Were most men killed off 7000 years ago?

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,327
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Well, I guess he doesn't go for the reproductive advantage of elites over centuries, or never inhabited areas, population crashes, plague, etc. occurring prior to or at the same time as migrations to explain the bottleneck in y lineages, and hearkens back to the old, they just exterminated each other, even within "ethnic" groups, until only a few lines were left.

You could get whiplash from the swings in interpretation. :)

See:
https://www.archaeology.org/news/6672-180607-male-gene-bottleneck


"[FONT=arial-black_b]Did Most Men Die Off 7,000 Years Ago?[/FONT]


[COLOR=#707070 !important]Thursday, June 07, 2018[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#707070 !important]STANFORD, CALIFORNIA—Live Science reports that population geneticist Marcus Feldman of Stanford University has proposed a new explanation for the population bottleneck between 5,000 to 7,000 years ago detected in the genes of modern men, which suggest that during this stretch, there was just one male for every 17 females. Feldman and his team conducted 18 simulations that took into account factors such as Y chromosome mutations, competition between groups, and death. The study suggests that warfare among people living in clans made up of males from the same line of descent could have wiped out entire male lineages and decreased the diversity of the Y chromosome. In this scenario, there are not dramatically fewer males, but there was significantly less diversity in their genes. “In that same group, the women could have come from anywhere,” Feldman said. The study found no bottleneck in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to child. “[The women] would’ve been brought into the group from either the victories that they had over other groups, or they could’ve been females who were residing in that area before,” he said, since the victorious male warriors may have killed all the men they conquered, but kept the women alive and assimilated them. "

Absolutely horrifying if true, of course. Boy, women's studies professors are going to have a field day with this one.

See also:

[/COLOR]
https://www.livescience.com/62754-warring-clans-caused-population-bottleneck.html
 
Well, I guess he doesn't go for the reproductive advantage of elites over centuries, or never inhabited areas, population crashes, plague, etc. occurring prior to or at the same time as migrations to explain the bottleneck in y lineages, and hearkens back to the old, they just exterminated each other, even within "ethnic" groups, until only a few lines were left.

You could get whiplash from the swings in interpretation. :)

See:
https://www.archaeology.org/news/6672-180607-male-gene-bottleneck


"[FONT=arial-black_b]Did Most Men Die Off 7,000 Years Ago?[/FONT]


[COLOR=#707070 !important]Thursday, June 07, 2018[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#707070 !important]STANFORD, CALIFORNIA—Live Science reports that population geneticist Marcus Feldman of Stanford University has proposed a new explanation for the population bottleneck between 5,000 to 7,000 years ago detected in the genes of modern men, which suggest that during this stretch, there was just one male for every 17 females. Feldman and his team conducted 18 simulations that took into account factors such as Y chromosome mutations, competition between groups, and death. The study suggests that warfare among people living in clans made up of males from the same line of descent could have wiped out entire male lineages and decreased the diversity of the Y chromosome. In this scenario, there are not dramatically fewer males, but there was significantly less diversity in their genes. “In that same group, the women could have come from anywhere,” Feldman said. The study found no bottleneck in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to child. “[The women] would’ve been brought into the group from either the victories that they had over other groups, or they could’ve been females who were residing in that area before,” he said, since the victorious male warriors may have killed all the men they conquered, but kept the women alive and assimilated them. "

Absolutely horrifying if true, of course. Boy, women's studies professors are going to have a field day with this one.

See also:

[/COLOR]
https://www.livescience.com/62754-warring-clans-caused-population-bottleneck.html

I think this is especially applicable to my great great paternal ancestor Mr. I1a. 99% of his ancestor’s lineages which lived and spread across Europe for 25,000 years all died off leaving him with over 300 unique SNPs.
 
This is of extreme interest. But warring clans somehow doesn't intuitively make sense to account for such an extreme. 1 male for every 17 females!

Maybe the science and simulations behind the warring clans scenario are solid, but something about it just seems wrong intuitively.

Very mysterious.
 
This is of extreme interest. But warring clans somehow doesn't intuitively make sense to account for such an extreme. 1 male for every 17 females!

Maybe the science and simulations behind the warring clans scenario are solid, but something about it just seems wrong intuitively.

Very mysterious.

Put in that way it's rather extraordinary, isn't it?

I mean, this doesn't necessarily just apply to Bronze Age people either, although I'm sure that with better technology it's easier to do some exterminating. The level of violence one can see on remains from certain periods in that era is pretty spectacular.

There was some bottle-necking of lineages in the Neolithic as well. A large majority of them were G2a. Then, although the same autosomally, a lot of them were I2a.

It happened in Africa as well.

Perhaps a feature of the male of the species as well, I'm afraid to say.

Probably would have been a feature of hunter-gatherers, as well, had they had the numbers and the technology to carry it off.
 
Doesn’t seem like there would be a lot of discretionary free time to go fighting if you had 17 wives and 100 kids to worry about ;)
 
@mwauthy

If the figures are right, then your I1 ancestors did indeed put up a good fight. Because :
- if it had been an epidemic, the women would have died too.
- then it had to be warfare. If the newcomers had numbers on their side (imagine a ratio of two to one), and only one man in, say, 16, was left alive, then each "local" must have killed two men before he died himself.
 
First of all, taking warfare as the main cause of this lineage extinction for granted, killing was probably not the only way these male lines died off. Yes, many would have been killed, but others were probably enslaved and not allowed to reproduce and many women were probably taken away. All these would not allow many men from the losing sides to reproduce. A minor effect could have been played by the selective advantages of the new ruling clans in terms of wealth and status.

But I don't think epidemics can be excluded. We're talking about male lineage clans, so the males stay but the women often marry off into other clans. That means y-dna was diverse among clans but mtdna was diverse within them too. So if epidemics wiped off many clans, their y-dna would have disappeared but their mtdnas might have survived through the women of this clan who married into other ones. And we know that epidemics are almost always present in war-driven long migrations.

So if that 1/17 really did happen it was probably a combination of all of these factors.
 
First of all, taking warfare as the main cause of this lineage extinction for granted, killing was probably not the only way these male lines died off. Yes, many would have been killed, but others were probably enslaved and not allowed to reproduce and many women were probably taken away. All these would not allow many men from the losing sides to reproduce. A minor effect could have been played by the selective advantages of the new ruling clans in terms of wealth and status.
But I don't think epidemics can be excluded. We're talking about male lineage clans, so the males stay but the women often marry off into other clans. That means y-dna was diverse among clans but mtdna was diverse within them too. So if epidemics wiped off many clans, their y-dna would have disappeared but their mtdnas might have survived through the women of this clan who married into other ones. And we know that epidemics are almost always present in war-driven long migrations.
So if that 1/17 really did happen it was probably a combination of all of these factors.
I agree, the only observation is a bottleneck in Y-DNA, and not in mtDNA.
The rest is speculation.

And if you go back in time, and watch the Y-DNA pedigree, there are a few more odd things.
Like the starlike expansions of both hap C & E at the same time, 48.8 ka, which coincides with the invention of blade tools, replacing flake tools all over Eurasia.
Also the starlike expansion of hap K 45.4 ka is worth studying.
Another thing is the replacement of hap C1a by hap I in Europe, or the same in southeast Asia where hap O became dominant.
Many more examples of replacements or starlike expansions can be given, not only in the 5-7 ka timeframe.

I agree that in general, the structure of the Y-pedigree looks totally different from the structure of the mtDNA pedigree, and I guess much of it has to do with testosterone.
 
This started in the Chalcolithic then, it had to do with metals.

The emergence of metallurgy may have occurred first in the Fertile Crescent. The earliest use of lead is documented here from the late Neolithic settlement of Yarim Tepe in Iraq,
"The earliest lead (Pb) finds in the ancient Near East are a 6th millennium BC bangle from Yarim Tepe in northern Iraq and a slightly later conical lead piece from Halaf period Arpachiyah, near Mosul.[6] As native lead is extremely rare, such artifacts raise the possibility that lead smelting may have begun even before copper smelting."

Copper smelting is also documented at this site at about the same time period (soon after 6000 BC), although the use of lead seems to precede copper smelting. Early metallurgy is also documented at the nearby site of Tell Maghzaliyah, which seems to be dated even earlier, and completely lacks pottery.

That's why we have Zagross Chalcolithic ancestry spreading everywhere.
 
Doesn’t seem like there would be a lot of discretionary free time to go fighting if you had 17 wives and 100 kids to worry about ;)

Not if the wives and older children took care of the rest, and the grandmothers, aunties, and female cousins lent a hand. Would have practically run itself. The father and his older sons just had to provide meat and skins, apart from protecting them from, and going on raids (to steal cattle and women). Most of the foraging would have been done by the women and children.

If male mating patterns are similar to other primates, then a select number of males ("alpha" males) dominated most of the females. Some males might have had 30 wives, while others had one or none. A "king" could have a hundred wives. The bottleneck was less a matter of males losing in war as losing in love, if you will. They might have survived, but their lineages didn't.

All the same, there was an age-old tradition of killing all of the adult males of a vanquished foe, while enslaving the females and children, something even the Greeks did with some regularity right up to classical times (read Herodotus). After a battle, it was common to kill the enemies' wounded. That would cut a lot of y-DNA lineages short. MtDNA, not nearly as much.
 
Not if the wives and older children took care of the rest, and the grandmothers, aunties, and female cousins lent a hand. Would have practically run itself. The father and his older sons just had to provide meat and skins, apart from protecting them from, and going on raids (to steal cattle and women). Most of the foraging would have been done by the women and children.

If male mating patterns are similar to other primates, then a select number of males ("alpha" males) dominated most of the females. Some males might have had 30 wives, while others had one or none. A "king" could have a hundred wives. The bottleneck was less a matter of males losing in war as losing in love, if you will. They might have survived, but their lineages didn't.

All the same, there was an age-old tradition of killing all of the adult males of a vanquished foe, while enslaving the females and children, something even the Greeks did with some regularity right up to classical times (read Herodotus). After a battle, it was common to kill the enemies' wounded. That would cut a lot of y-DNA lineages short. MtDNA, not nearly as much.

Our history is ridiculous, what were the females reaction to all of this ? your tribe and husband killed and then you become the property of an alpha male master who rapes you whenever he desired. hahahaha

Were the women really such static and passive actors in all of this ?
 
This started in the Chalcolithic then, it had to do with metals.

The emergence of metallurgy may have occurred first in the Fertile Crescent. The earliest use of lead is documented here from the late Neolithic settlement of Yarim Tepe in Iraq,
"The earliest lead (Pb) finds in the ancient Near East are a 6th millennium BC bangle from Yarim Tepe in northern Iraq and a slightly later conical lead piece from Halaf period Arpachiyah, near Mosul.[6] As native lead is extremely rare, such artifacts raise the possibility that lead smelting may have begun even before copper smelting."

Copper smelting is also documented at this site at about the same time period (soon after 6000 BC), although the use of lead seems to precede copper smelting. Early metallurgy is also documented at the nearby site of Tell Maghzaliyah, which seems to be dated even earlier, and completely lacks pottery.

That's why we have Zagross Chalcolithic ancestry spreading everywhere.

This made me think of the structure of haplogroup J2, its full of bottlenecks, most of them expand in the metal age:

J-M205 , +110 snp's , TMRCA = 6000 ybp.
J-L283 , +61 snp's , TMRCA = 6000 ybp.
J-PF4993, +35 snp's , TMRCA = 5800 ybp.
J-Y14434, +29 snp's , TMRCA = 4700 ybp.
J-Z7308, +33 snp's , TMRCA = 6400 ybp.
J-L1064, +86 snp's , TMRCA = 5100 ybp.
J-L70, +36 snp's , TMRCA = 3800 ybp.
J-Y17949, +12 snp's , TMRCA = 5200 ybp.
J-L192, +11 snp's , TMRCA = 5600 ybp.
J-YP879, +57 snp's , TMRCA = 4600 ybp.
J-M47, +73 snp's , TMRCA = 4700 ybp.
J-Y8344, +56 snp's , TMRCA = 5200 ybp.
J-Y5009, +43 snp's , TMRCA = 6400 ybp.
J-Y20889, +61 snp's , TMRCA = 3500 ybp.
J-Y15913, +63 snp's , TMRCA = 3400 ybp.
J-Z6271, +34 snp's , TMRCA = 5700 ybp.
J-L210, +100 snp's , TMRCA = 5200 ybp.
J-M92, +39 snp's , TMRCA = 7900 ybp.
J-V2639, +77 snp's , TMRCA = 3000 ybp.
J-Y3612, +27 snp's , TMRCA = 4100 ybp.
 
Our history is ridiculous, what were the females reaction to all of this ? your tribe and husband killed and then you become the property of an alpha male master who rapes you whenever he desired. hahahaha

Were the women really such static and passive actors in all of this ?

I don't find anything funny about it. Nor can I believe anyone would seriously ask such a question, frankly.

That's the history of the world, in case this has escaped you somehow. Just what were they supposed to do? Their men couldn't kill the invaders, or protect them, either by force of numbers, or plague or whatever, but they were supposed to do it? There weren't women walking around in these periods with judo or weapons training. Just what do you think has been going on in Syria and other parts of the Middle East. The female Kurish soldiers are a complete exception.

Hollywood is full of garbage about all of this too. The best female tennis player would have a very difficult time beating the best male tennis player. You'd have to be built like the Williams sisters to have a shot. A woman can take all the judo and martial arts training in the world. Against an untrained, weak man she can overpower him. Against a larger man, equally trained? Not a chance.

". Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, "They are afraid women will laugh at them."

When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, "We're afraid of being killed."

If you ask a woman what she is afraid of and what she does to protect herself, she'll give you a list of specifics. Ask a man the same question, and he might not understand what you mean.

While we were working on our documentary, we conducted an informal survey, asking that very question to men and women. Their answers were enlightening. Typically, women were afraid of physical violence or they were afraid for their children's safety."



[SIZE=-1]"I worry sometimes that I might get attacked or something by some guy because I run in the morning and it's always real dark. I got a dog, so that I can run with him, and I also carry mace on me now when I run."

"I'm most afraid of being attacked by a man, especially if I'm out jogging or riding my bike or walking. I don't go out alone at night. I used to run with headphones on and I don't do that anymore so that I can be aware of what's going on around me."


"I'm always afraid in a situation where there's somebody that could overpower me easily. I lock my doors, park in lighted areas, don't run in dark areas."


For women, the fears are specific. Men, on the other hand, tended to be more afraid of failure or being humiliated.


"I'm most afraid of being stupid."


"Failure is the dominant fear in my life."


"Making the wrong decision and having to live with it."


"I think I'm most afraid of an overall loss of control."

[/SIZE]https://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/articles/nightmare.html[SIZE=-1]

This is the reality in 21st century America.

That's one of the reasons I agreed when my daughter got a part Rottweiler. She runs late at night sometimes, or early in the morning. That dog is always going to go with her, or when she goes to the market at night or whatever. That's also why I made sure she got martial arts training from the time she was a child. With a lot of men, it would help. She also carries pepper spray and a whistle in her purse. I drummed it into her head not to go in a guy's car by herself unless she knows him really well, never to drink from a class she's put down at a bar, to ask some man she knows well to walk her to her car if it's dark. This is second nature to us. You don't even have to think about it.

The world in the Bronze Age was worse by an infinite order of magnitude. Maybe you think they should have committed suicide, or provoked them to kill them? Given my personality, I certainly would have considered it, but a lot of people just want to live. Then, what if there were children who might be spared if you succumbed peacefully?


What do you think happened throughout history when a city was attacked and sacked?

"The attackers killed all the men and then raped all the women.

"
[/SIZE] [FONT=&quot]And they warred against the Midianites, as the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord[/FONT][FONT=&quot] commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.[/FONT]

11 [FONT=&quot]And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts."

[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]You think it happened only in the distant past? What do you think "The Rape of Nanking" was about? What do you think happened in East Germany when the Russians arrived? They raped every "woman" from 10 to 70. In some cases it happened over and over again. If the women were hidden, they would threaten to burn down the buildings. The Russian authorities had to open up abortion clinics, where many of the women died, because they didn't want to have to deal with all the unwanted children.

I think some remedial reading of history, and anthropology too, is in order.

I sometimes wish some of you younger guys could walk around in our shoes for a while, or work with a special victims unit, or in war-torn areas. It might change your world view.
[/SIZE]
 
I don't find anything funny about it. Nor can I believe anyone would seriously ask such a question, frankly.

That's the history of the world, in case this has escaped you somehow. Just what were they supposed to do? Their men couldn't kill the invaders, or protect them, either by force of numbers, or plague or whatever, but they were supposed to do it? There weren't women walking around in these periods with judo or weapons training. Just what do you think has been going on in Syria and other parts of the Middle East. The female Kurish soldiers are a complete exception.

Hollywood is full of garbage about all of this too. The best female tennis player would have a very difficult time beating the best male tennis player. You'd have to be built like the Williams sisters to have a shot. A woman can take all the judo and martial arts training in the world. Against an untrained, weak man she can overpower him. Against a larger man, equally trained? Not a chance.

". Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, "They are afraid women will laugh at them."

When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, "We're afraid of being killed."

If you ask a woman what she is afraid of and what she does to protect herself, she'll give you a list of specifics. Ask a man the same question, and he might not understand what you mean.

While we were working on our documentary, we conducted an informal survey, asking that very question to men and women. Their answers were enlightening. Typically, women were afraid of physical violence or they were afraid for their children's safety."



[SIZE=-1]"I worry sometimes that I might get attacked or something by some guy because I run in the morning and it's always real dark. I got a dog, so that I can run with him, and I also carry mace on me now when I run."

"I'm most afraid of being attacked by a man, especially if I'm out jogging or riding my bike or walking. I don't go out alone at night. I used to run with headphones on and I don't do that anymore so that I can be aware of what's going on around me."


"I'm always afraid in a situation where there's somebody that could overpower me easily. I lock my doors, park in lighted areas, don't run in dark areas."


For women, the fears are specific. Men, on the other hand, tended to be more afraid of failure or being humiliated.


"I'm most afraid of being stupid."


"Failure is the dominant fear in my life."


"Making the wrong decision and having to live with it."


"I think I'm most afraid of an overall loss of control."

[/SIZE]https://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/articles/nightmare.html[SIZE=-1]

This is the reality in 21st century America.

That's one of the reasons I agreed when my daughter got a part Rottweiler. She runs late at night sometimes, or early in the morning. That dog is always going to go with her, or when she goes to the market at night or whatever. That's also why I made sure she got martial arts training from the time she was a child. With a lot of men, it would help. She also carries pepper spray and a whistle in her purse. I drummed it into her head not to go in a guy's car by herself unless she knows him really well, never to drink from a class she's put down at a bar, to ask some man she knows well to walk her to her car if it's dark. This is second nature to us. You don't even have to think about it.

The world in the Bronze Age was worse by an infinite order of magnitude. Maybe you think they should have committed suicide, or provoked them to kill them? Given my personality, I certainly would have considered it, but a lot of people just want to live. Then, what if there were children who might be spared if you succumbed peacefully?


What do you think happened throughout history when a city was attacked and sacked?

"The attackers killed all the men and then raped all the women.

"
[/SIZE] [FONT="]And they warred against the Midianites, as the [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="]Lord[/FONT][FONT="] commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="]8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.[/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT=Arial][B]9 [/B][/FONT]And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.[/FONT]


11 [FONT="]And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts."

[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]You think it happened only in the distant past? What do you think "The Rape of Nanking" was about? What do you think happened in East Germany when the Russians arrived? They raped every "woman" from 10 to 70. In some cases it happened over and over again. If the women were hidden, they would threaten to burn down the buildings. The Russian authorities had to open up abortion clinics, where many of the women died, because they didn't want to have to deal with all the unwanted children.

I think some remedial reading of history, and anthropology too, is in order.

I sometimes wish some of you younger guys could walk around in our shoes for a while, or work with a special victims unit, or in war-torn areas. It might change your world view.
[/SIZE]

Then it is quite sad ....
 
Another waste of academic resources. Obviously the horse was domesticated 7000 years ago, arguably warfare was impossible without them.
 
I had no idea women fear those things the most, but Im a young male myself so I wouldn't know. I guessed they would have things like deadly illnesses, loss of a close friend or relative, or financial ruin at the top of their fear list. Im not saying you're wrong, just a bit surprised but it's good I'm aware of it now
 
Another waste of academic resources. Obviously the horse was domesticated 7000 years ago, arguably warfare was impossible without them.

It's been already shown by the Amerindian that you can have warfare on foot.
 
Another waste of academic resources. Obviously the horse was domesticated 7000 years ago, arguably warfare was impossible without them.
No need for a big fast running 1200lb animal to make war possible. The experts agree:
"War is waged by political entities, nations or, earlier, city states in order to resolve political or territorial disputes and are carried out on the battlefield by armies comprised of soldiers of the contending nations or by mercenaries paid by a government to wage battle."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/1-107/


 
I don't find anything funny about it. Nor can I believe anyone would seriously ask such a question, frankly.

That's the history of the world, in case this has escaped you somehow. Just what were they supposed to do? Their men couldn't kill the invaders, or protect them, either by force of numbers, or plague or whatever, but they were supposed to do it? There weren't women walking around in these periods with judo or weapons training. Just what do you think has been going on in Syria and other parts of the Middle East. The female Kurish soldiers are a complete exception.

Hollywood is full of garbage about all of this too. The best female tennis player would have a very difficult time beating the best male tennis player. You'd have to be built like the Williams sisters to have a shot. A woman can take all the judo and martial arts training in the world. Against an untrained, weak man she can overpower him. Against a larger man, equally trained? Not a chance.

". Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, "They are afraid women will laugh at them."

When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, "We're afraid of being killed."

If you ask a woman what she is afraid of and what she does to protect herself, she'll give you a list of specifics. Ask a man the same question, and he might not understand what you mean.

While we were working on our documentary, we conducted an informal survey, asking that very question to men and women. Their answers were enlightening. Typically, women were afraid of physical violence or they were afraid for their children's safety."



[SIZE=-1]"I worry sometimes that I might get attacked or something by some guy because I run in the morning and it's always real dark. I got a dog, so that I can run with him, and I also carry mace on me now when I run."

"I'm most afraid of being attacked by a man, especially if I'm out jogging or riding my bike or walking. I don't go out alone at night. I used to run with headphones on and I don't do that anymore so that I can be aware of what's going on around me."


"I'm always afraid in a situation where there's somebody that could overpower me easily. I lock my doors, park in lighted areas, don't run in dark areas."


For women, the fears are specific. Men, on the other hand, tended to be more afraid of failure or being humiliated.


"I'm most afraid of being stupid."


"Failure is the dominant fear in my life."


"Making the wrong decision and having to live with it."


"I think I'm most afraid of an overall loss of control."

[/SIZE]https://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/articles/nightmare.html[SIZE=-1]

This is the reality in 21st century America.

That's one of the reasons I agreed when my daughter got a part Rottweiler. She runs late at night sometimes, or early in the morning. That dog is always going to go with her, or when she goes to the market at night or whatever. That's also why I made sure she got martial arts training from the time she was a child. With a lot of men, it would help. She also carries pepper spray and a whistle in her purse. I drummed it into her head not to go in a guy's car by herself unless she knows him really well, never to drink from a class she's put down at a bar, to ask some man she knows well to walk her to her car if it's dark. This is second nature to us. You don't even have to think about it.

The world in the Bronze Age was worse by an infinite order of magnitude. Maybe you think they should have committed suicide, or provoked them to kill them? Given my personality, I certainly would have considered it, but a lot of people just want to live. Then, what if there were children who might be spared if you succumbed peacefully?


What do you think happened throughout history when a city was attacked and sacked?

"The attackers killed all the men and then raped all the women.

"
[/SIZE] [FONT="]And they warred against the Midianites, as the [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="]Lord[/FONT][FONT="] commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="]8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.[/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT=Arial][B]9 [/B][/FONT]And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.[/FONT]


11 [FONT="]And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts."

[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]You think it happened only in the distant past? What do you think "The Rape of Nanking" was about? What do you think happened in East Germany when the Russians arrived? They raped every "woman" from 10 to 70. In some cases it happened over and over again. If the women were hidden, they would threaten to burn down the buildings. The Russian authorities had to open up abortion clinics, where many of the women died, because they didn't want to have to deal with all the unwanted children.

I think some remedial reading of history, and anthropology too, is in order.

I sometimes wish some of you younger guys could walk around in our shoes for a while, or work with a special victims unit, or in war-torn areas. It might change your world view.
[/SIZE]

look at how the cold war worked :

no one did dare to destroy the other, as it also would have meant selfdestruction
 
Now I'll make all our liberal Europeans have a seizure: that's why if a woman has to work (God forbid, live) in a high crime, inner city area for some reason, carrying a gun (legally) is not at all a bad idea. It's the best equalizer there is.

You have to have a lot of serious training, obviously, so you know what you're doing. (Aim for his crotch is my motto if confronted by rapists: no problem with repeat rapists then.) You don't want George Zimmermans running around armed. The laws definitely need to be tightened to ensure people have the proper training.

Some people feel it's necessary in certain professions as well: men you've put in jail, husbands blaming you because their wives and children are gone and they went to jail for beating them to a pulp, etc.

Not so surprisingly, men are a lot more polite and cooperative if a woman police officer, or officer of the court, is armed.

Unfortunately, we didn't have these options in the Bronze Age, or any other age, for that matter.

All of this is in addition to the fact that in two out of three situations, the person inflicting the violence and sexual abuse on women is a family member, lover, or friend.

So, there you go.

And some people wonder why women so fear physical violence.
 

This thread has been viewed 37651 times.

Back
Top