Papa New Guinea women killing male babies to end war?

Papa New Guinea women killing male babies to end war?

news.ninemsn.com.au

Frustrated women in Papua New Guinea's Highland region are killing their male babies to end a tribal fight that has warred for more than 20 years.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.smh.com.au
www.theaustralian.news.com.au
www.brisbanetimes.com.au
www.dailymail.co. uk

How much violence would it take in your life to contemplate infanticide? Is there an equivalent amount of violence in today's western society to ever contemplate such an act aganist your child?

There doesn't appear to be too much hype about this in the news, just a few throw-away articles. But these women are slaughtering their own infants in an attempt to stop the tribal fighting that is killing their menfolk.

Now I understand that their society and lifestyle is something radically different from what I have experienced, and what I live with day-to-day, but I'm not sure I'd ever be driven to the point of killing my son.

Could anyone kill their own child, if it meant an end to a killing cycle? Or as a protest aganist a war without end?

news.ninemsn.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

There's not much we can do, other than tell them to stop. To put it simply, there's no oil there, so the world governments do not care.

I would suggest that antecedal evidence points to males starting and participating in wars so logically if there are no males there would be no war. Parthenogenesis for a total female society?

Infanticide is pretty common in many cultures, you just don't here about it all that often because it is not PC. Many humans really do not identify with or "love" their offspring in the classic sense, however it is generally not openly talked about for political or monetary reasons.

Infanticide is still a big problem in Africa and India, India tries to curb it by encouraging people to dump the unwanted female babies in public adoption spots instead of killing them. Not sure if it still goes on in China, probably. In some cultures if food runs short the children will be allowed to starve while the parents eat first.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Sonya610]

This brings to mind the element of post-natal depression in other cultures. If a mother is post-natally depressed or pyschotic in other cultures, is judged as harshly for killing her child as she would be in western societies?

Starvation would no doubt drive me to desperate measures. I'm just not convinced I could kill one of my own children over it. And if I did, I'm not sure I could live with myself afterwards.

Originally posted by azurecaraStarvation would no doubt drive me to desperate measures. I'm just not convinced I could kill one of my own children over it. And if I did, I'm not sure I could live with myself afterwards.

Well one would THINK that the maternal bonding hormones would offer some protection for the offspring (barring post partem psychosis, which is relatively rare).

Of course in many cases the mothers don't have to do it themselves, someone else in the tribe/family is often happy to step in. Look at female circumcism for example, most of us could not imagine letting a stranger take a dirty razor blade or shard of glass and mutilate our 4 year old daughter without anesthesia, but in many cultures that is normal and mothers happily have their daughters carved up by the millions every year. Many actually believe it MUST be done because an uncut woman will reap death upon herself and her family if she has a child with all her parts.

That is what strikes me as odd about the story, the women in those tribal societies often have very very low status, it is hard to imagine they could kill their male offspring and not suffer consequences from the angry fathers.

I don't think one can totally claim this is a lack of love on each mothers part either. For the poor and traumatized, their incredible hardships, and the violence and erruptions of fighting, and the slaughters means they must work hard to keep themselves from truly bonding with their children, but their hearts break unbelievably as well. Its not true to say they don't feel the same strong maternal feelings western nations feel. I see this as an extreme measure, one that these women will bear in the hearts and souls in a long lasting way, in great pain, due to the the extreme violence that many have gone through in this war. In a caring world this kind of thing would not have happened. There has to be global solutions, but not the nwo types. We have to be ready to help and even sometimes force changes, but also share the wealth and equalize people a lot more.

reply to post by Sonya610


Very interesting example, I hadn't thought of female circumcision as another jarring cross-culture clash, but highly relevant.

I know that in primative tribal communities boys were raised to perferm sexual acts on the older men, as part of their culture it was not perceived to be taboo or wrong in any way. I remember this because it clashed so horrendously with the beliefs I have been raised in. It also made me think about how many other clashes there could be out there.

Originally posted by mystiq
I don't think one can totally claim this is a lack of love on each mothers part either. For the poor and traumatized, their incredible hardships, and the violence and erruptions of fighting, and the slaughters means they must work hard to keep themselves from truly bonding with their children, but their hearts break unbelievably as well.

You are seeing this from a western viewpoint and I don’t think you can really understand how others can truly “think differently”. Some of these cultures believe strongly in witchcraft. They believe there are sorcerers and evil people all around, and they believe that if illness or tragedy strikes it is often the fault of another person, including children.

They don’t necessarily see their children as beautiful, sentient, independent, innocent little beings. They can be convinced that their kids are evil spell-casting monsters that must be eradicated for a variety of reasons. Sheesh even a kid that suffers from nightmares can be condemned as a witch and killed by their own family in some cultures. I would bet this situation has some religious basis as well.

Originally posted by azurecara
Very interesting example, I hadn't thought of female circumcision as another jarring cross-culture clash, but highly relevant.

I would bet if there were not 300 million circumsized females running around as living proof of that abuse it would be denied as "fictional history" or "very rarely practiced" by modern historians today. They would cover it up in a heartbeat if there was not so much modern day proof of the practice.

I know our roots. Genetically, there are next to no real differences between the races, even the things we think of great differences are really fine tunes things.
As a race we are cousins to the bonobo pigmy chimp, and that chimp is extremely social, non-aggressive, unlike other chimps, delightful in the way dolphins are, and oversexed. Our feelings for our offspring, are not different.
Cultural differences do not change these things. Profound, generational suffering of the most unimaginable kind, that the majority on this planet go through is the thing that makes them protect their hearts and delay bonding with their children. But many are bonded very well, holding their starved and dying babes in their arms, cradling them with the utmost love, willing to die a hundred deaths for their child to know a better life. I've seen and read the emotions.

Even animals take delight in their babies, our cats are prime examples. We aren't different, but our situations are extremely different.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by mystiq]

Originally posted by mystiq
Even animals take delight in their babies, our cats are prime examples. We aren't different, but our situations are extremely different.

Of course animals take delight in their offspring, many animals are incredibly devoted. Cats are some of the best mothers on the planet. Having said that I doubt if cats ever kill their kittens because they suspect the kitten is a witch.

reply to post by Sonya610


I think you make some very good observations.

I agree with you, people are generally fickle and can usually be manipulated to act and behave one way or another based on the society around them. Just because something is taboo in Western society doesn't mean members of Western society wouldn't be the same given another set of circumstances; and I hope our current climate doesn't lead to this being proved; I'd rather it be proved by people looking within and answering themselves truthfully not socially acceptably.

As much as we'd prefer not to accept it, our individual natures are capable of the same things. Further, romantic notions of human emotions are ruses of manipulation - people pretend for selfish reasons and to show themselves as they believe others find acceptable (a.k.a social conformity) - most psychopaths and sociopaths go undetected because they learn to conform for social acceptance and approval.

[edit on 30/11/08 by Rapacity]

Originally posted by Rapacity
As much as we'd prefer not to accept it, our individual natures are capable of the same things.

Oh I am sure that is true. I am sure the average american newborn could adopt those ways if they were raised from birth in a tribe like that. Thankfully some cultures have progressed enough to understand the concept of disease and acts of nature.

However the belief that all humans on the planet think alike and our basic belief systems/morals are somehow biologically hardwired is really off base. Humans don't all think "basically alike" and many are capable of unimaginable cruelty even towards their own helpless offspring.

Nor do I actually think most people living in a true matriarchal society would either. This world isn't run by the right people.

reply to post by Velvet Death


Women haven't started any wars, but how could they when they havent sone # else in history either? ( I know theres a couple)

Originally posted by mystiq
Nor do I actually think most people living in a true matriarchal society would either. This world isn't run by the right people.

A true matriarchal society would be quite different. Birthing offspring is a huge investment and danger for the female, and quite honestly the answer would probably be abstaining from sex when things got rough. No sex, no extra babies that put a strain on the tribe/community.

In the modern world the most advanced societies, the ones that come closest to a matriarchy in the social sense, have the lowest birth rates. I believe human females are the only species that do not give off signs when they are fertile, they think there is a biological reason for that. When women evolved enough to realize when they were fertile they avoided sex (at that particular time) for fear of dying in childbirth, and as a result the obvious traits were bred out so the women themselves would not know.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610


This is an interesting idea. But I have to point out, that some women do actually have a discharge that indicates their fertile time during their cycle.

The differences between nature vs nuture are hard to answer. Are we genetically programmed for a certain type of social behaviour, or are we all learned as we grow. Perhaps it's a bit of both?

They're going to prevent the slaughter of their menfolk by...slaughtering their menfolk.

I think one day, this village of spinsters will wonder if killing all the men was really a good idea. Especially if the other village doesn't have this idea.