Propensity of men to violence
An important issue related to violence - violence and sexual relationship began. The question is not whether the violence is not universal, and the male trait, the result of patriarchy? It may be that men are violent and women are meek? Perhaps the masculine identical to the concept of violence, and the feminine - the concept of meekness? Now like to hear at every turn. It is believed that, to cope with the dictates of patriarchy and getting seats in the power structures of society and state, women will rid the world of wars and violence in general. Is this true?
For a number of epochs (why exactly - it is a separate conversation) men were physically stronger than women. This largely explains the tendency of men to violence through the use of physical force. In that case, if a woman tried to use physical violence against sex, it always ended in their defeat. Here, men sit on their skates. In this sense, the power of men and still attached to physical superiority. Until recently, most European countries, even non-existent law that prevents a woman, for example, by beating her husband. However, in recent years, physical violence has given way to psychological violence.
Propensity of men to violence plays a huge role in the sexual sphere. Man dominates a woman, not only because of their physical superiority, but also because of the anatomical structure of their genitals. Physically she is not able to rape a man. Therefore, women are often to a man means to satisfy sexual desires. However, this does not mean that women are more tolerant than men. Nature, or, if you will, God is denying women in physical strength, limiting it to sexual performance, so a woman in a perfectly mastered the art of psychological violence, ahead of this man.
Reducing the role of physical force in the modern world in proportion to the success that women are making in the fight of the sexes. Men believed Guggenbyul Craig, insulted and humiliated by women - mothers, wives, lovers, daughters - much more so than women who had been physically abused by men. As an example, he cites the fact that, where physical strength continues to play a significant role, particularly among the working class, men almost never have the fear of women, rather the contrary. The less valued in a particular environment physical strength, the greater the role of women and the greater the fear of men. For example, men from upper-middle class are often "under the thumb" from their wives. By ridicule and contrite sigh at a crucial moment can be achieved much more than beating.
To summarize, with some irony is aware that many women, despite the ability of men much better than women to lead people in critical situations (for example, during the war) is not inferior to the degree of physical violence, even men. Goddess often appear no less brutal than the gods, and they are very far from the concept of female meekness. Let us recall the cruel and warlike Amazons, Medusa, one look that promised death, or Kali, mistress of the kingdom of the dead, lakomyaschuyusya human blood from the bowl-the skull, as well as the Egyptian goddess Ta-Urt, a lioness, crocodile and a woman in one person, cruel and ruthless , the goddess of war, Hathor, the Celtic goddess Morigan, represented in the form of crows, devouring the corpses, etc.
In Christianity, such motives are expressed less clearly, because here God is associated with the male. The Christian God, I dare to suggest deprived, on the presentation of believers, cruelty, not because of his masculine identity, but because of his divinity. Therefore, regardless of how we access it: "Our Father in heaven" or "our heavenly Mother," - a confrontation with the divine violence will continue.
