Another shooting incident. An enraged, delusional or just angry
spouse killing his wife and her co-workers and other innocent bystanders. It just
happened this past week. But that does not make for an unusual week.
Meanwhile we have male candidates for the United States
Senate who state they will outlaw abortion even in the case of rape. Either because
pregnancy does not result from rape because of miraculous female powers. Or because
the pregnancy is “God’s will.”
The latest bozo to
make this type of proclamation, Murdoch in Indiana, says he has struggled to come to
this conclusion about God’s will. I suppose
his thinking process has been a struggle. But I don’t imagine he has struggled
as much or in the same way as a woman pregnant from rape has struggled.
I have no problem with Murdoch or Todd Aiken, the Missouri candidate who believes
in miraculous sperm-killing vaginas, having their own opinions. Or their religious
beliefs of any kind. So long as their beliefs do not impact other folks who do
not have the same beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to impose their
non-science-based opinions on the rest of us.
Meanwhile, men have been running the United States for its entire
history. And men have overwhelmingly been in control of most governments around
the world since men began to write history. I know, that’s why it’s called “his
story.”
Think about the facts. Helen of Troy notwithstanding, men
start wars. Gun violence in this country overwhelming is propagated by males.
Most violent crimes, rape, murder and mayhem, included, are perpetrated by men.
Men are about ten times more likely than women to commit
murder. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics homicide trends (1976-2005),
the vast majority of murders (felony, 93.2%: sex related,93.6%; drug related,
95.5%; workplace 91.3%; gun homicides, 91.%; multiple victims, 91.5%; multiple
offenders, 91.6%) are committed by men. Rapes, violent robberies, assaults and
mayhem overwhelmingly are committed by men.
When is
the last time you read or heard of a disgruntled 58 year old “loner” female who
decides to go on a gun shooting spree? Or a 20 year old schizophrenic woman
shooting up a mosque, a movie theater or a market filled with families?
Occasionally
a new mother with post-partum depression goes off the deep end and tries to
kill herself. Maybe even her child. But she doesn’t try to take out the whole
neighborhood. And violent women of any stripe are still an anomaly. Despite some claims of a phenomenon of
increasing numbers of “mean girls,” factual analysis demonstrates crime and
violence among girls has plummeted. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/opinion/02males.html?_r=1
And also consider this factoid: men are no longer necessary to the
continuation of the human species. Greg
Hampikian, a professor of biology, and, incidentally, also of criminal justice,
asks, “...does ‘mankind’ really need men?” His answer to that question is a
resounding “no.” However, without women our species would be a goner. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html
As the author points
out, women not only are “necessary but sufficient for reproduction, and men are
neither.”
So why are men making most of the decisions for the entire
human population? Why are they toting the guns, deciding whom to bomb, and when
and how to go to war?
Not for any rational reason. Women would be much more
judicious in their use of force if statistical and past behavior is any
predictor. Women also are more likely to look out for the family, the community,
the rest of our species.
Consider a few examples. Women who are given control of
family finances put their families, not their self interest first. For example, in third world countries where
families are living in extreme poverty, it’s not uncommon for many of the men to
squander the little money they have on alcohol or drugs rather than food and
education for their families.
I doubt Nicholas Kristof ever
advocated giving loaded guns to women. Nevertheless, he has written of a
number of cases in which a family’s prospects turn around when women, given
micro-loans or participate in micro-savings, are suddenly in charge of the
family’s finances.
In an example he gives from Pakistan, a woman, whose husband had
spent the family savings on narcotics and regularly beat her, started a number
of businesses, one of which employed her husband. She then bought a home, and “put some of her children through high school — and a son,
the brightest student, through college. She has just paid $5,800 for a permit
for him to move to London
to take a health sector job.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14kristof.html
In
a Kenya slum, where some estimate one third of the men spend what would feed
and finance their children’s schooling, instead get drunk every night, a mother
forced into prostitution by the husband who took a younger wife, turned her
family’s prospects around by starting a sewing business. She then bought her
family a small home and kept her two daughters and son in school where they
excelled. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/opinion/kristof-sewing-her-way-out-of-poverty.html
You may think these are just anecdotes. But science supports
that women’s responses to stress are not the same “fight or flight” often
attributed to our species. Women’s responses instead appear to be “tend and
befriend.” And that difference is based
in female vs. male biology.
Women are inherently more concerned, both through body
function and hormones (oxytocin creates bonding) with the greater good,
protection of the family, the community and the species.
As the scientists found:
“…oxytocin, one of a cascade of hormones released in response
to stress, appeared to play a central role in females’ response. Studies have
linked oxytocin, which is produced during childbirth and nursing, both with
maternal behavior and with social affiliation. And animals and people with high
oxytocin levels, researchers have found are calmer, more social and less
anxious.”
So why should women allow men to continue to call the shots,
literally and figuratively? My modest proposal is that all weapons and
decisions on dangerous armaments be handed over to the “fairer” sex around the
world.
No, I’m not advocating women shoot all the men. Or that all
women have guns. Rather my proposal is that women collectively take over
control of weaponry. Together they can delegate gun toting and other weapons
control and decisions to calm, trained peace officers. All of whom will be
female.
The next time a man beats his wife, rapes a woman, or tries
to start a war, a woman will be in control of the weapons, whether that means
holding the gun to bring the offender to justice or having their finger on
the red button as the peace is negotiated.
I know this sounds a tad like an early “Star Trek” episode.
The one where William Shatner is surrounded by beautiful Amazon women who have
locked away most of the men and turned them into helpless
slaves kept for the she-leader’s amusement and sexual gratification.
Locking away the men is not what I’m proposing. The men in charge currently have done a good
enough job of that to a disproportionate number of their own kind. I’m just
suggesting men no longer be in control of weaponry. They have amply
demonstrated many of them are not suited to the responsibility.
So next time weapons are to be wielded who do you want doing
the wielding, someone with testosterone, the hormone often associated with
aggression, coursing though his bloodstream in response to stress? Or a woman
who is more likely to have oxytocin predominating in response to stress?
By the way, we may need biometric controls on the weaponry so
that only females or persons with a preponderance of oxytocin are able fire
that weapon.
NOTE: The author would not choose a world without men. She
has many wonderful men in her life, including a loving husband of so many years
she has lost count, two beautiful, strong and intelligent grown sons, a handsome
and talented grandson (not to mention a beautiful and smart granddaughter) and
also an amazing brother whom she is proud to call a best friend. I haven’t
asked them, but I suspect they all would be happy to turn over any gun-toting
obligations to responsible women.
