Thread: Female Lord of Flies Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020280

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Plans for a new, all female, film of Lord of the Flies have been much criticised. The main argument seems to me to be that girls wouldn't descend into savagery in the ways that the boys did. Is this true? Is female violence really so unlikely?
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I wasn't aware of this project. Interesting.

Having witnessed some pretty savage behaviour on the part of adolescent girls, I don't find it implausible. Girls are more adept at taking someone apart psychologically than are boys, but we have had criminal cases of brutal girl-on-girl violence, including one rather notable murder case in BC.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I thought Lord of the Flies was about original sin, which knows no distinctions of gender?

If your view is that humanity sucks, then the abandoned girls' society would collapse just as surely as the abandoned boys', though perhaps not in the same way.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Personally I think they should do 8 films
Coral Island with stereotype boys
Coral Island with girls but the same script
Coral Island with stereotype girls
Coral Island with boys but the same script
and then the same for Lord Of the Flies
(and then see what bits fit and what doesn't)

Lord Of The Flies (and Coral Island) situations I think would exist with boys and girls.
I would not be surprised though if there were some characteristic differences in the details (as an absurd example consider the various mid term implications of encountering one person of the opposite sex) I wouldn't like to guess what they are, though.

[Lord of the Flies, is a rebuttal of Coral Island, where everything works]

[ 31. August 2017, 22:36: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I've mixed views. The original was about the nature of humanity, but the story is subject to the male dominated societal structure.
Whilst I do not think women are inherently better, the pressures and expectations are different. Especially in the time-frame of the original novel.
So some of the criticisms are valid. I think the concept, but rewritten for modern girls would be interesting. The original script with women substituted; not so thrilled about.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I have seen someone claiming - on twitter - an all female lord of the flies would be the origin story for Wonder Woman, which I find mildly amusing.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Which muppet's playing Miss Piggy?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Not very interesting and rather silly. Girls would be just as nasty but in a different way. It's not being faithful to the writer's book. To make it convincing, it would have to be rewritten too drastically.

It's still in copyright. Golding's executors should have put their foot down and said no, rather than taken the money.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
"Lord of the Flies" is a remarkable book, chilling in its impact (at least on me when I first read it).

I've got mixed feelings about this proposed adaptation. If it comes about, I'll probably watch it to see how well it works. I'm inclined to think that the stereotypes about gender behaviour when there is any kind of power struggle going on, at any age, may be dissolving. But they haven't yet dissolved.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Back in the day samurai wives were just as feared as their husbands. I guess it has a lot to do with cultural expectation.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Lord of the Flies" is a remarkable book, chilling in its impact (at least on me when I first read it).

I've got mixed feelings about this proposed adaptation. If it comes about, I'll probably watch it to see how well it works. I'm inclined to think that the stereotypes about gender behaviour when there is any kind of power struggle going on, at any age, may be dissolving. But they haven't yet dissolved.

It was written the year I was born and I read it when I turned sixty and it was most chilling on a hot day in Spain.

[ 01. September 2017, 10:55: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
To answer the OP along the lines consistent with Lord of the Flies, I'd say that female violence is also likely and could be linked to original sin in the way that Golding linked male violence. I don't think Golding was writing specifically about male violence, he was writing about the human condition albeit through the gender bias and cultural norms of his day.

Having said that, the evidence in the world around us is that female violence is much less frequent than male violence. But that's empiric rather than a statement about original sin.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You all have minds of lofty purity. Admirable! I can see immediately why this project is planned. It is an opportunity for torn blouses, short-shorts, bloodshed while scantily clad, and possibly lesbian implications. What more could a movie want?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I think Brenda is right. I was thinking of a horror film, with tawdry sex scenes, implausible plot development, scary characters, and plenty of violence, with screaming. Some kind of existential threat would be good, well, that could be men approaching in a yacht. You just need a very good shlock script-writer, and I am willing to do it.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You all have minds of lofty purity. Admirable! I can see immediately why this project is planned. It is an opportunity for torn blouses, short-shorts, bloodshed while scantily clad, and possibly lesbian implications. What more could a movie want?

Prob'ly not if they are just changing the sex of the cast. It's a tale of late childhood.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think Golding was writing specifically about male violence , he was writing about the human condition albeit through the gender bias and cultural norms of his day.

Hmmm, unfortunately no, he was writing specifically about male violence (or at last he's on record as claiming that's what he thought he was doing). Can't find the quote at the moment but he was quite specific when people used to ask him why he hadn't had girls in the book, or written it with girls - basically he said it wouldn't work, girls wouldn't do that.

His conclusion line was along the lines that he didn't believe in equality between the sexes because women have always been superior.

[ 01. September 2017, 16:09: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You all have minds of lofty purity. Admirable! I can see immediately why this project is planned. It is an opportunity for torn blouses, short-shorts, bloodshed while scantily clad, and possibly lesbian implications. What more could a movie want?

Prob'ly not if they are just changing the sex of the cast. It's a tale of late childhood.
never a problem for St Trinian's....
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Another possibility would be to blend it with The Fly, hence a large female fly, which predates everything else. Only trouble is, the sex would be difficult to follow.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
Here's Golding talking about "why boys?"

quote:
Another answer is of course to say that if you - as it were - scaled down human beings, scaled down society, if you land with a group of little boys, they are more like a scaled-down version of society than a group of little girls would be. Don't ask me why, and this is a terrible thing to say because I'm going to be chased from hell to breakfast by all the women who talk about equality - this is nothing to do with equality at all. I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been.

 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Here's Golding talking about "why boys?"

quote:
Another answer is of course to say that if you - as it were - scaled down human beings, scaled down society, if you land with a group of little boys, they are more like a scaled-down version of society than a group of little girls would be. Don't ask me why, and this is a terrible thing to say because I'm going to be chased from hell to breakfast by all the women who talk about equality - this is nothing to do with equality at all. I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been.

thanks - that's what I was failing to turn up. Relieved I remembered it accurately!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's very odd to say that it's unlikely, some kind of mass female violent outbreak. How does that work? We only make films or write novels about what is likely? Yes, a man turning into a large insect is very likely, and Kafka was only doing a kind of reportage.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I've just finished reading The Power by Naomi Alderman. That is asking whether woman are essentially less violent and answering 'No'. It ends up all a bit female Lord of the Flies, only with more electric shocks.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Lady Macbeth is fairly shlocky, kind of Jacobean horror, with lashings of guilt.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We only make films or write novels about what is likely?

Good stories are internally consistent. Sure - you set up some imaginary nonsense about a man turning into a fly or whatever, but everything else follows as a natural consequence of that. Suppose someone was turning into a fly because reasons. How would he feel? What would he do?

The Lord of the Flies premise is "take a bunch of ordinary school boys, and strand them on an island with an uncertain future ahead of them." The story works because it's plausible - the reader can imagine boys behaving exactly like the ones in the book.

An all-female version would presumably take a bunch of schoolgirls and maroon them in similar circumstances, and imagine how the group dynamics would develop. But this development has to be believable - the reader / viewer has to believe that schoolgirls would behave in such and such a fashion.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You all have minds of lofty purity. Admirable! I can see immediately why this project is planned. It is an opportunity for torn blouses, short-shorts, bloodshed while scantily clad, and possibly lesbian implications. What more could a movie want?

Prob'ly not if they are just changing the sex of the cast. It's a tale of late childhood.
You see? Pure. =Barely nubile= girls in torn blouses, scantily clad. It can't fail to sell.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Are girls less likely to engage in violence of the sort portrayed? No. Girls are little shits just as much as boys.

But, as others have said, it would play out differently. I read it as being primarily about patriarchy and the violence that is behind this. In our current situation, I think an all male version would be really appropriate.

It seems a bit like a form of tokenism - having a fully female cast for the sake of it, not because it makes sense (unlike, say, the Ghostbusters, where gender is irrelevant, so a female cast is fine).
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Here's Golding talking about "why boys?"

quote:
Another answer is of course to say that if you - as it were - scaled down human beings, scaled down society, if you land with a group of little boys, they are more like a scaled-down version of society than a group of little girls would be. Don't ask me why, and this is a terrible thing to say because I'm going to be chased from hell to breakfast by all the women who talk about equality - this is nothing to do with equality at all. I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been.

Maybe boys represented a scaled-down society better than girls because fewer women were active in general society than men? Eg, the little boys were, potentially, future lawyers, headmasters, politicians, businessmen, factory-owners, doctors, board-members, religious leaders etc. In Golding's era very few women, to say the least, would've occupied these roles.

Interesting idea to do a female version, if done seriously and intelligently. But not sure if it could capture Golding's vision of a scaled-down society as lived out by children, if it's only one sex. Not in this day and age. Only time will tell! I wonder, too, in what way he thought women superior to men?!
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

But not sure if it could capture Golding's vision of a scaled-down society as lived out by children, if it's only one sex. Not in this day and age.

But in modern society, girls do grow up to take on all society's roles. Women are leaders, soldiers, counselors, workers, criminals, and sociopaths. We're not surprised when a woman holds any of these roles, so I don't see the difficulty of having an all-female mirror of society.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

But not sure if it could capture Golding's vision of a scaled-down society as lived out by children, if it's only one sex. Not in this day and age.

But in modern society, girls do grow up to take on all society's roles. Women are leaders, soldiers, counselors, workers, criminals, and sociopaths. We're not surprised when a woman holds any of these roles, so I don't see the difficulty of having an all-female mirror of society.
Golding's all male version of the story represented the reality of the male dominated society he lived in (with reference to the roles mentioned). In what way would a female only version of the story represent today's mixed society?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good story or not worth doing. But it wouldn't be meeting Golding's object of portraying society writ small; because our society writ small would have to have include little boys as well as little girls, because we live in a mixed society. For example, one of the challenges of today's society is the accusation of feminisation eg, the oppressed white male, the woman-in-charge 'problem', the preponderance of females in certain professional roles 'problem' etc. One assumes that the real and ongoing societal dynamic of male vs. female is unlikely
to be represented in an all-girl version? Could be wrong though. Only time will tell, as I said.

Bring on the lesbian bloodbath!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Lord of the Flies was written by a school teacher. Most tachers know that girls can be much worse in their behaviour than boys.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
You need a lesbian bloodbath with a twist. I think that a Romero style shopping mall attack by female zombies could be interesting. The intellectual snobs could see it as a critique of consumerism, while the stalls would enjoy zombies being daft and scary.

Or what about zombie St Trinians? We've had zombie Jane Austen.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But it wouldn't be meeting Golding's object of portraying society writ small; because our society writ small would have to have include little boys as well as little girls, because we live in a mixed society.

Golding isn't just portraying society writ small. He's portraying society simplified and with some elements left out. Most notably he's portraying a society that has no established authority to keep order. And the bare fact that nobody is courting or raising children makes a difference even if you restrict the society to the male public.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Also, frankly, this is well-trodden ground in fiction, and is not very interesting. Here's a good example.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, frankly, this is well-trodden ground in fiction, and is not very interesting. Here's a good example.

To be honest, that one sounds as though it has more affinities with the locked-room murder yarn than what I remember of LOTF. LOTF wasn't the leaden allegory that some seem to have made of it. We probably wouldn't be debating it now if it was.

The other point - to pick up Anselmina's observation - is that modern society has moved on since Golding wrote it. But to reflect that by introducing both sexes into the work would add dimensions that were not present in the original, at the risk of diverting the story so much it may bear little resemblance to the original. It may or may not be excellent in its own right, but the original was not about the interaction between males and females on a remote island.

My initial reaction when reading of the proposal was a dismissive "pffft!" I'm a bit more open to the idea of something that reflects on changes since the male LOTF original - a work in discussion with its inspiration if you like. But it would still be a separate work and not LOTF.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
Libba Bray's novel Beauty Queens has been suggested several times as a novel that covers LotF-like territory. I don't know why Hollywood wouldn't adapt that into a movie instead, if they really feel there's a need for this.
 
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :
 
I think a modern adaption of 'A High Wind in Jamaica' would be interesting. I never heard of this book until this week. I'm currently reading "The Diary of a Provincial Lady" and the book is referenced. I haven't read the novel yet, but listened to a radio play of it online and although there was a film adaption in the 1960s I think a new one could really look into themes of colonialism, gender, third culture children, violence etc. Basically it's a 1930s novel set in the the 19th century just after slavery has been abolished in Jamaica. A British and a Creole family decide to send their children by ship to England after too many natural disasters, but en route the children are kidnapped by pirates. The main character is a 10 year old girl called Emily and a major plot point is an act of violence no one would expect of a girl her age and the consequences. The story also involves sexual abuse or possible statutory rape of another female character so that would need to be dealt with sensitively, but I think it would be really interesting to see how modern film makers approached the story.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Mili--

The 1965 film is good, though sometimes very disturbing. I didn't realize it was that old, though. I would've guessed maybe the '80s. Haven't read the book.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I know the book pretty well. I haven't seen any of the film versions.
The main problem I foresee is that LOTF isn't just about boys becoming violent when left to their own devices; it includes tribalistic instincts, class divisions, planning versus instant gratification, and isolation of victims. How those themes play out would not easily translate to an all-girl group. Girls at that age (IMHO) operate very differently from boys with the way they divide into groups. It might well end with violence but there would be a lot more discussion than the boys had, and a lot more factions, and the victims would probably be pawns of the factions and less isolated.
It sounds an interesting project but I'm not sure I want to see it
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But it wouldn't be meeting Golding's object of portraying society writ small; because our society writ small would have to have include little boys as well as little girls, because we live in a mixed society.

Golding isn't just portraying society writ small. He's portraying society simplified and with some elements left out. Most notably he's portraying a society that has no established authority to keep order. And the bare fact that nobody is courting or raising children makes a difference even if you restrict the society to the male public.
A valid point well put.

Wouldn't it be a shame if this thread turns out to be more interesting than the proposed movie!!
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Will there be an LGBTGI version next, I wonder?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The trouble is, an earnest recreation of the original might very well be mega-boring. After all, Golding was a creative genius, who was probably not in control of his own material.

It might take another genius to produce an interesting female version, something like Jean Rhys and her prequel to Jane Eyre.

I also thought that Bergman could do something interesting, dark, full of suspicion and jealousy and hatred, but he's dead.

Also Angela Carter, but she's dead. Oh well, we await another maverick.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
With everything so retro these days, I don't think Hollywood would be interested in a maverick if one jumped and bite it on the backside.
There does seem to be a firm female viewing market for situations where other females are the victims of violence, usually with the male as the perpetrator. Not sure if this remake will push buttons on that score.

Wasn't Lord of the Flies a post Holocaust thought experiment? Something where Golding himself struggled to come to terms with those awful atrocities and set out to explore the origins of human evil.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Will there be an LGBTGI version next, I wonder?

I doubt it - or rather, I would have grave reservations about such a project. It seems to me that part of the force of Flies is that sex never intrudes. These are angelic innocent children - most of them actually choirboys, the sort that Granny likes to watch at Christmas. And yet, even inside such purity, terrible evil is present. If the participants were old enough to be sexually aware the story would be a lot less shocking.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
LOTF does rather blow out the sentimental notion of being born good and having the World make us bad.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What a bizarre concept. Born positively morally developed?!
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Born with an urgent need for food, warmth and security. Grow and develop to seek the very same things but in a vastly more complex manner.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye, nothing good or bad about it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
LOTF does rather blow out the sentimental notion of being born good and having the World make us bad.

That is its premise. It is not a proof. And it is incomplete even there. Children are not blank slates at the ages in the book, they are already informed by the "World".
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Fictional novels can't be about proving anything. Having already got Golding wrong about the boys vs girls thing, perhaps I should be more hesitant to opine about what Golding intended regarding society.

I've always read it as a comment on human nature rather than society. The point being that humans have violent impulses that are restrained by societies and civilizing orders.

If Golding thought that the book wouldn't work with girls it would be interesting to think about why. It is certainly empirically true that female violence is less frequent than male violence, but not that it is negligible or near-absent. Original sin (which I'd read into Golding's view before) is surely applicable across gender, but perhaps the expression changes.

So a female LOTF would need to focus on the differing expression to be contributory.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

If Golding thought that the book wouldn't work with girls it would be interesting to think about why.

Yes, his "women are superior" comment doesn't necessarily mean what it says.
quote:

It is certainly empirically true that female violence is less frequent than male violence, but not that it is negligible or near-absent. Original sin (which I'd read into Golding's view before) is surely applicable across gender, but perhaps the expression changes.

So a female LOTF would need to focus on the differing expression to be contributory.

It is well possible that the differences in violence are cultural, rather than inherent. But we are products of our culture, even at the ages depicted. So, unless you believe people will be as savage as possible, there are multiple factors which change the depiction other than biological sex. Unless the remake changes only that. e.g same time period as the original.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Personally I think it likely biology is partly responsible. Muscle mass and physical strength are associated with male sex, and that seems very likely a biological effect of testosterone and other hormones. Men who are testosterone deficient as a result of endocrine disease lose muscle mass (and bone mass by the way) and often report feeling less aggressive.

Human beings apparently have agency and choice, but are also pathetically enslaved to physical influences on their cognition and decisions.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Libba Bray's novel Beauty Queens has been suggested several times as a novel that covers LotF-like territory. I don't know why Hollywood wouldn't adapt that into a movie instead, if they really feel there's a need for this.

Reviews say Beauty Queens is "a story of empowering self-discovery", "twisted fun", it's a "hilarious romp" and "the jokes fly thick as unplucked brows".

This summary suggests it involves a group of plucky 16-year old beauty queens stranded on a beach who use explosives made from hair remover to take out ninjas, a evil Corporation, an evil dictator in his volcano lair, and then retrieve a sex tape one of them unwittingly co-starred in with a "good-looking British schoolboy-turned-pirate" who turned out to be a bit of a cad. After they save the day there's a flashforward and everyone has a happy life.

It sounds about as far removed from the Lord of the Flies as you can possibly get. [Paranoid]
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, frankly, this is well-trodden ground in fiction, and is not very interesting. Here's a good example.

This is a story about men who are prepared to rape a group of women to prevent humanity becoming extinct, and so one of the women kills them. It's an interesting premise but seems to be another example of women as victims and men as oppressors. Don't any sci-fi novels revolve around the social dynamics of shitty women abusing their own gender, without needing a man nearby?
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Plans for a new, all female, film of Lord of the Flies have been much criticised.

That article boils down to "boys bad, girls good". The violence in women's prisons and the high rates of domestic violence in lesbian couples doesn't support that.
quote:
The main argument seems to me to be that girls wouldn't descend into savagery in the ways that the boys did. Is this true? Is female violence really so unlikely?
My wild guess is that girls would be slower to resort to physical violence, but hunger, sickness, loneliness, lust for power, and a consuming terror of the demons in the black night could tear them apart just as effectively as it did to the boys; and the gender-specific ways this played out could make a horribly disturbing and fascinating film. But it'll never happen - there's too much resistance to seeing women portrayed as violent aggressors, and it was a dumb idea to choose male directors.

[ 04. September 2017, 21:32: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
That article boils down to "boys bad, girls good". The violence in women's prisons and the high rates of domestic violence in lesbian couples doesn't support that.

Violence in women's prisons is less than in men's and did you read the article on lesbian domestic violence? It is riddled with comments on the unreliability of the studies.
I'm not saying women cannot be violent, just commenting on the inaccuracy of your statement.

quote:
. But it'll never happen - there's too much resistance to seeing women portrayed as violent aggressors, and it was a dumb idea to choose male directors.
I don't know, the success of Wonder Woman and Atomic Blonde show that it is possible to push into "male" territory.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not saying women cannot be violent, just commenting on the inaccuracy of your statement.

And few would claim that women *can't* be violent, the claim is usually that they are violent much less frequently than men.

Added to the empiric evidence on this and the physical changes that testosterone causes, I was thinking this morning of getting a pet dog snipped because of its aggressive behaviour. This is a very reliable way of moderating behaviour in dogs.

There are behavioural differences in male animals across a range of species, and I suspect male humans are conning themselves if they don't think their behaviour is just as influenced by hormones.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mdijon:
quote:
Added to the empiric evidence on this and the physical changes that testosterone causes, I was thinking this morning of getting a pet dog snipped because of its aggressive behaviour. This is a very reliable way of moderating behaviour in dogs.
Ah, if only we could solve the current nuclear crisis by *ahem* reducing aggression in certain prominent world leaders...

Unfortunately it is not always so effective in moderating behaviour in humans. I give you the Byzantine general Narses as an example.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I occassionally wonder if some chemical testosterone suppression of all male new borns could be a future consideration.
That being if we truly have the collective desire for humanity to persist in peace and harmony for the unforseeable.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I occassionally wonder if some chemical testosterone suppression of all male new borns could be a future consideration.
That being if we truly have the collective desire for humanity to persist in peace and harmony for the unforseeable.

Seems abusive. Why do you want to spay guys?
What is so wrong with testosterone?
What is so wrong with the sexual urgency in Song of Songs?

An important quote- "softer-hearted people sleep soundly only because there are rougher men standing guard"
It was also the key point in A Few Good Men... that that power is used in a tempered fashion to protect, and when that power is abused, it all goes to shit.

Having worn St John Ambulance uniform and worked closely with the other emergency services... maybe I have "sheepdog" tendencies in me.

Sheep, sheepdogs, Wolves

There's also the Dicks, Pussies and Assholes speech in Team America... but we now have Trump and May joining the Assholes...

Men and women can equally go toxic... a rather relevant point was tweeted about the LOTF remake - "So... you're remaking Heathers or Mean Girls?"...

[ 05. September 2017, 10:53: Message edited by: Alex Cockell ]
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Female toxicity and violence was written up BY A FEMINIST- both Esther Vilar in The Manipulated Man - and by Ros Wiseman in Queen bees and Wannabes - which Tina Fey adapted into Mean Girls.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Re comments about "rougher men standing guard" - please read that as "rougher people"....
men, women, trans, all serving..
 
Posted by Hope (# 81) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Added to the empiric evidence on this and the physical changes that testosterone causes, I was thinking this morning of getting a pet dog snipped because of its aggressive behaviour. This is a very reliable way of moderating behaviour in dogs.

There are behavioural differences in male animals across a range of species, and I suspect male humans are conning themselves if they don't think their behaviour is just as influenced by hormones.

Delurking just to say that these days it's believed that neutering a male dog whose aggression is due to fear can worsen the aggression, because it was the testosterone giving him the little confidence he had.

How this might relate to men, and particularly men in leadership positions with decisions to make about the use of violence, is left to the reader. Even if it were ethical... [Biased]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
This thread brought the TV programmes 'Boys Alone' and 'Girls Alone' to mind. Does anyone remember them - they are on Youtube.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Unfortunately it is not always so effective in moderating behaviour in humans. I give you the Byzantine general Narses as an example.

There is the misreadable phrase "important eunuch" in that article. Eunuchs were quite involved in palace intrigue and murder in several different societies, I wasn't aware of the Byzantine general before though.

Maybe there is a difference between vicarious calculating violence and poor impulse control driven direct scrapping. The latter being more dependent on testosterone.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not saying women cannot be violent, just commenting on the inaccuracy of your statement.

And few would claim that women *can't* be violent, the claim is usually that they are violent much less frequently than men.

Added to the empiric evidence on this and the physical changes that testosterone causes, I was thinking this morning of getting a pet dog snipped because of its aggressive behaviour. This is a very reliable way of moderating behaviour in dogs.

No it isn't, it really isn't. Never neuter a male dog for this reason, it can make things worse. They can become especially aggressive towards entire males. Desensitisation training is the answer.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
It could well be that testosterone is a red herring and these things are entirely cultural. Like put a female in charge of a concentration camp and they can be every inch a sadist as a male.

On a different matter I find oftentimes when driving, as a car approaches in the rear view mirror, I can normally tell if is a male driver. Especially if it appears quickly and is keen to overtake on an A-road. (I don't count myself as an exception to this generalisation).
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There are behavioural differences in male animals across a range of species, and I suspect male humans are conning themselves if they don't think their behaviour is just as influenced by hormones.

The problem is that by arguing that testosterone makes men aggressive, people may suggest that it also explains why men dominate the top positions in so many fields. Attributing all differences to socialisation neatly avoids this. I agree that gender differences in behaviour are probably partly biological, but (a) it's incredibly complicated, and (b) half-arsed biological differences too often have been used as an excuse for the status quo so we need to be very suspicious.

And just as we should be suspicious about women not being suited for various roles "because of biology", we ought to challenge assumptions on gender and violence.

For instance, much has been written about Breaking Bad and "toxic masculinity", but it turns out Bryan Cranston's performance was actually based on his abusive ex-girlfriend. (Well worth a listen - he's a great storyteller.)

Similarly, both the simple sociological ("Patriarchy") and biological ("testosterone") perspectives would suggest (to me at least) that gay male relationships would be much more violent than lesbian ones, but that doesn't seem to be true. And what about data that shows incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization to be over four times higher among female prisoners than male ones? Major surveys also report an astonishing amount of female-on-male rape which gets swept under the carpet, as does domestic violence against men. Hell, intuition would suggest that Queens would be less warlike than Kings, but even that isn't true.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't know, the success of Wonder Woman and Atomic Blonde show that it is possible to push into "male" territory.

There's (rightly) a lot of enthusiasm for women pushing into the good bits of male territory, but the bad bits? Much less so. Look at the alternatives to Lord of the Flies that were suggested on this thread - all three were actually stories of female victims fighting back against male oppressors.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not saying women cannot be violent, just commenting on the inaccuracy of your statement.

And few would claim that women *can't* be violent, the claim is usually that they are violent much less frequently than men.

Added to the empiric evidence on this and the physical changes that testosterone causes, I was thinking this morning of getting a pet dog snipped because of its aggressive behaviour. This is a very reliable way of moderating behaviour in dogs.

No it isn't, it really isn't. Never neuter a male dog for this reason, it can make things worse. They can become especially aggressive towards entire males. Desensitisation training is the answer.
One reason for aggression in dogs is the misunderstanding, by humans, of the social structure of dogs. People send mixed messages as to who is the alpha, leading to the dog thinking it is or being confused.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't know, the success of Wonder Woman and Atomic Blonde show that it is possible to push into "male" territory.

There's (rightly) a lot of enthusiasm for women pushing into the good bits of male territory, but the bad bits? Much less so. Look at the alternatives to Lord of the Flies that were suggested on this thread - all three were actually stories of female victims fighting back against male oppressors.
There is little enthusiasm for women pushing into male territory in any way. There is too small a sample to really make any conclusion about what kind of progress might be made. Hollywood have a poor track record of reading the reason for success as well. The lesson they "learn" from Wonder Woman will not likely be strong female director, story from a female POV and strong female lead. They will learn Female superhero sells. Possibly with female director attached.
We've a ways yet to go before gender casting isn't the predominant paradigm.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Hiro's Leap:
quote:
...intuition would suggest that Queens would be less warlike than Kings, but even that isn't true.
European queens were operating in societies which expected the monarch to be a war leader when the situation required it. Forget the guff about 'division of labo(u)r'. They were in a traditionally male role in patriarchal societies; they had to show at least as much aggression towards their enemies as a king would in the same position, or they'd have been toast. Some of them may have overcompensated.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One reason for aggression in dogs is the misunderstanding, by humans, of the social structure of dogs. People send mixed messages as to who is the alpha, leading to the dog thinking it is or being confused.

You are right that it's about misunderstanding by humans, but it's a misunderstanding of dog body language, not their social structure.

Early observations of wolf pack behavior were made on animals in a zoo. These were unrelated individuals thrown together in a small space, and then left to sink or swim in strange surroundings. When forced together in such a stressful situation the wolves answer was to fight for the best places to sleep or the first helping of food. They fought for food and territory because in the zoo these were precious resources.

Satellite tracking and GPS allows scientists to watch wolf packs in the wild. It turns out that after all they live in comfortable family groups. They keep order based on a parent-offspring model, with older wolves being in charge because they have more life experience.

They eat together - none of this ‘alpha male eats first’ business much copied by certain dog trainers - and share domestic duties within the home territory. Just like any family, most of the time they get along well enough, with the occasional ruckus when a misunderstanding occurs. But the important message is that dominance does not exist in the form we were once led to believe.

It's a dubunked theory in modern dog training. Guide Dogs use entirely reward based training.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One reason for aggression in dogs is the misunderstanding, by humans, of the social structure of dogs. People send mixed messages as to who is the alpha, leading to the dog thinking it is or being confused.

You are right that it's about misunderstanding by humans, but it's a misunderstanding of dog body language, not their social structure.
From what I have read, what was debunked was the structure and nature of social dominance, not its existence. The strict hierarchy once assumed is more subtle and variable.
I would also argue that a human/animal relationship bears at least as much a similarity to the zoo scenario as it does the wild. Misreading body language is part of the lack of understanding, not a separate cause.
Though, yes, alpha is not the best term to use.
That aside, the point is that dogs are not furry people and should not be treated as such. Understanding how they think leads to better behaviour.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Not dominance - leadership.

Dogs love clear, consistent leadership. In a dog’s world leadership is all about guidance, love, and security, and this sense of security born out of consistency. Our leadership is about setting a daily routine, about letting the dog know what the rules are, teaching him when he does well etc.

None of this is dominance.

I'll stop now as it's rather off subject 🙂
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Yesterday there was a discussion on the radio about bullying in schools, and many of the callers to the programme were talking about female bullying - which is my experience is much more common than male bullying from identifiable "alpha" boys. (I don't like the term, but they think they are the top dog, and others respond to it. But they are rare.)
My guest said there was no bullying at her school, perhaps because it was a long time back. I cited a woman known to me of the same age, who knew more than she should about how girls bully. She said it was because she was working class, and I started to tell how I was bullied at a private school, but not at the state school with working class girls, only I didn't get that far.
The conversation got into why was I bullied and then I suddenly realised what was happening, as it was led towards what could be seen as female relational bullying, even including exclusion from the group of guest and son. It was rather funny in a way, especially as I suspect it has never occurred to her that a succession of put downs is bullying, and she only thinks of it as physical attacks.
I can see a female LOTF as being extremely nasty, with exclusions, probably of girls with useful skills, denial of resources (someone I know was bullied in the same school as me by being denied access to the loos at break time), theft of useful property and so on. With the need inherent in the situation for social support, its removal would be deadly. Some girls could end up as menials.
It might not result in pig heads and murder, but it would be nasty. But nuanced, and not full of cat fights.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I occassionally wonder if some chemical testosterone suppression of all male new borns could be a future consideration.
That being if we truly have the collective desire for humanity to persist in peace and harmony for the unforseeable.

As it's necessary for political and power elites, of whatever kind of society humans live in, to have at hand a committed, obedient militia to sustain their exercise of power, it's never going to be a serious consideration.

Although I suppose in theory there's nothing to stop a 'Brave New World' approach to mucking about with the rest of the working population.

I'm quite sure Kim Jong Un is about as personally physically aggressive and tough as a drowned meringue, but he's punching above his weight just for now because he's at the head of a country whose militia are, apparently, willing to give the last drop of their life's-blood to promote his will; to say nothing of how much of others' blood they'd be content to spill in the same cause. Astonishing how far nepotism, isolationism, controlling the media, and a sycophantic power-greedy (and shit-scared) political regime can take you!

Having said that, of course Pharaoh did try to neutralize the aggressive potential of the Hebrew slaves by having the little baby boys drowned at birth. But that kind of back-fired, too. (And I'm bound to say that even that was down to the women; clever midwives!)

Seriously though, the biological make-up of human beings, must to some sacramental degree, be 'in the image' of God. The challenge of male testosterone is surely, just like in all our sexual urges and other appetites, about control, submission to God, and using it to the common benefit.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I find these discussions interesting, due to our family circumstances.

My wife 'takes it like a man' in a high-pressure corporate environment, and works long hours. She seems to need it.

I'm a stereotypical man in that my hobbies are generally among other men, messing with machines, getting covered in oil (ooh-er) or shitting in the woods. I work (PT) in that male environment too. But I'm also 'mother' to my kids when I drop them at school and hear about their day when they come in at 3:15. I make their tea, hang the washing out and wash up. Sometimes I hoover. We do craft projects together.

I've tried to be very gender neutral with my 2 girls. They like coming in the shed with me and making things. Dolls are available too, and cooking is a big thing at the moment. They never much got into the train set or scalextric.

They liked climbing in an abandoned Russian tank on holiday. But they preferred playing with an older teenage girl's make-up.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I occassionally wonder if some chemical testosterone suppression of all male new borns could be a future consideration.
That being if we truly have the collective desire for humanity to persist in peace and harmony for the unforseeable.

.....Seriously though, the biological make-up of human beings, must to some sacramental degree, be 'in the image' of God. The challenge of male testosterone is surely, just like in all our sexual urges and other appetites, about control, submission to God, and using it to the common benefit.
When not indulging in armchair eugenics l am inclined to agree with your last paragraph there.

The effects of testosterone can be overridden as is proven in the case in all male Buddhist communities which are undeniably peaceful.
It is the narrative which is fed to males which makes the difference. When a Country goes to war, as happened here twice in the last Century, males are obliged and indeed compelled to engage with there violent side. When it is all over society expected them to just switch it off.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Has anyone else read Margaret Attwood's Catseye? As a bloke, I found it very informative about the reality of female bullying.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

I've tried to be very gender neutral with my 2 girls.

The rest of their world isn't gender neutral.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
RA--

Haven't read the book, but girls very definitely bully--particularly other girls.

I was on the receiving end--including an informal gang of girls who beat me up at schoo. Teachers walked right past. When someone finally intervened, it was only resolved in my favor because an administrator knew me.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Female and male are made out of the same kind of goo,
Even though each has been assigned a different job to do.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Female and male are made out of the same kind of goo,
Even though each has been assigned a different job to do.

A different job?

I think not.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Assigned? I'm a bloke so I was designed to be a bricklayer?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Well I certainly havn't been designed to grow a new person inside of me. And had I lived 100 yrs ago, aged between 18 and 40 years, I'd now be in a muddy hole with a spike on the end of a gun. Being required to use it in order to destroy a person.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Well I certainly havn't been designed to grow a new person inside of me.

I wish men had, then we can be equal in that as well as everything else.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I would second the recommendation of Margaret Atwood's"Cats Eye" but it is very disturbing.
Jacqueline Wilson is also convincing at describing how girls bully one another. I have to admit to being quite attached to "Bad Girls"; I felt she understood aspects of my childhood which I've found it difficult to explain to other people.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Female and male are made out of the same kind of goo,
Even though each has been assigned a different loo.

Fixed it.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
[Big Grin]

Ahh, now there is a sig.

The harmonising of the entire Comos
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0