Can a two sex system be a genetic deficiency when it is so prevalent and so successful  in nature?  If all life is a spontaneous event how can any one gender be the correct one or the whole one? Isn't every instinct, emotion, and feature simply a genetic trait that allowed our ancestors to flourish while others perished?

All life must be flawed.  As the environment we build for ourselves changes, the more apparent our antisocial instincts become, in reality they are traits that proved useful to ourselves in ancient environments. As the threat to our offspring has not always been other humans- but other species.
The need to survive depended on killing other animals ( in defense and to consume their flesh). Aggression and organized violence make perfect sense in the ancient world.

Women would have had  to developed these traits  in order to survive to this point as a stand alone species.

These quotes  about feminism seem to come from a view point looking back the early 20th century and only the early 20th century.  These observations about men almost seem to be justified when looking at the violence of the era  , but with all fundamentalist fallacy, an entire group, race or gender is not an individual entity that acts with a single intent.

It is actually isolation, propaganda, the desire to protect ones family and cultural identity. Patriotism, fanatical views. (not unique to men) (they are the result of sentient thought)
 War in essence is a disagreement with no compromise. Regional Isolation,  and the need for resources fuels war.

Perhaps with the above paragraph I am wrong,
In WW1 a man shot a man, and that angered some men who wanted revenge on the men related to the man who shot their man.
, but they had to get approval from a group of stronger men to go ahead with the attack
, but this made another group of men angry.
 So this other group of men decided to stop the first group of men from attacking the men who are related to the man who shot the man.
So the group of men who supported the group of men who wanted revenge decided to attack a completely different group of men, because they thought those men were going to attack them regardless.
 and to reach them crossed through the territory of yet again another group of men, which MADE  yet another group of men decided to fight.

But I also have to take into account that the leaders in this period had absolute power.
Something that men ( that founded America tried to avoid)  So men saw a flaw in themselves as a gender...or in humanity?

After 3 and half years they had all been fighting so long, bringing more and more men into their pointless fight that  yet another group of men- who had been supplying weapons to one side, decided to fight to protect their financial investments,

and money is nothing more than the fictional value we place on shiny rocks, food, materials and people.....people represent cash.
Money is  a system that devalues life, and frankly makes no sense.
When all that is required for us to survive is to gather resources and educate the masses, why must we use money?
 To place people of luck and circumstance at the top and people of misfortune at the bottom.

Money, and the pursuit of it, presents the same problems that the autocratic monarchs of the previous century's did. People are arbitrarily and securely attached in positions of wealth based on their lineage, not their intelligence or value to others.
 Yet the only practiced solution to complete equality is communism, which has shown to destroy the will to succeed, and once again places one individual at the top.

The only real solution to end war, is to have unlimited resources. Cloths for all, houses for all, food for all, health care for all.

society needs to find another source (besides money)  - a non essential but desired source to entice individuals to seek education  and advance the knowledge of the human race.
Everyone in the world, Has to be content.

holy crap- that's Star Trek ( perhaps we really do need an unlimited frontier to pour all our attention into.) Perhaps a digital one? A virtual world?

 but there has to be a group approval for violent action, not just the consensus of all the men.  If every woman in a society were against a war, those feelings effect the group mentality. In fact women swept up in the same insanity cheered and celebrated as soldiers marched to  their deaths.

Have you ever seen paintings of the French Revolution?
It's not just men who are marching down the streets with rifles and pitch forks, it's women too.
They are right in the middle of it.

I doubt if only females existed they could escape war. In a female groups, alpha  females emerge,  in lesbian relationships one woman plays a masculine or dominant role.
Female tyrants arise in relationships, so would they in political settings.
As they have, in our two sex society, Mary Tudor AKA (Bloody Mary) Who had hundreds burnt at the stake in the name of fanatical Catholicism.  Her half sister however went on to be one of greatest female leaders. ( One that chose power over sex and companionship)
Perhaps just having power separates you from others, regardless of gender.

In 1553 Mary the First, Daughter Of  Henry the VIII became the Queen of England
In an attempt to restore the catholic denomination of Christianity to England, Mary authorized that citizens be burnt alive. This is woman with absolute power, thrusting her will upon all.
If a society of nothing but women found themselves suffering at the hands of a female tyrant, would they rebel? Would they Wage War for their right to live their lives the way they wish to live them?

Are all women of such a high character that they would deny their deepest desires in a position of absolute power?


The urge to follow the strongest and most aggressive individual is not unique to men.  Women are not uniform creatures that all want the same thing, and not all want to live the same way.
 
Surely they would have disagreements.

When it came to the allocation of natural resources, would women not favor their own offspring? The children of the community's they derived from? Their nation?

Would other nations of women not try to take by force what they themselves do no have?


War in human history has been to secure the best possible environment and the most resources for your children. Men have spared women from this inescapable facet of human selfishness.


We are more aggressive, but we are also sentient, capable of defeating our emotions. I find it easy to understand why these women felt the way they did/do.  It is because they have placed themselves in a different category, only using the history of one society to make their case.

There are plenty of examples of ancient society's where women were treated as equals.
Rome being one.

A matriarchal society has never really been opposed. Certainly in America the idea of leaders being elected by the masses, for personal merit and not gender, race or religion is ideal.

I guess that's it, thanks for reading.