Customer Reviews

Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin, and isolating destruction and trying to understand it alone is like trying to understand the world by studying it only by night and not by day, or trying to understand electricity by only looking at the negative charges. This book is incredibly simplistic in its understanding of this principle, and I expect mainly attractive to people with hidden, or not-so-hidden prejudices like the author's. Destruction is a necessary forerunner to creation, and history clearly shows that it is the destructive who are ultimately creative. Imagine the planet had only been populated by women in the kind of misty, feminine utopia envisaged by Judith Hand. The number of wars would have been far less in their history, but it would have been a long, peaceful existence in the stone age. No creation or destruction to disturb the status quo, no wars, but rather worryingly, a life expectancy of around 30 that eliminated far more than if wars had continued non-stop but creativity in medical technology had been imported from somewhere else (like the planet where all the men were living).

The wars that have taken place on earth have taken around 100 million lives, a figure which when analysed alone is shocking at showing man's destructivity. But when we consider that man's creative genius in medicine and food technology alone has resulted in a population double what it would have been, we see that man's creativity has saved the lives of around 3 BILLION, an enormous figure that doesn't even come into discussion here, but which is in fact a vital issue. It is awful to discuss human lives so simply in terms of figures, but it's a fact worth keeping in mind for those who see the world through feminist-coloured spectacles, and refuse to consider that destruction is all men are capable of. The mistake in this book is that the author takes all the marvelous products of men's creativity as just having naturally sprung out of nothing, having naturally evolved, and now women can make use of these wonders. Well, eliminate every man-made or man-invented wonder from the author's life, and ask her if man's destructivity has had more of an effect on her comfortable life, or man's creativity. Kill half of her friends and family, tell her she has just a few years to live, and see how she would have liked life in such a feminist utopia, bereft of male creativity. If she would still hold the same views, and so would the positive reviewers of this book, if we removed half of all the people they love from their lives, then I fully respect her and their positions. Those who would miss these people, however, should consider that the world consists of both light and dark, and those who concentrate on one side only will remain in the dark as far as understanding goes, much like the author and her fans.

In Women, Power, And The Biology Of Peace, author Judith Hand (an expert in the field of Animal Behavior and Evolutionary Biology) addresses the biological basis of war and describes necessary steps needed to achieve lasting peace. Emphasizing the crucial role women must play in partnership with men to make the dream of a peaceful future into reality, Women, Power, And The Biology Of Peace is an uplifting message advocating positive change for a truly better world. A work of vision grounded in science and human behavior as surely as noble ideals.

This is an excellent compilation of studies and the author's insightful conclusions about power, war and peace, as seen through the actions of men and women, while the author questions the unavoidableness of war. It's not only a book of facts and conclusions; it's a damn good read.

Judith Hand presents biological/evolutionary evidence to support the view that women - in general - prefer social stability while men more often prefer war. Simply put, female reproductive fitness depends on the long haul while male reproductive success can benefit from a brief period of being at the top and eliminating competition. She also covers some of the evidence for sex differences in people today and the fact that though there is overlap and individuality there remain significant differences such as males being more easily excited by aggression and war than females.

To counter the argument that war is critical for the advancement of knowledge and technology Hand presents evidence for an advanced, women-centered, state-level, peaceful society ie the Minoans.

Hand does not deny that women can be fierce fighters - the sex difference is that women are defensive, not aggressive/expansionist fighters. But women are vulnerable to the appeal of defense even in support of a pre-emptive war. She also recognizes the need to educate girls and women to stop their collaboration with men, a collaboration that has come from the female's evolutionary/survival need to ally with the most powerful male available and to keep in the good graces of the males that run the system.

Hand concludes that men cannot free themselves from the call to war - we can only counter the inherited male inclination to group aggression with an equally deeply rooted female inclination for social stability.

This book initially came across as pie in the sky but with consideration it is based on realistic science and thinking. There does not seem a great lot of hope for the immediate, universal take-up of the argument but it is an argument that may, hopefully, gain strength.

It is interesting that Michael's review is in the favor of destructive behavior. Stating that destruction lead to creation. As a devout believer in the theory of destruction/creation, I believe that there must be a balance of the two and not a favor of either. His theory that destruction is necessary and leads to creation is valid enough. However, the creation of material indulgence comes from such destruction as Michael refers to, and the destruction of the most important thing: Humanity. Is a world of chaos more desired than one of well-being (in every sense of the word)? Living in modern hostility as opposed to living in the "stone age" and in peace? His idea that destruction has evoked creation (e.g. medicine, technology) is a good one but there are pressing needs that these creations can not suffice for example world hunger or fatal diseases. Furthermore destruction has lead to "hyper-creation" the increase of population has brought upon us a future of disaster, starvation, crimes against humanity, and global warming. In short, favor of destruction leads to creation leads to destruction etc. I am certain that many people would not mind trading in 50+ years of suffering for 30 years of peace.