Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation

[mane]

By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show, children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along with class stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. Thus there is a historical correlation between, on the one hand, pre-patriarchal society, primitive libertarian communism (or "work democracy," to use Reich's expression), economic equality, and sexual freedom, and on the other, patriarchal society, a private property economy, economic class stratification, and sexual repression. As Reich puts it:

By Annalee Newitz

Scientists in Norway have discovered that male-dominated societies are doomed to extinction. The way it happened was that somewhere at a university in Oslo, a bunch of researchers decided to perform a rather mean experiment on a bunch of lizards. They created a group of lizards whose population was three-quarters male, then another that was three-quarters female, and compared the behavior of both to a control group with gender balance. It turns out that when male lizards are in the majority, female lizards die younger, have fewer babies, and receive two to three times as many wounds from male lizards during the mating process. Over time, the population skews more and more male and shrinks precipitously. Eventually, the researchers speculate, a male-dominated lizard group would simply die out. They call this process an "extinction vortex." Female-dominated lizard groups, on the other hand, are models of happy cooperation, growing larger and flourishing over time.

Somehow this made me think of Maureen Dowd and her new book, "Are Men Necessary?" One of Dowd's basic ideas is that men aren't necessary to the reproduction of the species because women don't depend on them for anything crucial like financial support (most women have jobs) or making babies (that's what sperm banks are for). In addition, Dowd says, men aren't interested in high-powered career women like her anyway. "I think it's turned out that men … oftentimes would rather be with a woman who is in awe of them," she said on CNN during an interview.

Looked at from this perspective, homo sapiens is doomed. The more powerful women become, the less they'll want to have sex with men -- and the less men will want to have sex with them. What would our friends the lizards think about Dowd's scenario of a looming and dangerous indifference of the human sexes toward one another? Will female dominance among homo sapiens cause an extinction vortex? Or will female-dominated humans thrive, just like the female-dominated lizards did? Personally, I think we should conduct a series of experiments on humans to discover the answer. Instead of making women dominant in terms of population size -- the way the Norwegian scientists did with their lizards -- let's make women dominant by altering their biology. I'd like to see a band of radical biopunk feminists emerge who take Dowd's ideas one step further. Instead of saying that women have the same earning power as men and are therefore equal to them, why not build a new generation of women who are physically as big and strong as men?

Let's take genetic engineering into our own hands and eliminate the last of the differences between the sexes! OK, we'll keep the fun, "ice cream" differences that feel nice on warm nights. But with a little gene doping, we could have women whose upper-body strength is equal to men's and who run just as fast. We could manipulate women's hormones so that they only get their periods when they want. Same goes for getting pregnant. Suddenly, it would start to seem stupid that men and women don't compete against each other in sports events. And there would be absolutely no good reason to keep women out of infantry duty in the army. In truth, I think this is a great idea. What, exactly, would happen to sexism in a society where women could kick men's asses as often as men could kick women's?

What I'm afraid of is that precisely nothing would happen. There would be a lot of outraged editorials about how unnatural it all was. Then people would get used to it and go back to watching our male president -- who happens to be a lot smaller and less physically coordinated than many women -- tell his largely male staff and the largely male Congress that we're going to continue our war with another male-dominated society. I think biology is largely irrelevant when it comes to the battle of the sexes. Even if women don't need men to reproduce and bring them food anymore, men still dominate because they hold so much more political and social power than we do. That's why sometimes, when you're a feminist, it sucks not to be a lizard. At least lizards know why it's a bad idea to leave the men in charge

[prides]

By Annalee Newitz

Scientists in Norway have discovered that male-dominated societies are doomed to extinction. The way it happened was that somewhere at a university in Oslo, a bunch of researchers decided to perform a rather mean experiment on a bunch of lizards. They created a group of lizards whose population was three-quarters male, then another that was three-quarters female, and compared the behavior of both to a control group with gender balance. It turns out that when male lizards are in the majority, female lizards die younger, have fewer babies, and receive two to three times as many wounds from male lizards during the mating process. Over time, the population skews more and more male and shrinks precipitously. Eventually, the researchers speculate, a male-dominated lizard group would simply die out. They call this process an "extinction vortex." Female-dominated lizard groups, on the other hand, are models of happy cooperation, growing larger and flourishing over time.

Somehow this made me think of Maureen Dowd and her new book, "Are Men Necessary?" One of Dowd's basic ideas is that men aren't necessary to the reproduction of the species because women don't depend on them for anything crucial like financial support (most women have jobs) or making babies (that's what sperm banks are for). In addition, Dowd says, men aren't interested in high-powered career women like her anyway. "I think it's turned out that men … oftentimes would rather be with a woman who is in awe of them," she said on CNN during an interview.

Looked at from this perspective, homo sapiens is doomed. The more powerful women become, the less they'll want to have sex with men -- and the less men will want to have sex with them. What would our friends the lizards think about Dowd's scenario of a looming and dangerous indifference of the human sexes toward one another? Will female dominance among homo sapiens cause an extinction vortex? Or will female-dominated humans thrive, just like the female-dominated lizards did? Personally, I think we should conduct a series of experiments on humans to discover the answer. Instead of making women dominant in terms of population size -- the way the Norwegian scientists did with their lizards -- let's make women dominant by altering their biology. I'd like to see a band of radical biopunk feminists emerge who take Dowd's ideas one step further. Instead of saying that women have the same earning power as men and are therefore equal to them, why not build a new generation of women who are physically as big and strong as men?

Let's take genetic engineering into our own hands and eliminate the last of the differences between the sexes! OK, we'll keep the fun, "ice cream" differences that feel nice on warm nights. But with a little gene doping, we could have women whose upper-body strength is equal to men's and who run just as fast. We could manipulate women's hormones so that they only get their periods when they want. Same goes for getting pregnant. Suddenly, it would start to seem stupid that men and women don't compete against each other in sports events. And there would be absolutely no good reason to keep women out of infantry duty in the army. In truth, I think this is a great idea. What, exactly, would happen to sexism in a society where women could kick men's asses as often as men could kick women's?

What I'm afraid of is that precisely nothing would happen. There would be a lot of outraged editorials about how unnatural it all was. Then people would get used to it and go back to watching our male president -- who happens to be a lot smaller and less physically coordinated than many women -- tell his largely male staff and the largely male Congress that we're going to continue our war with another male-dominated society. I think biology is largely irrelevant when it comes to the battle of the sexes. Even if women don't need men to reproduce and bring them food anymore, men still dominate because they hold so much more political and social power than we do. That's why sometimes, when you're a feminist, it sucks not to be a lizard. At least lizards know why it's a bad idea to leave the men in charge

I'm not sure that the term 'exploitation' can be applied to anything except human interactions. I am sure that 'survival of the fittest' was the way 19th century European Imperials chose to interpret Darwin's 'natural selection' hypothesis -- and putting it just that way is one of the reason American Populists have feared and loathed "Darwinisim" from that day to this.

I think the thought experiment on aggressive females needs more thought. First of all, the "all-female society" you postulate exists in any number of species. Off-hand I can think of 5 species of highly intelligent and social matriarchal animals: Elephants, Sperm Whales, Lions, Hyenas, and one species of Baboon. In each case males are driven out of the group as they become sexually mature. But it is not the 'most aggressive' females who leave the most offspring. Basically, it's the 'most skillful mothers.' and only the female baboons assert dominance through aggression.

Nor does aggression guarantee the best reproductive success in male-dominated societies. With Chimpanzees, or example, alpha males sire most of the babies. However, the biggest, meanest, most aggressive males don't stay alphas very long. Chimps, like people are political creatures and form alliances. They assign status based on a number of characteristics, most of which involve some version of 'works and plays well with others.' A big chimp who cannot get along with other males soon faces an alliance of hostile rivals. One who is unsafe around babies is driven out by the females.

Getting back to people ... all we can really say about aggression and male dominence is: until very recently, women were too valuable as breeders to risk as fighters. When groups needed their fighters, warriors sired a lot of children -- one way or another. Under other circumstances ... sometimes it was the good singers. Or dreamers. Or organizers. Or descendents of good fighters. Whatever the women found attractive and useful.

[clan]

[...] Off-hand I can think of 5 species of highly intelligent and social matriarchal animals: Elephants, Sperm Whales, Lions, Hyenas, and one species of Baboon. In each case males are driven out of the group as they become sexually mature. [...]

Speaking of lions and hyenas, here it is an interesting video:

http://media.planetvids.com/pvids/Lions_Versus_Hyenas1.wmv

[broad]

Wow! Hee it is a video by NG regarding the Eternal Enemies, Lions and Hyenas.




Although we romanticize lions as mighty kings of the jungle, their reign is in fact a tenuous one. It is challenged daily in southern Africa by vicious packs of hyenas that compete for prey. Between the two species exists an ancient feud, and it unfolds in Eternal Enemies with all the drama of the warring Capulets and Montagues. Watch as lions bring down a zebra, only to be attacked themselves by a pack of hyenas that chases them into the trees. Glowering, the big cats watch as the thieves devour their dinner. Days later the lions exact revenge, killing the hyena leader but leaving her uneaten as a warning to the rest of the clan. Other scenes in this video are equally impressive, including life inside a hyena den--which captures the sounds of lions growling outside--and a tense encounter between a snake-bitten lioness and a pack of hyenas. With its gripping story line, Eternal Enemies is a standout among animal documentaries. -- Demian McLean

Trek into the hidden battlefields of northern Botswana where lions and spotted hyenas clash in overlapping territories. With never-before-seen footage, much of it filmed at night, you'll uncover an intense and vicious blood feud that has been waged for millennia. Follow the Southern Clan, led by a powerful hyena matriarch whose firstborn female cub kills her sister at birth to assure her succession as leader of the clan. Lurk in the shadows as a lioness from the Central Pride gives birth to three cubs and then encounters a deadly Egyptian cobra. You'll be stunned by breathtaking chase scenes as the hyena matriarch is brutally killed by a male lion, throwing the clan into chaos. Discover nature's savage conflicts in this ancient rivalry between ETERNAL ENEMIES: LIONS AND HYENAS.

And while we've all heard about the lion in details, hyena is a less known animal. Here it is what I found

Prey: Hyenas are both scavengers and hunters feeding on carcasses, killed or scavenged, and utilize every part of the body including bone. They will even pursue young, weak, diseased, injured, or dead prey. Hyenas are clearly carnivores and will eat just about anything. Some of their most common prey include wildebeest, gazelle, zebra, rhinocerous, and other ungulates.



Hunting: Hunting occurs either alone or in packs led by their female leader. For specific prey, zebra for example, clan members will purposely hunt together to ensure success. The problem with this strategy is that whenever two or three hyenas feed on a carcass, competition and squabbling is inevitable, attracting other pack members as well as other competitors such as lions to the prey. If there is competion amidst hyenas, females most always win because they bigger and more aggressive. Hunting is usually done at night though they do occasionally hunt during the day. They hunt down their prey at speeds of up to 60 km/hr and kill their prey by disembowelling them. When around carcasses, in fights, and attacking prey, they scream, giggle, whoop, laugh, growl and snarl explaining why they are known as the "laughing hyena." Usually, females leave the kill site and eat away from the kill. They have even been known to cache food underwater. One hyena can eat up to 14.5 kg. per meal and digest bones, horns, hooves and even teeth within twenty-four hours.



Predation: The hyena's biggest predator is the lion. Lions and Spotted Hyenas are often engaged in a power struggle. The male lion will even occasionally go out of their way to kill clan matriarchs since hyenas are major predators of lion cubs. Curiously, Lions and hyenas will put up boundaries against each other as they would against members of their same species and threaten each other at the borders with snarls, roars, urine, and paste. Lioncrusher's Domain support this unique rivalry between lions and hyenas but further propose that lions steal more hyena kills than the reverse. Randall L. Eaton did a study in 1979 on the relationship between the spotted hyena and several of their competitors including the lion, leopard, cheetah, and wild dog. He found that between equal size groups, lions win more than 95% of the encounters and initiated about 70% of them. Groups of hyenas can win against a single lion, especially if the lion is female. The majority of competitive interactions are for food, and aggression is more prevalet than predation. Another thing that makes the relationship between lions and hyenas so interesting is that lions rarely eat the hyenas they attack and kill. There seems to be no apparent benefit of lions attacking and killing hyenas. As for the spoted hyena's other competitors, the hyena, especially if in groups, is rarely dominated and can successfully steal their food. An interesting fact about hyenas in regard to humans: in many African societies, because of its ghostly whooping call and nocturnal ways the hyena is regarded as a witch or an evil spirit.

[even]

One hyena can eat up to 14.5 kg. per meal and digest bones, horns, hooves and even teeth within twenty-four hours.

I'm not surprised! Snakes, when snakes eat animals who have bones (or humans like a baby or small child) they completely digest all of their bones. The interesting thing is that hair isn't digested. Because snakes don't produce urine like mammals do, they convert their nitrogenous waste into insoluble uric acid crystals. So, a snake pellet will be composed of fur, and white powder, which will partly be bone but will also be uric acid crystals.

[sesi]

Wow! Hee it is a video by NG regarding the Eternal Enemies, Lions and Hyenas.




Although we romanticize lions as mighty kings of the jungle, their reign is in fact a tenuous one. It is challenged daily in southern Africa by vicious packs of hyenas that compete for prey. Between the two species exists an ancient feud, and it unfolds in Eternal Enemies with all the drama of the warring Capulets and Montagues. Watch as lions bring down a zebra, only to be attacked themselves by a pack of hyenas that chases them into the trees. Glowering, the big cats watch as the thieves devour their dinner. Days later the lions exact revenge, killing the hyena leader but leaving her uneaten as a warning to the rest of the clan. Other scenes in this video are equally impressive, including life inside a hyena den--which captures the sounds of lions growling outside--and a tense encounter between a snake-bitten lioness and a pack of hyenas. With its gripping story line, Eternal Enemies is a standout among animal documentaries. -- Demian McLean

Trek into the hidden battlefields of northern Botswana where lions and spotted hyenas clash in overlapping territories. With never-before-seen footage, much of it filmed at night, you'll uncover an intense and vicious blood feud that has been waged for millennia. Follow the Southern Clan, led by a powerful hyena matriarch whose firstborn female cub kills her sister at birth to assure her succession as leader of the clan. Lurk in the shadows as a lioness from the Central Pride gives birth to three cubs and then encounters a deadly Egyptian cobra. You'll be stunned by breathtaking chase scenes as the hyena matriarch is brutally killed by a male lion, throwing the clan into chaos. Discover nature's savage conflicts in this ancient rivalry between ETERNAL ENEMIES: LIONS AND HYENAS.

This is without question the most violent, horrific animal documentary I have ever seen; the fight for survival between the lions and hyenas is brutal, but goes beyond fighting over food, to actual territorial warfare. The cruelty shown in this footage should not be seen by children, but is extremely educational for those who have the stomach for it.

It is a matriarchal society, where the males are smaller, and their role in the pack quite marginal. The females also have the appearance of hermaphrodites, and engage in "mock mating", caught on film here for the first time. We also witness their habit of fratricide, where the most powerful of the young will kill its weaker brother or sister. The ferocity of the hyenas, coupled with their "laughing" sounds, make these scavengers truly "the horrors of the night".

[Uranus9]

It is indeed a stunning, riveting, enlightening documentary and -- for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear -- a commentary on our (U.S.) culture.

[Patricia]

Lions and Spotted Hyenas are often engaged in a power struggle. The male lion will even occasionally go out of their way to kill clan matriarchs since hyenas are major predators of lion cubs.

Just like these alien predators:

http://www.predatoryaliens.com/

[E e y o r e]

 

[mr. big]

Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all

Chorus:
So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The Internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal
Unites the human race

Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one Earth on which to live

And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
We defy their guns and shields
When we fight, provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by like and love
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above