27/09/2022
Where did the myth of militant women able to fight on equal terms against men come from?
The phenomenon of Amazons was primarily described by ancient Greek writers. The peculiarity of that era was the homosexual love for young men. One can argue on such a topic, whether it was some kind of manifestation of envy or jealousy, perhaps these same authors saw the antipodes of young men in women. We should inform readers in advance that we do not condemn anyone's lifestyle in any way. If it seemed to you that this is the case, we moreover believe that our value lies in neutrality to all opinions, political or sexual preferences.
Such myths gathered in the darkness of the worst fantasies of the male semi-scientific community, whose feelings were hurt by the threat from a strong and domineering woman. It also often occurs in religious communities, one might say - to justify the fear of women's independence.
We need to warn you in advance that the phenomenon of the Amazon state robbing or killing men is nothing more than a myth. But still, if there were Amazons-devastators of the type of nomadic tribes described by ancient Greek authors, then the question arises - for what reason did they unite into single tribes? After all, it is clear that they felt the pressure on themselves, and living safely, they could not go to the organization of such militant groups, up to the exclusion of men from their membership.
Amazons, if they existed, did not exist independently of men. It was rather some tribes from the borderlands (Scythians and other peoples) who had a part of the female warriors who fought on equal terms together with their tribesmen. Perhaps there were also priestesses who acted as spiritual leaders (the Hittite people). If these testimonies were real, it means that at a certain stage of ancient Greek history, women really were subjective in the context of military operations. This proves the myth about the belligerence of some women, even to the point that ancient Greek authors gave them a separate place in their epics.
Why has it happened over time that women have become less belligerent?
If we still assume that women used to be militant Amazons, then why have they lost their aggressiveness?
Now how do they cope with the problems that they used to solve by force?
Here are some controversial ways to solve problems when, instead of violence, they used other, more peaceful ways:
1) Prepare for any conflict in advance, predisposing the opponent to themselves with the help of "soft power", without leading to a conflict situation. And if such a situation is ripe, then they do it so that the enemy's "conscience" is turned on and he thinks about the consequences and does not begin to show aggression.
2) Knowing human emotionality, they waited until emotions subsided. And then they sought to establish relations.
3) Women have learned to wait, to calm down in order to further influence psychological ways (perhaps there is some hidden state, now defined as passive aggression)
4) Do not respond to potential enemy aggression. Understand the opponent's pain, and also say that he understands the opponent's condition, thereby calming him down. Then it can act in "hybrid", rather than non-aggressive ways.
5) In the end, if the conflict is unsolvable, then its subjects put visible/invisible barriers (ignore, leave, break up) and no longer face each other, regardless of who the opposite party is: a friend, partner or family member. However, this method is possible when there is an opportunity not to contact the enemy. And what if your opponent is your neighbor? That's where the principles of libertarianism come in: don't get into my territory, or I have the right to respond with aggression. This point requires further consideration, so I ask you not to judge us harshly.
We should warn you, the listed methods are not arranged in order of turn, but only listed in random order.
The principle of "there are not without freaks in the family" is also applicable to women, in the sense that despite the fact that they are on average less aggressive than men, there are exceptions among women. On average, they are certainly less belligerent, and less inclined to take up arms or use war as a tool for conflict resolution. In my opinion, this is something to cling to in the future.
Why, if it is believed that women are less belligerent, will they be a guarantee of non-aggression?
Based on the surrounding reality, as well as on what was previously written, we hope that you have come to the conclusion that women are less belligerent than men. Within the framework of PF, we propose to apply the best aspects of humanity.
The transfer of military power to women does not mean that women should become as belligerent as men. What then is the point of Amazon, which will constantly be inclined to start hostilities? Masculinity only plays in favor of war, there is no need to make men out of women. A woman will be able to stop the war only when she becomes disinterested in the war, in other words, when she will definitely be the defending party, I don't want to say "victim", but also not "aggressor".
An example of a problem that is unsolvable for women themselves: militant women who strive to commit aggression, despite their natural non-aggressiveness. On the scale of state administration, this will be solved through lustration.
Let women be themselves. May your mother, your sister, your daughter, your friend remain as peaceful as they were before. But don't force them to be aggressive. Peace-loving women will give us the very security that we all want to get. Let's make our planet safe, now there is nothing more important than comfort for you and for me.
