anarchonomicon.com
10,000 word long-take I wrote on the history of female warriors, North European human Sacrifice rituals, Girardian mimetic selection, and the incompatibility of the west's current conceptions of Freedom and women's liberation.
What occured in the forests of Germany and on the Eurasian steppe for 1000s of years was one of the most extreme experiments in selective breeding and selective killing practised anywhere on earth. The Aztec and Maya were the only ones with a ritual breeding/killing program so extreme
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I really have to say: a man wrote this.
Won't sleep with any man who asks: frigid prude Protestant schoolmarm Will sleep with any man who asks: BDSM slave girl (Gor, I hear you calling!)
This is a male idea of female psychology. Why would women prefer death to slavery, he wonders. Well gee, could it be that being a slave in the house of your conqueror, with his legitimate wife and family over you, was a pretty shitty experience? At the best, grinding hard labour for life. At the worst, she goes all Clytemnestra on you.
Why would women go along with the idea of sacrificing themselves? Well, why do men? Why did men think a glorious death in battle was better than being a coward? Why better a dead lion than a live dog? Why the idea that dying in bed in old age was the worst fate of all?
If you're soaking in the attitudes of your culture and society all your life, you'll adopt them. The pretty slave girls who didn't leap up and volunteer survived, but the status went to the girl who did. Same with the warrior.
As to the rest of it, that there was only one pretty girl per generation and all the other women were ugly, in the ritual sacrifice societies, I have to laugh at that. Oh yeah, Miss Universe is the one pretty girl who wins the contest and all the other girls are uggos. Ritual sacrifice societies also permitted or winked at giving substitutes - maybe you provided a slave, or bought a child off a poor family, instead of your own child. Maybe in time you substituted animals, or symbolic sacrifices. The Aztecs were bloody maniacs because they sincerely believed that the world would end without the shedding of blood to maintain the weakened gods and enable them to keep creation going. They weren't sacrificing people for eugenic purposes. Sure, part of the flower wars was to keep subject and tributary chieftains weakened and subordinate, but they also needed vast amounts of bodies for sacrifice. And the end result was that they made themselves so hated, when the Spanish turned up, the other tribes supported them to bring down the Aztecs.
I don't agree with the Feral Aryan Blonde hypothesis, but I think you're missing a few key points.
Because the side that broke first would be ridden down and slaughtered, the survivors sold into slavery. In ancient warfare the vast majority of casualties were suffered in the rout, not in the battle. If your tribe is more courageous, then you'll win the battle, massacre the opposing men, and capture their women, thus propagating your courageous genes. Over time this results in more courage among men.
But not women. When the men are all wiped out and the women are hauled back to be second wives to the victors, they still reproduce. If anything, women are selected for being more cowardly. The most effective action for a woman in war is to calculate the best moment to flee or surrender to maximize her own chance of survival. The only time physical courage will increase a woman's reproductive fitness is if she has to protect her baby from a mountain lion, and that didn't happen very often after we wiped out the megafauna.
Courage among mammals is an essentially male phenomenon to increase reproductive fitness at the cost of safety. From an evolutionary standpoint that's an easy trade. Of course, in modern times that trend will naturally reverse. In a post-Malthusian world, courage is now anti-correlated with reproductive success. Modern wars are won by artillery from hundreds of miles away.
Why do you assume courage is or can be a purely Y chromosome gene? Let's agree that it might be advantageous if it were, it still has to be.
No, it doesn't. Most of the genes that are activated only in men (e.g. the ones to build testes, or to synthesise dihydrotestosterone) aren't on the Y chromosome. They're switched on either directly by testis-determining factor (the product of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome) or indirectly by various other things downstream of it (e.g. testosterone levels).
Genes for the brain having different activation based on testosterone levels in gestation would be the obvious mechanism.
Ok you've added another mechanism, hypothetically, by which it could happen. That does not mean at all that it does. Many genetically determined values that are more advantageous in men or women are nonetheless determined by the genetics of both parents.
I mean, men are more aggressive and independently courageous than women, generally, and I'm pretty sure that's genetic, although I don't think I've ever seen a good study on that. Not that that's connected to the above argument, which is kinda weird.
More options
Context Copy link
I... think you might be misunderstanding me?
I'm agreeing that such genes would be passed down from both parents. Genes for how to build a penis are present in women, and can be passed down from grandfather through mother to son (or great-grandfather through grandmother and mother to son). It's just that in the mother, those genes aren't active. (There are a few genes relating to spermatogenesis that are directly on the Y chromosome and cannot be inherited through women, but not that many - and obviously, every gene that only affects women is also present in men.)
There are quite a lot of genes that are turned on and off by the sex of the individual they reside in.
(Oh, forgot another plausible means; same structure built, but activated more in men by hormone levels "at runtime".)
And, well, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but "men take more physical risks" is not exactly controversial; there's a reason we're the vast majority of blue-collar criminals.
You hypothesize without proof.
Equally likely is that sex and hormones accentuate a trait in one sex.
Height works this way. A tall mother with both sons and daughters will, cetetis paribus, have sons taller than her daughters. But the sons and daughters of a tall mother will be taller than the sons and daughters of a short mother respectively (ceteris paribus).
Similarly, courage may be more present in the male than in the female offspring of a brave mother, but present in both in greater measure than in the offspring of a cowardly mother.
This would more match the folk wisdom of a Herodotus or a Tacitus, and most folk-genetics as they existed up to modernity.
You're demanding I prove someone else's claim? No, I won't. There is a reason I haven't made positive claims about the central point here, and that's that HBD is not my area of expertise. You said something specific which didn't understand biology well on a level even I could spot, and I pointed that out. I have no obligation to defend others' points about which I'm agnostic myself; go demand proof from them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link