men are massively disadvantaged by the system.

"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?" Status quo currently means eternal war and the destruction of planetary systems. I'm doing my best to change things, perhaps you are resting and enjoying it all?

Here are a few quotes from the article we are discussing:

"...perpetrators of violence are highly likely to have been subjected to violence themselves (it goes without saying that this is not a causal relationship)."

"U. S.studies, ..show that 80 percent of boys reported having experienced sexual abuse (mostly out of the home)."

"According to the evidence, traditional notions of male entitlement and toughness are associated with broad-ranging harms to men themselves as well as with abusive and violent thoughts, attitudes and behaviours toward women."

"The question is this: is our desire to retain the capacity to send hordes of gullible youth to fight other people's wars worth putting up with the side effects, namely the deep well of male fear that finds its target in women, children, queers, and ethnic minorities and which, typically, eventually turns on itself?"

The manipulation of men and boys harms everyone. Saying women benefit as much as men (as I think you are claiming) is odd as both are warped and damaged by it. We either change this and inhabit the planet wisely or rip everything to shreds in a frenzy of violence.

The veneer of society is very thin. Educate all you want, which is easy in times of plenty, but once resources become scarce and the future of one's family/tribe is at stake, it is back to laws of the jungle

lillian,

"Status quo currently means eternal war and the destruction of planetary systems. I'm doing my best to change things..."

The status quo means that Western women are partaking of the Western structure...are they not? They enjoy all the trappings of capitalist hegemonic society. There is no huge groundswell of opposition to their fortunate material circumstances. The "machine" is grinding away at the planet. Politicians are moving mountains for corporations, all in the service of "consumer society" - are you telling me Western women aren't in solidly on the ground floor with those machinations? That's the Western status quo.

"...perhaps you are resting and enjoying it all?"

Thanks for the snippy rejoinder - what's that supposed to prove? I'm commenting. Is it feminist principle to fire puerile darts at commentors when you get your back up?

"I object to being seen as a supporting part of the current dysfunctional structures of power. I'm sure many men feel the same way...."

You might object, but that doesn't change the system.

"....Women, people of colour, the poor and many men are massively disadvantaged by the system."

The West through the IMF, World bank and WTO has been preying on the third world for yonks under the guise of delivering progress and wealth, and in fact delivering impotence and removing autonomy from traditional societies through privatisation and structural adjustments - in cahoots with govts which line their pockets and funnel wealth from the general population to Western corporations.

I've got little time for whinging women in first world countries who sit back and enjoy their fortunate circumstances, moaning that they can't "be equal" with men - because they've come so far - but not far enough.

When I see them acting en masse to pull back on consumption, cease supporting the structures which pillage the planet and their poorer brethren overseas, I'll believe they're dinkum. When they finally display the understanding that the human species - both genders - moves in tandem. They are both equally responsible for progressions and structures because, as you pointed out, they are entangled

Well said, Poirot. This is my position too.

Agree with lots of what you say but disagree with "Politicians are moving mountains for corporations, all in the service of "consumer society" Politicians are in cahoots with corporations but not for the benefit of consumers. Australia is about to lose it's sovereignty with the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.
http://aftinet.org.au/cms/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

This is effectively a corporate coup in multiple countries and the MSM are almost entirely silent on it. What we have is not a 'consumer' driven society (consumers had to be invented in the 20th century by advertising and built in obsolescence. Thrift was the previous virtue). We have had the plunder of the earth via the WTO, World Bank, IMF on a enormous scale. That is why we have the obscene wealth inequality both globally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
and within countries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Sheldon Wolin has written a great book "Inverted Totalitarianism" on the corporate takeover of our world. Here is Chris Hedges explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_c1ElZl7Q

Women are not sitting on a huge wave of wonderfulness, nor are many others. Families with kids, esp sole parents who tend to be women, will be worst hit by the budget.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poorest-families-pay-most-in-budget-20140521-38p5m.html

I am certainly not whinging I'm not equal with men and ignoring the 3rd world. I have repeatedly said we have unfairness for most. Men benefit from repression of women the same way men and women in 1st world benefit from the repression of the poor (all those cheap goods) in the 3rd world. Both are fundamentally unjust and corrupts the 'beneficiaries' while undermining a decent society for all. See "The Spirit Level" on how inequality damages everyone.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/spirit-level-why-equality-better-everyone

Poirot

‘I've got little time for whinging women in first world countries who sit back and enjoy their fortunate circumstances, moaning that they can't "be equal" with men.’

In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, First World women were also living ‘fortunate’ lives, compared to Third World women. Many people argued back then that women never had it so good, especially if they were married to a decent man who was a good provider and didn’t beat them. Only ‘whingeing women’ bothered themselves over ‘selfish’ concerns like wanting the vote and the right to earn their own living.

'When I see them acting en masse to pull back on consumption, cease supporting the structures which pillage the planet and their poorer brethren overseas, I'll believe they're dinkum.’

Well, I for one am glad that women a hundred years ago decided not to defer the fight for equality until they had made life better for people in poorer countries. If they had, no doubt we’d still be chained to the kitchen sink and having a baby every year.