Females tend to threaten each other with social isolation rather than violence. Among social animals, being cast out of the group can mean death, or very few chances to mate. Among humans, perhaps the most social animals we know, the "mean girls" phenomenon is a perfect example of low energy competition. Nobody is beaten, but we know for sure who has lost the battle.
The problem with talking about humans, of course, is that we are not wild animals. As Stockley and Campbell are careful to point out, humans have been so influenced by culture that it's very hard to tell if a lack of overt aggression among women is an evolutionary or cultural artifact. Because so many women are culturally trained to tamp down their aggressive urges, it's impossible to call their behavior "natural."
So it's difficult to draw many conclusions about how early human women might have behaved 50,000 years ago based on how they behave today.
To return to the world of animals, it's interesting to note that females seem to be aggressive in a much more flexible way than males. As I mentioned earlier, female mice go through periodic spikes in aggressive behavior, partly as a result of hormonal shifts.
Females also become more aggressive when they are defending their young . That's likely because the hormone oxytocin, released during and after pregnancy, isn't just a "love hormone" to spur mother/child bonding. It also governs aggression. So in the wake of pregnancy, when oxytocin levels are high, females are simultaneously more nurturing and more likely to go ninja on your ass.
Overall, however, female aggression and competition are more subtle than the male forms. Females assert dominance, and come to control the gene pool, by fostering cooperation. This is especially true among social animals who live at a high population size. Of course, cooperation isn't all happy "friendship is magic" stuff. A cooperative female may cede her reproductive privileges to another.
It's a low cost solution to a problem as old as life itself. Put another way, just because females don't grow giant horns doesn't mean they aren't ripping each other's hearts out.
Obviously these tactics aren't universally used as there is female violence, but what would the murder rate and frequency of war be if men somehow adopted these tactics? Does culture in some societies create a pathway to these tactics?
"Then it kind of goes viral in 1940s terms," says Kramer, "where the press picks it up, it becomes this colorful story that people are talking about." When an article appeared in The New York Times, he says, people started pulling up examples of other cases.
"He's not the first person to pull this off," says Kramer, "so it's not entirely a novelty."
But Kramer says Routté is the sole representative of the first category of African-American turban wearers — those who did it to make a political statement.
Routté's experiment began after he traveled to Mobile, Ala., in 1943 for a family engagement. He wasn't happy with how he was treated.
"I was Jim Crowed here, Jim Crowed there, Jim Crowed all over the place," he later told reporters. "And I didn't like being Jim Crowed."
So he went back in 1947, with a plan.
Before he boarded the train to Alabama, he put on his spangled turban and velvet robes. When the train reached North Carolina during lunchtime, Routté walked over to the diner car where the only vacant seat was occupied by two white couples.
One of the men said, "Well, what have we got here?" to which Routté replied in his best Swedish accent (he had been the only black student at a Swedish Lutheran college in Illinois), "We have here an apostle of goodwill and love" — leaving them gaping.
And that confusion seemed to work for Routté on the rest of his trip. He dropped in on police officials, the chamber of commerce, merchants — and was treated like royalty.
At a fancy restaurant he asked the staff what would happen if a "Negro gentleman comes in here and sits down to eat." The reply: "No negro would dare to come in here to eat."
Speaking of the 14th century, here are some recipes for treatment of Bubonic plague. The difference with the completely nonsense about gravity, there is evidence for some informed thinking
In this treatise, Ibn Khatima was ahead of scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries, in relation to the theory of contagion and the need for isolation in case of infection, etc, and he comes close to the types of plagues that modern science considers in its classification, I mean, bubonic pest, pneumonic pest and septicemic pest.
Ibn Khatima speaks of "vapors infected by minuscule organisms" that invade the body, causing disease, and that are transmitted from one to another. And so, he emphasizes in the need for isolation in epidemics as a preamble to the modern theories of the epidemiology (10) and the bacteriological microbiology (11) (12).
Section V of the Tahsil is one of the most newfangled and interesting of the book. In this part, Ibn Khatima exposes his theories about the contagion. According to him, the pest is a very serious disease because it is infectious and contagious. The contact with the patient or any of his equipment and vestments is the main cause of infection, due to –as I said- minuscule bodies that are passed from one person to another through the air they breathe, although we must also consider the willingness of each one and his own defense, reaction and resistance system. Thus, according to Ibn Khatima, the alteration and corruption of air promote the disease and it spreads through contagion (13), and this is a very close thought to modern epidemiology.
It does go off the rails, but there are glimmers of the paths that led to science.
They aren't what most in the West would call "cars". Inexpensive and primative with lead acid batteries, no real safety features, and top speeds of under 40mph. What is probably important is a new class of manufacturer has sprung up and the segment is growing. If urban areas were to limit speeds to 20 to 30 mph as is the case in some European countries they could become much more important. They may become important in third world use.
It is worth reading again (thanks for reminding me Bjarne) in light of the partial change that has taken place. Many musicians focus on touring now and a larger percentage are now indies. The big danger now is streaming with its extremely low compensation.