I am definitely not prepared to engage in an in-depth discussion of animal behavior.

Suffice it to say that humans' position in relation to lions and tigers is the result of collaboration and innovation among humans rather than either species' ability to prevail in personal hand-to-claw combat.

More to the point, men's and women's positions relative to each other are not the result of wiser women being thwarted by male violence. The collective wisdom of men is equal to that of women. The characteristics of the wisdom predominantly manifest among women are different from those of men. Both are equally valuable in influencing the emergence of a just, prosperous, and successful social structure.

I suspect that women's influence on the emergence of culture, social structure, and the operation of society is greater than that for which women's activists and social reformers give them credit. Women and men are equally responsible for armed conflict. War is fought over control of land and resources. Land and resources are equally necessary for the survival of both sexes.

I understand that animal behavior is more nuanced than I gave credit for in my earlier comment. The comment was intended as a simple analogy to illustrate the fallacy in the claim that violence trumps wisdom. I intended it to be a mildly smart-aleck way of illustrating that fallacy. After all, I am a born smart-aleck. I can't resist an opportunity for a smart-aleck retort when one presents itself.

By the way, how do you know that animals don't derive pleasure from violence? Did you ask them?

I, too, am enjoying this conversation.