The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Patriarchy: It’s A Man’s World—and Sociobiology Says It’s Women’s Fault.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
mansworld

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Since the beginning of the “Me, too!” movement, “patriarchy”—and the very idea that females prefer to be feminine—is under attack as never before. The Swedish capital Stockholm has banned ads that portray female stereotypes [Stockholm bans “sexist” and “degrading” adverts from public spaces, By Sara Malm, Daily Mail, 13 June 2018]. An Austrian museum about James Bond will cut out “sexist” aspects of the movie series about the Alpha male and his assorted scantily-dressed Bond girls [Not Licensed to Offend, By Tim Walker, Guardian, June 11, 2018]. On Father’s Day, fathers were supposed to receive “feminist” gifts, to undermine the patriarchal undertones of the celebration [9 Feminist Father’s Day 2017 Gifts For The Dad Who Believes In Equality, By Lindsay Mack, Romper, 7 June 2017, ].

But if a theory recently presented by two female researchers from Britain is correct, then patriarchy only evolved because of the male need to give women what they wanted, females are literally evolved to like and accept the patriarchal system, and, by implication, we’d have no civilization if it hadn’t developed.

Zoologist Dr Rachel Grant, of the University of Northampton, and biologist Dr Tamara Montrose, of University Centre, Hartpury, presented their explosive findings in the Spring 2018 issue of the “racist” and “sexist” journal Mankind Quarterly. In their study, entitled It’s a Man’s World: Mate Guarding and the Evolution of Patriarchy, they argue that there is fundamental conflict of interest between men and women. Men have nothing to lose from a sexual encounter, so they want to have sex with as many good-looking (and thus genetically healthy) and young (and thus fertile) women as possible. But women have a great deal to lose from a sexual encounter, because they can get pregnant and they produce a far smaller number of gametes than men. They and their offspring are more likely to survive if they get a man who will invest in them and look after them.

So the rigours of Darwinian selection have made women far pickier than men when it comes to who they’re prepared to have sex with. They are attracted to high status males—and, indeed, are prepared to have extra-marital affairs to obtain a child by an even higher status male than their husband—so that their more limited number of offspring, compared to what a male can achieve, has better genetic qualities and is more likely to survive. And among our pre-modern ancestors there’d be severe punishment—from brothers or the girl’s father—if you tried to force yourself upon her.

Therefore, argue Grant and Montrose, it was Strike One for the Sisterhood. Men had no choice but to invest their resources, and signal commitment through marriage, if they wanted to have sex with a desirable female.

But this led to a very difficult problem. For his investment to be worth it, the prehistoric man had to ensure that his female did not become pregnant by another man. Obviously, to raise another man’s child would do nothing to help him pass on his genes and everything to help his competitor. Grant and Montrose report that, depending on the nature of the sample, across cultures between 1% and 30% of births are “false paternity events,” in which the “father” is not really the father at all. (The high number is found in paternity tests, where putative fathers are suspicious, but 10 percent is not uncommon in places like Detroit, Michigan and parts of Mexico.)[How Well Does Paternity Confidence Match Actual Paternity?, by K. G. Anderson, Current Anthropology, June 2006]

Among our chimpanzee ancestors, the solution was perfectly simple. The male chimp would jealously guard his females during estrus, the signs of which were clear for all to see. However, the signs of estrus in human females are just far too subtle: a slight lightening of the skin, for example. Accordingly, a male—from whom most of us are likely descended –was forced to devise a solution: the woman needed to be guarded pretty much all the time. Only this way could he be guarantee that his investment—of time and resources—would not go to waste.

But how, ask the authors, could he possibly guard her all the time? When would he have time to gather food?

He wouldn’t, so he’d have to gain a reputation for extreme jealously and violence such that other men wouldn’t go near his woman. The result would be a tense, untrusting society with lots of inter-male fighting, such as you find among the Bushmen of the Kalahari. Such a chaotic society could never develop anything close to civilization.

So he came up with a much better solution: Patriarchy. There developed, argue the authors, a hierarchal system which would uphold males and their needs and desires at the expense of those of females, who would be subjugated and controlled, especially in terms of their sexuality.

The authors are clear that this could never have developed if females’ estrus was clear for all see and if human females, like female swans, were evolved to be monogamous. But this is the crucial point. Human females are not evolved to be monogamous. They’re evolved to be, albeit cunningly, “polyandrous”: marry the kindly Beta male if you must but get pregnant by the Alpha one.

Grant and Montrose argued that patriarchy is, therefore, entirely understandable in evolutionary terms. In China, women’s feet were bound so they couldn’t run away and have affairs. In the Islamic world, women are concealed in public so that no potential cuckolder can be attracted to them. Religions render these traditions—as well as general obedience to the male will—as the desire of the gods, making it even more likely to be obeyed.

And females who fail to obey risk severe punishment, including simply being killed to restore the families’ honour. There are, the authors report, about 300 honour killings in Pakistan annually, with sentences being very lenient compared to those for other murders. In the Middle East, women are killed for actual or alleged adultery, for refusing arranged marriage, for not being virgins when they get married and for being raped, as this implies that they were not being chaperoned by a male relative as mandated. Most societies give daughters far less freedom than sons. Not only are daughters worth more—in the sense that their child will definitely be your grandchild—but we’ve been selected to control them.

The fascinating result of this, argue the authors, is that females are literally evolutionarily selected to accept patriarchy. Those who refuse to have their feet bound, or be circumcised so they can’t enjoy sex, will not be able to get married and so won’t pass on their genes. Such refusal to obey the rules also elevates the likelihood that they’ll be ostracised—in societies where laws make it very hard to be an independent female—or directly killed. Grant and Montrose argue that abortion is particularly problematic in patriarchal societies because it allows women far too much control over themselves.

What this system means is that males—trusting that their investment in the female and her offspring will be worth it—can afford to be less violent, less jealous and more cooperative. They will invest more of their energy in looking after their children, making these children less short-term oriented, able to create stronger social bonds, and likely to be more cooperative.

And so a civilization will duly be able to develop.

This is a compelling theory and the authors also present some clear ways that future researchers can test it: Cuckoldry rates should be lower, and fertility higher, in more patriarchal societies and fundamentalist sub-cultures; the more fundamentalist and patriarchal a society the faster growing its population will be, as women will have no control over their bodies and no option but motherhood; and patriarchy will be stronger in polygamous systems, like Islam, because there will be more women for a husband to control.

Anecdotally, at least, this all these seems to be the case.

So, reducing these findings down to their basics, patriarchy is a result of the evolved psychology and physiology of females. Its development has, in turn, pushed females, for biological reasons, towards being more accepting of patriarchy.

Could it be that the rise in “feminism” is not just due to the collapse of patriarchy but, more profoundly, due to weakened Darwinian selection, due to the less harsh life created by the Industrial Revolution? (See Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., Evolutionary Psychological Science, June 2017).

This would mean more “mutant genes” not being removed through high child mortality or spinsterhood for “undesirable” women, such as those which might make people challenge patriarchy?

The authors insist “It’s a Man’s World” but it only became that way due to the power women have over men to force them to bend to their evolved desires for investment and status, as evidence of the ability to invest in resources in their children.

“It’s a Man’s World”—and it’s Women’s Fault?

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Darwinism, Feminism, Gender 
Hide 204 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tulip says:

    There is a weakness in this article in that it supposes that restrictions on the personal freedom of women are imposed in order to prevent against female sexual adventures. That is probably secondary, women are restricted from access to strange men in order to protect them from rape, which necessitates homicidal retaliation if it occurs. Such retaliation involves serious risk to the male relations dealing it out, and no doubt promotes inter-family feuds.

    The disappearance of the patriarchy has everything to do with modern policing. When nice young men on the part of the state are there to intervene and punish rapists, and male family members don’t have to put their lives at risk to the avenge their family honor, there is less reason to lock up the women.

    The suboptimal fertility patterns and child welfare that occur by getting rid of patriarchy are a concern, but what probably drove patriarchy was the risk of death to male family members carrying out honor-based vendettas.

  2. For his investment to be worth it, the prehistoric man had to ensure that his female did not become pregnant by another man. Obviously, to raise another man’s child would do nothing to help him pass on his genes and everything to help his competitor.

    Among many American Indian tribes, even today, a man will typically take much more interest in his sister’s children than in his wife’s because there is no doubt that his sister’s children carry some of his genetic legacy, but marrying the chief and then banging the braves is an old scam women like to pull.

    • LOL: Bucky
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
  3. FKA Max says:

    In China, women’s feet were bound so they couldn’t run away and have affairs.

    This is not quite accurate according to this study/research:

    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/

    http://www.unz.com/article/mao-reconsidered/#comment-2046233

    Feet and Fabrication: Footbinding and Early Twentieth-Century Rural Women’s Labor in Shaanxi

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0097700411403265

    and

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.913.4901&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    The Hand Work of the Footbound

    Chinese women practiced footbinding for centuries—why is still too little understood.

    http://stanfordpress.typepad.com/blog/2017/03/the-hand-work-of-the-footbound-.html

    The absence of information about the economic activities of footbound village women and girls stems from the fact that most historical sources were written by men and a few women among China’s literary elite. Often writing poetically about elite women, beauty, and longing, they had relatively little to say about women’s labor in elite households, and even less about village women.
    [...]
    The work of girls and unmarried women had enormous influence on China’s not yet industrialized regions as it had in the long preindustrial past. Apart from the help that even the footbound gave their families in agriculture, village women and young girls of ordinary families made many useful articles and provided essential services. Their hands spun the thread and wove most of the cloth that China’s millions wore and slept under. They also wove mats, bags, and fishnets, made straw hats and shoes, scraped poppy-seed pods for raw opium, picked and processed fruits and oils. Depending on local resources and markets, family-based work teams employed female hand labor to produce an astonishing variety of goods with commercial value.

    • Replies: @Anon
  4. 0use4msm says:

    I wouldn’t to go so far as to suggest causality, but various examples exist in history of correlations between patriarchal values and what are generally considered “pinnacles of civilisation”.

    For instance, in the ancient Greek city state of Athens women enjoyed less freedom and status than in other societies of the time such as Sparta or ancient Persia. And yet, I need not explain how much Athens excelled in the arts, sciences and forays into democracy (even though the latter was restricted to free males only).

    The same is true when one compares the European Middle Ages to the early modern era (the Renaissance) and, later on, the Enlightenment. The Middle Ages are not only known for their general stasis (time is cyclic and there is very little advancement in any sense) but also for the relative freedom and high status of women: think of courtly love, the cult of the Holy Virgin, the freedom of abbesses (Hildegard von Bingen) and consorts (Eleanor of of Aquitaine) to pursue academic and political careers. And then we have the early Modern Era, in which the whole notion of progress is suddenly becomes a thing, first in a religious sense (thanks to the Book of Revelations) and then gradually in a more secular sense (the arts and sciences, political utopias). But this is also the era of the witch craze, and a general resurgence of patriarchal values.

    The notion of progress stalled somewhat with the cultural relativism of 20th century Post-modernism (a form of Neo-Medievalism if you ask me), which arose roughly the same time as modern feminism. Coincidence?

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @Malla
    , @Anon
  5. FKA Max says:
    @0use4msm

    Are you familiar with Shlain’s “The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image” research?

    Highly interesting:

    For 750, 000 years, families had gathered around lit hearths whose flames supplied warmth, illuminated darkness, encouraged camaraderie, and encouraged storytelling. Campfires had been an essential ingredient for the evolution of oral epics. In 1950, a new kind of fire replaced the hearth; and it encouraged a different set of social qualities.

    Shlain points out that when a person reads a book, his or her electroencephalogram (EEG) brain wave patterns differ significantly from those registered when that person is watching television — a finding made all the more remarkable by the fact that these patterns deviate negligibly when the content of the book or TV program is varied. Watching television generates the same slow alpha and theta waves as meditating — patterns representing a “passive, receptive, and contemplative state of mind” — while reading generates beta waves, typically registered when the mind is concentrating on a task.

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/text-and-talk/#comment-2305786

    The Alphabet vs. The Goddess Lecture by Dr. Leonard Shlain

  6. I’m afraid I find the ‘left wing’ theory of patriarchy somewhat more convincing. See David Graeber – patriarchy evolves as a response to slavery as an institution – the point being to demonstrate that ‘our women’ are safe from being enslaved by being kept within the confines of domestic spaces. Thus patriarchy evolves out of violent imperial warfare c. 3000 BC along with mass slavery.

    The theory described in the article sounds a-historical. It doesn’t really explain the relatively ‘free and easy’ sexuality of nomadic groups and pastoralists for whom the same dilemmas of paternity protection would surely apply. I’m not denying that nomads are prone to violence btw, just saying that from what I’ve read that violence rarely seems to be about protecting the purity of daughters or sisters, and more about inter tribal conflict over resources.

    • Replies: @RW
    , @unpc downunder
  7. Is this supposed to be original or something? This is the same boring BS line that the Manosphere has been pushing for the last 20 years. Notice that the so-called test proposed near the end of the article does not even disprove the null hypothesis.

    Lance Welton is the author of the most insipid tripe ever to appear on this website. He is a ridiculous hack, a thoroughgoing mediocrity, an inept scribbler of nonsense. This space should be allotted to someone else, and shame on VDARE for wasting their time with this moron.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @SMK
  8. Is there any evidence that married women cheat with “higher status” partners, or is this assumed? How is status determined, anyway?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  9. Corvinus says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    “Is this supposed to be original or something? This is the same boring BS line that the Manosphere has been pushing for the last 20 years.”

    Wow, we agree on something! It would appear that the author cobbled together disparate links to craft a narrative based on a false premise by using a scientific study he twisted and contorted to make it appear supports that narrative.

    For example, the author says “Men have nothing to lose from a sexual encounter, so they want to have sex with as many good-looking (and thus genetically healthy) and young (and thus fertile) women as possible. But women have a great deal to lose from a sexual encounter, because they can get pregnant and they produce a far smaller number of gametes than men. They and their offspring are more likely to survive if they get a man who will invest in them and look after them.”

    The synopsis of the research makes no direct reference to his statement. And, of course, how convenient that access to it requires a username and password to ascertain if indeed the researchers make such a bold claim. Interesting that there are no specific quotes used by Mr. Welton to offer context. We are simply to assume that his summary of the work is an objective assessment.

    “Human females are not evolved to be monogamous. They’re evolved to be, albeit cunningly, “polyandrous”: marry the kindly Beta male if you must but get pregnant by the Alpha one.”

    So what particular evidence did the researchers provide to lend creedence this assertion, Mr. Welton? Did they even use such terminology, or are you inserting Chateau Heartiste language into the discussion for your own benefit?

  10. Rosie says:

    So what particular evidence did the researchers provide to lend creedence this assertion, Mr. Welton? Did they even use such terminology, or are you inserting Chateau Heartiste language into the discussion for your own benefit?

    Probably none. But even if it’s true, I wonder if that would imply that eugenic cuckoldry actually drives rather than impedes progress in civilization.

    Women apparently are more turned on by talented musicians when we’re fertile, and musical ability in itself may be associated with problem-solving abilities (divergent thinking).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4043099/

    https://www.science20.com/news_releases/do_musicians_have_higher_iqs_than_non_musicians_yes_says_study

    I’m not sure the manosphere will end up liking where this line of inquiry ultimately leads.

  11. Rosie says:
    @Ray Huffman

    Among many American Indian tribes, even today, a man will typically take much more interest in his sister’s children than in his wife’s because there is no doubt that his sister’s children carry some of his genetic legacy, but marrying the chief and then banging the braves is an old scam women like to pull.

    Not really. When we marry the chief, it’s usually because we’re forced into it.

    • Replies: @Anon
  12. Rosie says:
    @Ray Huffman

    Among many American Indian tribes, even today, a man will typically take much more interest in his sister’s children than in his wife’s because there is no doubt that his sister’s children carry some of his genetic legacy, but marrying the chief and then banging the braves is an old scam women like to pull.

    I don’t know if that’s true or not, but one thing I do know. I’m not an American Indian. I’m a White woman, and I don’t much care for being lumped in with the rest. I’m sure White men don’t like being considered natural criminals because of (ahem…) the known propensities of certain other groups of men.

    Funny how race realism gets forgotten when women are under discussion.

  13. Malla says:
    @0use4msm

    I do not remember the details but there was this researcher whose book I did read a long time ago where he found out that tribes (pre Christian times) which practiced a culture with more restrictions on women had a more complex mythology or creation myth than those tribe who allowed more freedom to women. The tribes which gave more freedom to women had a very simple and rudimentary mythologies. An inverse relationship in between freedom for women and achievements.
    I think men put restrictions on women in the past so that they could concentrate on other things besides just sex and mating.

  14. Rosie says:

    The tribes which gave more freedom to women had a very simple and rudimentary mythologies. An inverse relationship between freedom for women and achievements.</blockquote

    Of course, the genetic foundation for the more advanced cultures was the product of previous centuries, when women may or may not have been freer to choose their own mates. Indeed, mate guarding may itself be a "luxury" that is only available to more materially advanced societies built on the superior genetics of free womens' offspring. Such societies might then undo themselves with dysgenic coercion of women.

    I think men put restrictions on women in the past so that they could concentrate on other things…

    What sorts of restrictions do you have in mind?

  15. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    300 murders in a society of 200mil is nothing.

    Anglos want Pakis to be cucks like them but Pakis at least have the balls to empty their balls into Anglo women, exactly what they want.

    If it was 30,000 or 3 Lakh honor killings a year, I might be impressed.


    As it is, this is just White imperialism and racist shaming of another culture which doesn’t convert to the ‘christian’ (read: Puritan) view of women.

    • Replies: @SMK
    , @Jeff Stryker
    , @Anon
  16. Antiwar7 says:

    The author of this article doesn’t inspire confidence, given such a misleading, perhaps uninformed statement as: “Among our chimpanzee ancestors, the solution was perfectly simple. The male chimp would jealously guard his females during estrus…”.

    Actually, the most common mating strategy among chimpanzees is promiscuous, though other patterns exist. See, for example, http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/behav
    which contains this quote:

    “The majority of chimpanzee reproductive behavior is promiscuous, with females mating with multiple males opportunistically during estrus, though the majority of copulation occurs during the 10-day period of maximal tumescence (Goodall 1986). There are other types of reproductive strategies that are recognized as well. Restrictive mating, where the dominant male restricts other males from mating with estrous females in the community, consortship mating, where an adult pair leave the community for several days to weeks, and extra-group mating, where females leave their communities and mate furtively with males from nearby communities (Goodall 1986; Gagneux et al. 1999).”

  17. To all of the ridiculous people that criticize this article:

    It’s worse than you think. Women’s sexual strategy has a dual nature. A woman in pre-industrial times must have someone to help in the raising of an infant. She would be incapacitated for at least some weeks during pregnancy, as well as for at least the first few months of the infant’s life. This explains her desire to mate for resources. However, she still has only one womb, and when it’s occupied, tends to be out of commission for a good couple of years at a time. So Women evolved to desire the highest quality genes she could lay her vagina on. The men bearing these genes were mostly our ancestors. The indicia of these quality genes are some things that we can now measure: social dominance, outcome independence, facial symmetry, high muscle to fat ration, iow, in general, the effects of high levels of testosterone. And there you have it, the dilemma of female hypergamy: good genes or good resources? How about both, hubby (presumably the good provider) will never know!

    As for the evolution of monogamy/marriage, it turns out that paternal investment seems to trump good genes six ways from Sunday, hence, civilization.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Corvinus
  18. Yee says:

    Footbinding has nothing to do with work or having affairs. It was just like western women binding their waist in the past, or wearing high heels in the present.

    Western men like tiny waist, so the women bind their waist; Chinese men like tiny feet, so the women bind their feet. Wearing high heels is considered sexy, so the women wear high heels.

    True, it’s a man’s world, so it’s still very important that women do their best to be attractive to men.

  19. Rosie says:
    @Kyfho Myoba

    The indicia of these quality genes are some things that we can now measure: social dominance, outcome independence, facial symmetry, high muscle to fat ration, iow, in general, the effects of high levels of testosterone.

    Well, White men have traveled to the moon and virtually eliminated infant mortality, so there’s that, too. It makes sense when you think about it. Why wouldn’t women who were attractive to intelligent and creative men have had more offspring?

  20. Corvinus says:
    @Kyfho Myoba

    “A woman in pre-industrial times must have someone to help in the raising of an infant. She would be incapacitated for at least some weeks during pregnancy, as well as for at least the first few months of the infant’s life.”

    Actually, farm women generally would work up until they had their child, and within two to four weeks, they were back at their jobs.

  21. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Tell that to Ann Boleyn.

    (Okay, I don’t have a serious point here, but I couldn’t resist).

    • LOL: Rosie
  22. RW says:
    @blank-misgivings

    The theory described in the article sounds a-historical. It doesn’t really explain the relatively ‘free and easy’ sexuality of nomadic groups and pastoralists for whom the same dilemmas of paternity protection would surely apply. I’m not denying that nomads are prone to violence btw, just saying that from what I’ve read that violence rarely seems to be about protecting the purity of daughters or sisters, and more about inter tribal conflict over resources.

    I’ve read that humans evolved stronger tendencies towards pair-bonding after animals were domesticated. Animals diseases spread to humans and caused things like venereal disease, which could make people infertile or kill them. So those people with genes that coded for stronger monogamy had more kids, which meant monogamy gradually became the rule not the exception.

    • Replies: @JSM
  23. Anon[380] • Disclaimer says:

    “Could it be that the rise in “feminism” is not just due to the collapse of patriarchy but, more profoundly, due to weakened Darwinian selection?”

    Conservative females still have more children than liberal feminists, so Darwinian selection is ongoing. Over time, the population should bottom out with feminists being removed from the gene pool and patriarchal women becoming dominant.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  24. SMK says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The “manosphere,” a snake-pit and cesspool of misogyny, includes PUA/”gamers” like Roissy and Roooch V and also MRAs, the misogynists of the soi-disant “men’s movement,” a majority of whom are left-liberals, cultural determinists, and sexual egalitarians who want a society in which half of all police, soldiers, firefighters, hard hats, prison guards in male prisons, etc. are female, and in which fathers receive custody of the children in at least half of all divorces, and a minority of “conservatives”-traditionalists who want to repeal the 19th amendment and return to the 19th century and support either the abolition of divorce, like F. Roger Devlin, or automatic father custody. They’re united by hatred of women and the view of men and boys as the “victims” of women.

    Welton, apparently, would be satisfied by a return to the 1950s or even the 19th Century. Given his praise of foot-binding, Sharia law, honor killings, burquas, etc. it appears he’s like to turn the U.S into Iran or Saudi Arabia. Perhaps he should move there or to the UK, London, Telford, Oxford, Rotherham.

  25. SMK says: • Website
    @Anon

    Praise for “honor killings” and Pakistani “groomers,” the Muslim sadists and monsters who’ve abducted, enslaves, forced into prostitution, tortured, raped, gang-raped, brutalized, and terrorized myriads of poor and working-class English girls, some as young as 10 and 11. Move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, you deranged misogynist vermin, or the UK.

    • Replies: @TKK
  26. Curiouser says:

    I can accept some of the general drift of this article and the work it reviews, but there are certain points that the writer does not cover that require consideration. In fact, I suspect there are many such anomalies, but there are two or three that occur to me on first reading.

    The first issue is that it seems likely that for much of human history, women exercised very little choice over the men with whom they mated. In pre-civilized times, children would often have been the result of abduction/rape. Outside rape, people of both sexes usually mated with those who were most handy. They did not have a wide field from which to choose.

    In more stable societies, men and women were usually subject to arranged marriages and their sexual attraction to this mate or that was simply not considered. Even youth (and thus fertility) might be ignored by a man’s parents or guardians if an otherwise advantageous marriage was offered. So might other theoretically desirable qualities. In the US and Britain in the late 19th century, English aristocratic parents often accepted rich but non-aristocratic brides for their sons, while their American counterparts rejoiced that their grandchildren might become English peers.

    The next issue is, in precisely what way is an alpha male advantageous to women? It’s one thing if he’s an all-around alpha who is not only sexually attractive, but is rich and powerful, but many alpha males possess only one of these attributes. Not only that, but sexually successful men were and remain notoriously hard to pin down for either marriage or child support. How do such men give women’s offspring a better chance of survival? And if they do not, why choose them at all? Kyfho Myoba, above, addresses this by mentioning adultery with high ‘T’ men as one way to ensure both good genes and good resources, but if that were the case, surely there would be more high ‘T’ men around today than there actually are? Whereas the reverse seems to be the case. Anyway, among non-human animal species, high ‘T’ and resource-riches seem to run in tandem. Why is that not true of human beings?

    Honestly, I think you’ll have to think this out again.

  27. @Curiouser

    Just for the record, I’m not the ‘Curiouser’ who appears in the other comment under that name, which at the moment is at ‘Curiouser says: July 23, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT’.

    I’ll have to think of another handle.

  28. @Anon

    …yeah, if the girl is 12 years old and the daughter of low IQ poor whites on welfare who did not sell their property and move away from the Paks when their property was worth something…which is not long when a significant number move in.

    But in the US whose superior Nordic German and Jewish strains of Europeans live in the suburbs, a Pakistani is seen as the oily brown smelly monster that most are.

  29. @Curiouser

    For all practical purposes, the US has a caste system of arranged marriages.

    Dim lower-class white girls esp. from the sticks of Anglo-Celtic evangelical heritage will fornicate with blacks and whiggers and end up on welfare.

    Women from the suburbs with college educations will not do so as often.

    When you see a mixed-race child with no father you will know immediately that his Dad was a feckless black Alpha whose drugs and penis size and masculinity impressed a dim white girl from the lower class. You will know immediately that she did not have a STEM college degree and was a slutty white girl from a broken home whose sucked black penises to rebel against her absentee redneck father.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @renfro
  30. Koiytenin says:
    @SMK

    “the misogynists of the soi-disant “men’s movement,” a majority of whom are left-liberals, cultural determinists, and sexual egalitarians who want a society in which half of all police, soldiers, firefighters, hard hats, prison guards in male prisons, etc. are female, and in which fathers receive custody of the children in at least half of all divorces, ”

    “They’re united by hatred of women and the view of men and boys as the “victims” of women.”

    Left-liberals, cultural determinists and sexual egalitarians who want pure equality are misogynists who hate women?

  31. Koiytenin says:

    “Those who refuse to have their feet bound, or be circumcised so they can’t enjoy sex, ”

    This is not the primary purpose of female circumcision, alteast outside of Islam and Victorian-mid 20th century medicine. There are also virtually no studies in existence supporting the claim “circumcised” women can’t enjoy sex. If this description is true, then this article is repeating common feminist propaganda (although most are unaware that’s what it is) about female circumcision- IE “it’s always done to oppress women and they can’t enjoy sex afterwards.”

    https://www.taskforcefgm.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hast81.pdf

    “Western media coverage of female genital modifications in Africa has been hyperbolic and onesided, presenting them uniformly as mutilation and ignoring the cultural complexities that underlie these practices. Even if we ultimately decide that female genital modifications should be abandoned, the debate around them should be grounded in a better account of the facts.

    1. Research by gynecologists and others has demonstrated that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced.

    2. The widely publicized and sensationalized reproductive health and medical complications associated with female genital surgeries in Africa are infrequent events and represent the exception rather than the rule.

    3. Female genital surgeries in Africa are viewed by many insiders as aesthetic enhancements of the body and are not judged to be “mutilations.”

    4. Customary genital surgeries are not restricted to females. In almost all societies where there are customary female genital surgeries, there are also customary male genital surgeries, at similar ages and for parallel reasons. In other words, there are few societies in the world, if any, in which female but not male genital surgeries are customary.

    5. The empirical association between patriarchy and genital surgeries is not well established.

    6. Female genital surgery in Africa is typically controlled and managed by women.

    7. The findings of the WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome is the subject of criticism that has not been adequately publicized. The reported evidence does not support sensational media claims about female genital surgery as a cause of perinatal and maternal mortality during birth.”

    In other words female circumcision is done for varying purposes where it is practiced, and in much of Africa is a maturation rite where a girl becomes a woman through it- and is able to experience sexuality to begin with. In Islam, it does appear to be typically done to control sexuality, but it can vary from a ritual prick all the way up to infibulation, an extreme practice found only in certain parts of Africa. It is not inherently an expression of patriarchy or explicit sexual, reproductive and behavioral oppression, despite feminist propagandists upholding it as that for decades now.

    This also ignores male circumcision being done with parallel purposes for controlling sexuality, whether, again, in Victoria-mid 20th century medicine or throughout much of Jewish history, and still in many Orthodox communities. It’s quite likely Islam has similar traditions.

    There is a greater correlation between male circumcision and patriarchy: http://www.noharmm.org/geography.htm

    There is also this: http://www.circumstitions.com/yemen.html

    • Replies: @Eric Novak
  32. Why We Had the Traditional Gender Laws

    At the end of the Late Bronze when Moses was leading the Hebrew people, all of the major civilisations were crashing, within a short period of time. These collapses had happened several times already before within written memory, and Moses’s laws were plans that could keep his people from collapsing with the next crash which was inevitable in a few hundred years. We know of the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, and Late Bronze, because there were major crashes in between.

    Any small kingdom between the great powers in Mesopotamia and Egypt was not destined to last as a free state. A great crash kills or enslaves so many people that it is hard to imagine how bad it always is for many. All of the Biblical laws aim at keeping the people from joining in with the trade and usury based economies and the urbanism of the traditional civilisations, because they always rise and fall, rise and fall. The Biblical laws governing women aim at keeping half the population totally away from the marketplace and the trade economy, so that when the inevitable crash comes, half of the products of the people’s labour is still at home. Families stay together, and children and old people are more likely to prosper when living under the Biblical law, because the family provides a refuge when the next crash comes.

    Now to be sure the Hebrew people did everything they were told not to do; they built cities and made for themselves a king. It caused their ruin, their almost total destruction, but their scribes honestly wrote the story down warts and all, something that no barbarian tribes would ever do. Religious Jews still follow the law, and it has kept them going for three thousand years.

    Secular Jews, have, on the other hand, repeatedly over man centuries used the law as a template for encouraging the future weaknesses of their enemies. In the early 21st century it is secular Jews who control the money supply and the entire usury system that they were told not to practice at all, the banks and the Federal Reserve. When the system crashes, they will again be blamed, and for the same reasons as so many times in the past. Secular Jews in Hollywood and in the press have sold Americans the myth of the sexual liberation. Without secular Jews we would not have nuclear weapons; all of the major scientists who built the bomb on both the US and Russian side were secular Jews, the entire lot. The whole nuclear mess we would probably not have now without them, and it most certainly would not have come as soon.

    When I was in Israel four decades ago, I took the Ulpan language program for immigrants, and I worked with most of the important archaeological teams. Late at night religious Jews talked of their horror at what was coming and the disasters that will destroy their people again. They said in the early 70s that their secular brothers would soon lead America into an endless series of wars against Islam for the sake of Israel, as soon as Communism, for whose creation secular Jews were almost totally responsible, was dead, and that the Jews would be rightly blamed for trashing the Muslim world. That America is slated to crash and flame out very badly under this secular Jewish dominance is a certainty; it is just a matter of time, because empires always crash.

    Everything that America stands for now is the direct opposite of the recommendations Moses gave for survival. Five of the Ten Commandments come directly from the Egyptian book of the dead; Moses presented a plan based on trial and error in the real world derived from the wisdom of literate men before him. Americans turn all of this on its head. They claim that Moses was wrong not to let the people dancing around the golden calf make their own rules. Americans “hold these truths to be self-evident.” Americans believe that truth comes not from real world experience over many centuries written down by a religious tradition but from the changing whims, the subjective judgements of the majority. It is pure childishness, as far from any rational approach as one can imagine, a bunch of recently literate Vikings doing their thing while a Jewish press plays the music they dance to, and it is all very far from the wisdom of Moses or Confucius.

    • Replies: @NYCTexan
  33. utu says:

    Humans until not so long ago (and still among some primitive tribes of Papua New Guinea) do not know the causal link between sex and babies. On the evolutionary scale there are no conscious strategies but a simple drive which male can out-fuck the others. But fortunately because females are very generous (because they like to be fucked) and the fact that nec hercules contra plures all males end up having some chances to successfully procreate.

    Genetic explanation are tautological and thus do not offer any explanations because every story they tell eats its own tail: it is so because it is so. They are true because they must be true.

    Anyway, the author is half-educated simpleton whom unfortunately somebody taught to write. He should have gone to vocational school instead or be kidnapped and pressed into the job of eunuch in somebody’s harem where he could employ his talent for theorizing about procreation.

  34. Its always women’s fault. They have this clever device between their legs that completely rules men. Bloody clever that is.

  35. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:

    When the end of the birth canal is ”modified”, there’ll be scar tissue.
    Since scar tissue doesn’t stretch during childbirth, the result will be nasty tears when the niglet’s head crowns.
    If it’s happening in Africa, then that’s sad, but it goes with the territory.

    When it happens in Australia,I’m paying for it out of Taxes.

  36. This is so idiotic I can comment only by quoting a passage from an anonymous woman:

    I’m not wild about other people’s kids. Sure, I like some of them alright, but that’s about it. It’s totally different with my own.

    From the moment I got the positive pregnancy test result and knew there was a baby growing inside my body, I loved them. The feeling intensified when I could feel the baby moving. With both pregnancies, I willingly underwent bed rest and godawful medical procedures to halt preterm labor, because I loved the child and wanted her, and for the second pregnancy him, to make it into this world as close to full term and as healthy as possible.

    There’s no adequate way to describe the outpouring of love I felt when my children were born. They’re worth every long hour spent walking and singing to a colicky baby, every sleepless night rocking a sick child, and all the extra work that children bring. They bring more joy than worry, and more love than work. I wouldn’t ever go back to life without my children, even if I could. They’re worth everything. I’d die for them if it ever became necessary.

    Yes, women are made to be mothers. Some women are defective and don’t make good mothers. For the rest of us, motherhood is an incredible completion, an ultimate meaning in a meaningless world.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  37. In the article he says that women have evolved to accept patriarchy.

    But if that is the case, why has patriarchy collapsed so quickly in the Western World?

  38. Anon[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curiouser

    “Anyway, among non-human animal species, high ‘T’ and resource-riches seem to run in tandem. Why is that not true of human beings?”

    Brainpower has come to overshadow muscle power in the social struggle success-earning arm ranking. At least in the last 3 or 4 centuries, and ever more so as homo sapiens morphs into homo technologicus.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Kyfho Myoba
  39. @Anon

    In my opinion this is why whites ran the world-with Jews as a subset at the top.

    Blacks are strong and possess brute force but could never have invented a nuclear weapon. Asians are intelligent, but lack the creativity of whites.

    For a variety of different attributes, whites managed to conquer the world. Capacity for organization, intelligence, physical courage.

  40. Norman456 says:

    As I walked through a local mall yesterday I realized how the summer ritual of girl-watching has been turned into a surreal nightmare in modern America. Every girl/woman had to be at least 200 lbs or more, wearing cut-off shorts too tight, their white kielbasa thighs covered with smeary, incomprehensible tattoos, hair not cut but rather hacked into fist-sized clumps of neon yellow, magenta, purple, and all of them desperately in need of a long hot bath. It is hard to believe anyone would pursue, much less defend, these bovine herds. Patriarchy RIP.

    I don’t think Irwin Shaw’s classic story, “The Girls In Their Summer Dresses”, could have been written today.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Corvinus
  41. n230099 says:

    Still, where is James Brown’s old song??

  42. Anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Do you believe the stats? If it is “only”300 it maybe because those killed and those beaten or mutilated are enough to enforce discipline according to their primitive rules.

  43. Looks like we will not go back to chastity belts.

  44. CF says:

    I would recommend; When God was a Woman by Merlin Stone: also published as The Paradise Papers.

    The author examines the archaeological evidence which shows a time in the Middle East, Persia, when women were in charge, held property, looked after the markets ect.

  45. JSM says:

    Ok, but modern DNA testing science makes all the men’s worrying, moot.

    What’s needed is a change of laws.
    As it currently stands, a married man is responsible for all the infants that exits his wife’s birth canal; it’s assumed they are legitimately his.

    Simply change the law. If the fella suspects his wife of diddling the milkman, demand a DNA test of the infant. Make it so that if DNA testing shows not his, he’s not financially responsible and can divorce her with no alimony — in fact he can sue HER for damages. That simple fact, that she could be found out and her money be confiscated, will put men back on a more even playing field.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  46. JSM says:
    @RW

    Animals diseases spread to humans and caused things like venereal disease, which could make people infertile or kill them. So those people with genes that coded for stronger monogamy had more kids, which meant monogamy gradually became the rule not the exception.

    That makes no sense. How would pair-bonding keep your husband, who you married in part because he owns some sheep, from diddling them?
    It wouldn’t. He diddles his sheep, catches a disease, gives it to you. Monogamy would provide no protection.

    • Replies: @jay
  47. The notion that “pretty” equals “genetically superior” is crucial to evolutionary psychology but holds little if any water. In practice a small–i.e., weak–delicately built girl with a cute face and coquettish manner will leave the bar with the alpha guy while the strong, slightly chunky girl with the big nose and close-set eyes will stay behind. Health and fertility play no part. Unless you can show that hourglass-shaped women are more fertile than boxier ones, or that plain features correlate with lower resistance to disease or less endurance or lower intelligence or some such, the evolutionary just-so story fails. The assertion that not-so-attractive women have high levels of testosterone and so have spontaneous abortions is embarassing desperation.

  48. jay says:

    This author provides a much better summary:

    https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

    Patriarchy is an artificial construct like civilization is artificial. Maintained over generations by countless chains of fatherhood who subsequently also heads the entire civilization.

    Which puts sex to work and invests men in the family through headship of his family and his guarantee the children he invested in were his.

    It collapses because it is quite fragile. As civilization is fragile. Mankind ( and probably a few other species) are the only Patriarchal animal/s in the entire animal Kingdom. The most advanced in terms of intelligent creatures existent on the earth.

    All past pinnacles of civilization are Patriarchal as far as we know. We know of no Advanced Civilization that endured long enough for there to be a record of any other.

  49. jay says:
    @JSM

    Also it seems at least with such societies at least the Abrahamic one we know.

    All acts that help facilitate the spread of venereal disease is punishable by death.

  50. Koiytenin says:
    @anon

    This issue with “scar tissue” rarely happens in reality. I made a post right before yours showing this. It’s funny how even people who say “niglet” will also regurgitate what amounts to feminist propaganda.

    Here’s more on that (and more in relation to the paper this article is about): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/S0968-8080(10)35495-4

    “In a survey investigating obstetric outcomes in relation to female genital cutting, conducted by the WHO in six developing countries, it was shown (statistically) that some forms of female genital cutting seemed to increase the risk of poor obstetric outcomes, perinatal mortality, caesarean section, and post-partum bleeding in circumcised women. However, the increased risk did not have the immense proportions often imagined among lay people. Ronán Conroy, an epidemiologist, concludes in a BMJ comment on the WHO study that a comparison of risk factors in pregnancy places female genital cutting (treated as a whole) somewhere behind maternal smoking. Further, it has been shown that female genital cutting is not related to prolonged labour or perinatal mortality, at least not in high resource countries. Is there an association between female circumcision and perinatal death? No association between female genital circumcision and prolonged labour: a case control study of immigrant women giving birth in Sweden.

    Claims about the absence of sexual pleasure due to female genital cutting, a central tenet of anti-FGM campaigns, are increasingly being challenged. Two Egyptian studies have shown an increased risk of sexual dysfunction: statistically more cut women than uncut (or mildly cut) experienced lack of sexual desire and difficulties in achieving orgasm. In contrast, studies that include women from Sudan– countries where women go through the most extensive form of female genital cutting, often called “pharaonic circumcision” – have led us to draw the conclusion that cut women have the same ability to feel pleasure and experience orgasm as is found among Western women who have not been cut. Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer concludes in an overview of studies on female genital cutting and sexuality that “the available evidence does not support the hypotheses that circumcision destroys sexual function or precludes enjoyment of sexual relations”. It is counter-intuitive that female genital cutting does not have adverse effects on ability to enjoy sex. But perhaps the absence of adverse effects is due to the fact that the clitoris does stretch far into the body; what is cut is part of the external clitoris, while the inner structure remains intact. Furthermore, sexuality as an activity has to do with more than anatomy; sexual gratification also involves social, cultural and psychological factors to a higher degree than is usually acknowledged. Thus, the ability to enjoy sex and to reach orgasm is not only about whether part of the external female genitals have been cut or not.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Stan d Mute
    , @anon
  51. @Norman456

    Agree. If a person looks at old YouTube videos of say, Donna De Varona or Don Schollander competing in outdoor swim meets in 1963, one sees petite women in lightweight slacks, shorts and blouses and the men all wearing lightweight, breathable, button up short sleeve shirts with chinos or loose slacks. Everyone looked both more casual and fashionable than they do in today’s get ups; less self-consciously displaying their “individuality”. What passes for standard wear today would have been reserved for Halloween back then. And you’re right, today’s face and hair belong to Halloween as well.

    @. 53 second mark

  52. Anon[874] • Disclaimer says:

    In social(as opposed to merely biological) terms, patriarchy is necessary because older men have no place and prestige in society without patriarchy. In the animal world, young males dominate while older males are shunted aside or mauled by younger ones. It’s like boxing. Younger fighters destroy older ones. Without patriarchy, we have rule of thug-archy. The breakdown of culture and morals among blacks and white chavs has led to rise of anti-values of rap gangster attitudes and hedonism. Also, young ones now only look to trashy porny celebrity for meaning and manner. And parents offer their children to the Mammon of Idolatry that worships muscles, dongs, and booties. Culture has become like sports. Young matter. Parents have no control of kids.

    Once you reach a certain age, you are irrelevant, obsolete, and invisible. Unless there is patriarchy and family culture, the culture is one of cynical and materialist corporations manipulating the mindlessness of impressionable youths who think they are ‘free’ because they conform to the latest trashy fashions. Today, the culture says parents exist only to produce kids and feed and clothe them. Materialist parenting. That’s it. The hearts and minds of the kids must be molded by Pop Culture industry that says rap thugs and athletes are the best people, and PC(political correctness) says Homo-worship should replace Christianity as the new faith because globalists want it that way. The two PC’s(pop culture and political correctness) says that older people are bad because they are ‘uncool’ and ‘reactionary’ because the only metrics of morality is the ‘Current Year’, i.e. the latest fads of ideological zealotry, like the craze about 50 genders and trannies. It used to be younger ones were expected to listen to older people with more experience and reference. Now, older people are pressured to conform to the hysterics of young ones under the spell of PC and Pop Culture controlled by armchair radicals and globalist oligarchs like Soros.

    There was a time when younger men respected older men. And before pop culture became the main culture, older men imparted the culture of family lore, church, customs, and experience to the young ones. Vito Corleone is a patriarch. He lived in a time when sons respected fathers. And the tragedy of Arthur is he has no patriarchal control over his son. It is through patriarchy that grandparents have a meaningful link with grandkids. But since the 60s, people aged most ungracefully. Mick Jagger still acts like he’s hot stuff. Older people are just sent to retirement homes while kids(often growing up without fathers) grow up with TV and other gadgets to share porny images and pop culture trash.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Anon
  53. NYCTexan says:
    @Mike Garrett

    This was a very good comment.

  54. Corvinus says:
    @Anon

    “In social(as opposed to merely biological) terms, patriarchy is necessary because older men have no place and prestige in society without patriarchy.”

    Actually, older men today are still revered, especially for their experience.

    “The breakdown of culture and morals among blacks and white chavs has led to rise of anti-values of rap gangster attitudes and hedonism.”

    For some people.

    “And parents offer their children to the Mammon of Idolatry that worships muscles, dongs, and booties. Culture has become like sports. Young matter. Parents have no control of kids.”

    You are overgeneralizing here.

    “Today, the culture says parents exist only to produce kids and feed and clothe them. Materialist parenting. That’s it. The hearts and minds of the kids must be molded by Pop Culture industry that says rap thugs and athletes are the best people…”

    Actually, the culture says parents exist to produce kids and mold them how they want, but not in the way you think how most mothers and fathers conduct themselves.

    “Now, older people are pressured to conform to the hysterics of young ones under the spell of PC and Pop Culture controlled by armchair radicals and globalist oligarchs like Soros.”

    Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how some people just get certain things totally wrong.

    “There was a time when younger men respected older men.”

    That time is still now.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Anon
  55. Corvinus says:
    @Norman456

    “As I walked through a local mall yesterday I realized how the summer ritual of girl-watching has been turned into a surreal nightmare in modern America.”

    Funny, I was just remarking to my buddies a week ago about how things haven’t changed since when we had been young regarding the number of nubile, supple women at our local mall. They also nodded in agreement as they had experienced the same thing. So it would seem that you just happened to go on a “bad day”.

  56. Corvinus says:
    @Anon

    “Conservative females still have more children than liberal feminists, so Darwinian selection is ongoing. Over time, the population should bottom out with feminists being removed from the gene pool and patriarchal women becoming dominant.”

    Except there are way too many non-white children being born, so you are just fantasizing here.

    • Replies: @Anon
  57. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    After reading several months of you denigrating the most beautiful women in America, the blonde red and chestnut haired, blue eyed Anglo celts wth their big eyes, and perfectly proportioned features I can only conclude so many of those Anglo Celtic old American beauties turned you down that’s the reason you turned against us.

    Are you aware that almost all the famous White American fashion models were and are from that Anglo Celtic group with their perfect faces you so despise?
    Most Miss Americas are from that same group as well. And the beautiful, not interesting or exotic or cute actresses a well. Compare 2 well known short brunettes. Jewish Natalie Portman is cute and pretty. Courtney Cox is devasting beautiful. Cox is Anglo southern.

    Maybe you went to Asia not just for work but for some “ gimme a green card sex”

  58. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Absolutely right.

    I might add that Brown vs Topeka, 65 immigration act and 68 affirmative action act all happened when Whites were about 88 87 percent of the population and our only enemies were Jews and blacks.

    Our overwhelming majority didn’t help us then and bringing more White children into an affirmative action world isn’t going to help.

    Want more White children? Divorce your 70 year old wife, find a 25 year old White woman, somehow convince her to marry you, take some viagra and have some more White children.

    Or do an informal polygamy thing.

    I despise these old codgers who carefully limited their kids to 2 and didn’t even protest non White immigration and affirmative action telling the young White victims of non White immigration and affirmative action to have big families of White children.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  59. @Corvinus

    EVOLUTION OF THE CHAV

    Poor whites were the last to discover rap music-up to 1990 they listened to Heavy Metal and wanted to be Ozzy.

    White gangsters existed long before rap-CLOCKWORK ORANGE punks; hippies like Manson; the Italians with their Guido code of machismo such as SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER.

    Gangster rap really hit the white mainstream with COLORS, Ice T’s soundtrack. NWA and Public Enemy became popular with suburban whites.

    Because poor white in the US are usually rural and redneck, they resisted rap until the mid-90′s. In the UK, Chavs listened to Oasis and gobbled Ecstasy.

    But the Eminem popularized whiggerdom for the lower class, whose white pride finally gave out.

    Middle-class whites in the 2000′s went “Hipster” and middle-class to upper-class whites these days would not be whiggers because most educated women to not want to be pregnant at the welfare office.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  60. @Anon

    “Big families”

    You have kids with fertile white women starting at 20. The grow up in poverty, because you cannot get a college degree and have to accept any menial job you can get. You’re also immature, have not had a great deal of variety of sex partners and your marriage breaks up by 30.

    Your kids go to prole schools. One girl is a slut who has a kid with a Hood Rat. One son is a jailbird and junkie. Another is gay. Another is a thug.

    So you are basically know different than a black. Two kids in jail and a girl who is a promiscuous slut.

  61. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    The article is nonsense. 150 years ago scientists claimed that prehistoric women remained at home while the men hunted and the only food eaten was the meat the men hunted. Then someone figured out prehistoric people ate plants. Major discovery women must have gathered the plants !!!!!!!

    It’s all a crock and so are a lot of the comments

  62. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    My last job before I retired was at a university that has about 60,000 students so I was there 5 or 6 days a week. I still go there to get books from the library. Most of the girls are slim and pretty. At least half of the students are Asians. The average pretty White girl is prettier that the prettiest Asian.

    I spend a lot of time driving my eight blue eyed teen aged grandchildren around and I see the girls who attend their schools, I see their girl friends and they pretty, well dressed and slim. So are the mothers.

    6o years ago old codgers were bitching about short skirts, shift dresses without waistlines and bouffant hair styles.

    50 years ago old codgers were bitching about short skirts, long straight hair and embroidered jeans.

    40 years ago old codgers were bitching about big curly long hair, long full skirts and big sleeves.

    • Agree: renfro
  63. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Since scar tissue doesn’t stretch during childbirth, the result will be nasty tears when the niglet’s head crowns.

    I really could have used a trigger warning for that.

  64. Rosie says:
    @Koiytenin

    Claims about the absence of sexual pleasure due to female genital cutting, a central tenet of anti-FGM campaigns, are increasingly being challenged.

    Of course they are. Feminists who focus their attention on women’s grievances against non-White men are off script.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  65. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Actually, older men today are still revered, especially for their experience.

    Corvy, today older people are badgered by younger ones to worship homos or else be attacked 24/7.
    Even liberals of yesteryear are denounced as ‘racists’ blah blah.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  66. I read this originally at VDare and thought it was a superb commentary on some important social science done by women. Having just scrolled through some of my 200,000+ words spewed onto Unz.com comment threads and finding that I am always 100% correct, I strongly endorse my view.

    I do wonder about the arrow of causality though. Every day, “men” learn their children or wives have been victimized (often horribly) and do nothing about it. I don’t grok this at all. Is the emasculation environmental or genetic? Pathetic weak “men” are everywhere. Amy Biehl’s dad is a frighteningly common example. I’m inclined to blame Yeshuan culture, even as Yeshuanity itself is in decline. “Spread the other cheek” and “YHWH will judge” are disgustingly weak concepts. One can see why the promoters of the dogma would do so, they can get away with anything when the sheeple have Faith they’ll be avenged by some supernatural force. But why “men” would swallow such bullshit and see their wives or children’s victimizers smiling and laughing with impunity is beyond me unless they were simply women with a penis to begin with.

  67. A plea for two equal voices of humankind to be heard for the first time since perhaps the Late Bronze Age.  That’s a very long time for all of the world’s major activities to have been subject to a single gender approach. All the world’s significant enterprises have been co-opted by males historically, save one: renewing the species. Easily this is the most important event by the more important gender, but who cares? That’s just old female stuff, show us the new building or mighty machine, the new gadget, battleship, TV show, military machine, we say. We’re boldly shown all the works and wonder of an arguably lesser important, basically useful adjunct; a wannabe prime-time usurper of stage center…the human male.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/half-the-pieand-the-recipe-a-manifesto/

  68. renfro says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    was a slutty white girl from a broken home whose sucked black penises to rebel against her absentee redneck father.

    I am going to take the side of the ladies on this site and tell you enough is enough with your filthy porno pervert postings about white women …. I am within a hairs breath of asking the FBI and the IRS to visit your comments here and look into who you really are …unz non censorship be dammed in your case …. because you have the profile of typical sex perverts and rapist.

  69. Corvinus says:
    @Anon

    ‘Corvy, today older people are badgered by younger ones to worship homos or else be attacked 24/7
    Even liberals of yesteryear are denounced as ‘racists’ blah blah.”

    You really have no clue. This program, among others, are found throughout our glorious nation.

    https://www.oasisnet.org/National-Programs/Health-Programs/CATCH-Healthy-Habits

    • Replies: @Anon
  70. Corvinus says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    “Poor whites were the last to discover rap music-up to 1990 they listened to Heavy Metal and wanted to be Ozzy.”

    Actually, poor whites were listening to both genres in the 1980′s.

    “Gangster rap really hit the white mainstream with COLORS, Ice T’s soundtrack. NWA and Public Enemy became popular with suburban whites.”

    Late 1980′s. In the early and mid 1980′s, poor whites also listened to The Fat Boys, The Treacherous Three, and Run DMC.

    “Because poor white in the US are usually rural and redneck, they resisted rap until the mid-90′s.”

    Their poor black friends introduced them to it.

    “Middle-class whites in the 2000′s went “Hipster” and middle-class to upper-class whites these days would not be whiggers because most educated women to not want to be pregnant at the welfare office.”

    Why are you hatin’ on your own peeps?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  71. Franz says:

    Interesting article. I’d be more specific on WHAT SORT of society is emerging.

    Both Hindu and Greek culture began with epics (the Illiad, Gr; Ramayana, H.). In both cases high ranking women were abducted or ran away and war followed. From there, rigid sexual segregation started. And city life dominated thinking (cf, Plato’s Republic)

    At nearly the same time, Scythio-Sarmation societies, among others, were beginning in which the sex roles stayed relatively more free. At no point were men and women considered “equivalent”. But the steppe horse cultures were quite sophisticated and were able to adjust without the patriarchy being especially intrusive. I can think of a cogent reason for both extremes, as Sarmatian culture never divided the work as ruthlessly as the city cultures, which were early versions of “industrial man”.

    Simply put, the need for upper body male strength (not to mention male disposability — a subject scholars like to avoid) required us to mimic old time patriarchy for a couple generations as we industrialized here in the West.

    Right on schedule, however, feminism booted up when the post-industrial era began in the West. But it does not fly well in areas not blessed with such “advancement.”

    For a quick check, see how badly western feminist movies are bombing in China, where first era industrialization is still ruling the roost.

  72. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    I think it has more to do with the fact the idea any woman subjected to “FGM” can’t feel sexual pleasure simply has no basis in reality, and is nothing more than an insane feminist theory people have come to believe without question. You seem to be resistant to the idea though and think it’s all about feminists trying to downplay abuses on the part of non-white men. I think it could be better said that the standard claims about FGM on the part of feminists have long been about promoting grievances against men as a whole, since it’s long been presented as all the fault of men and a manifestation of extreme patriarchy. And endlessly contrasted to male circumcision, since it would take away women’s monopoly on being victims of this form of violence, and it would do immeasurable damage to the central feminist narrative of women always being victims and men always being oppressors. And denying men are harmed by having parts of their genitals cut off is a nice way to ignore/trivialize/downplay/normalize/promote a form of violence against men, since men are animals and deserve it.

    http://empathygap.uk/?p=519

    Between you and the niglet guy (I don’t really care he used that, it’s just funny he’d say that while echoing feminist propaganda), it’s really funny how even people on site likes this swallow the claims of feminists about FGM without question. It goes to show you how partial even people on the far/alt/dissident right can be to it, and how their skepticism of it’s association with feminism goes no further than accusations of cultural relativism (you’re also a woman.)

    • Replies: @Rosie
  73. @Frederick V. Reed

    Unless you can show that hourglass-shaped women are more fertile than boxier ones

    1. Take your pick — it’s hardly a secret:

    https://duckduckgo.com/?t=disconnect&x=%2Fhtml&q=fertility+waist+to+hip+ratio&ia=web

    Peak fertility correlates with W-H ratio of right around 0.7. For example:

    “Women with high WHR (0.80 or higher) have significantly lower pregnancy rates than
    women with lower WHRs (0.70–0.79), independent of their BMIs”

    http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/whr-singh2002.pdf

    or that plain features correlate with lower resistance to disease or less endurance or lower intelligence or some such

    2. One of the most important (and universal) requirements for beauty is symmetry — and asymmetry correlates with both higher genetic load and lower intelligence.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/10/beauty-is-objective-subjective/#.W29tQrjLdrU

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/health/if-intelligence-is-the-norm-stupidity-gets-more-interesting.html

    Nor is it clear why you feel that physical strength “should” be selected for in females to the exclusion of other traits.

  74. @JSM

    Ok, but modern DNA testing science makes all the men’s worrying, moot.
    What’s needed is a change of laws.

    Indeed, it is utterly insane to force men to pay for other men’s children and we do it today even when DNA conclusively proves the cuckoldry. But we also do it at the point of a gun with welfare don’t we? My money is confiscated at gunpoint and some of it feeds another man’s kids.

    With regard to collapse of patriarchy, I wonder how much has really changed. Men still make the tools, provide the energy and clean water, make the poop go away at the push of a button, build the houses and climate control systems, grow the food and kill the food, etc. Women still enable men to do these things by patching us up when we are hurt, providing company when we need it, nursing us in sickness, and dealing with our insufferable brats while we go do dangerous and important stuff.

    What has really collapsed is the vital animal nature of men. Most men today would starve to death before they went out and killed something to eat. They’d calmly and silently watch as the cops came to collect a savage who raped their wife or daughter. They’d call the cops if they found a sex deviant molesting kids in a playground. Can we call them “men” any longer?

    And we’ve also gone to this bizarre minoritarian fetishization where rules must be based on the lunatic fringe. A few sick freaks want to chop off their manhood? Rewrite the bathroom rules for the entire nation! A woman wants a fake penis flopping between her legs and a mustache? Change all of our military to accommodate her!

    Men are emasculated and I’m not sure why. We still hold 100% of the hard power in the world. Women hold the soft power to control us domestically, but not outside the domicile. What’s the reason for us becoming such weak sheeple?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @JSM
    , @Corvinus
  75. @SMK

    The slightest perception of a threat to your “patriarchy” conspiracy theory really seems to trigger you. This sort of unhinged rant can be pretty entertaining to read — can you come up with another one?

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • LOL: Kratoklastes
  76. @blank-misgivings

    Yes, men in less advanced societies don’t seem to have problem pimping out their women in return for trade goods, which suggests they haven’t developed an ethno-centric concern about protecting their women and children from slavers.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @anon
  77. @Koiytenin

    I don’t give one half of one of my dogs’ turds what Africans are doing to Africans in Africa (or Arabs in Arabia, Indians in India, chinamen in China, etc) other than as object lesson or entertainment, but I’m wondering if when you say FGM ain’t all that bad you mean labiaplasty or clitorectomy. Seems like they would have enormously differing results on female sexual experiences.

  78. nsa says:
    @renfro

    Hey, Rennie. You deny the obvious…….women market their pussies to get what they want? How much actual experience have you had with females? Are you a homosexual? The Italians sum it up nicely: “all women are whores, except mom who was a virgin”.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  79. Rosie says:
    @Koiytenin

    Between you and the niglet guy (I don’t really care he used that, it’s just funny he’d say that while echoing feminist propaganda), it’s really funny how even people on site likes this swallow the claims of feminists about FGM without question. It goes to show you how partial even people on the far/alt/dissident right can be to it, and how their skepticism of it’s association with feminism goes no further than accusations of cultural relativism (you’re also a woman.)

    What are you trying to normalize female circumcision? Do you have an agenda?

    • Replies: @Liza
    , @Koiytenin
  80. Rosie says:
    @nsa

    Hey, Rennie. You deny the obvious…….women market their pussies to get what they want? How much actual experience have you had with females? Are you a homosexual? The Italians sum it up nicely: “all women are whores, except mom who was a virgin”.

    I can honestly tell you that I have never, ever done that. Maybe I’m the exception to the rule, but have you considered the possibility that you are just particularly attracted to such women?

    • Replies: @Kyfho Myoba
  81. @Illuminati111

    ‘…Is there any evidence that married women cheat with “higher status” partners, or is this assumed? How is status determined, anyway?’

    In Hispanic Evangelical churches, affairs between pastors and female parishoners seem to be a chronic problem.

  82. Rosie says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Indeed, it is utterly insane to force men to pay for other men’s children and we do it today even when DNA conclusively proves the cuckoldry. But we also do it at the point of a gun with welfare don’t we? My money is confiscated at gunpoint and some of it feeds another man’s kids.

    What I find utterly insane is this notion that somehow the natural state of affairs is that each man provide for his own children. I rather doubt that has ever been anything close to reality. Didn’t cavemen go out hunting as groups and bring home large animals to share with the whole group? Doesn’t agriculture usually involve communal maintenance of irrigation systems and harvest labor? Seriously, when has this state of affairs of absolute economic individualism ever existed?

    Moreover, what precisely is to be done with “another man’s kids.”

    Exposure, sale into bondage, or what exactly?

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  83. @anon

    ‘Since scar tissue doesn’t stretch during childbirth, the result will be nasty tears when the niglet’s head crowns.’

    Niglets have proportionately much smaller heads, though (look at some some time).

    The scar tissue should be less of a problem.

    Indeed, the converse might explain why radical clitorectomies are rarely practised among non-black groups. It would pose real health problems and be evolutionarily dysfunctional. Big heads — no radical clitorectomies.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Koiytenin
  84. @Corvinus

    GRANDMASTER FLASH was the first time any white heard the word “rap” in 1982 during the last days of Disco but no whites really listened to rap until 1984 or so.

    FAT BOYS were hardly gangster rap. Ice-T was the first.

    At that time, the rural whites whose kids today are whiggers listened to Metal.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  85. Anonymous[872] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ray Huffman

    Among many American Indian tribes, even today, a man will typically take much more interest in his sister’s children than in his wife’s because there is no doubt that his sister’s children carry some of his genetic legacy

    Incorrect as to reasons why. Amerinds use three different kinship structures — Iroquois, Crow, and Omaha, which have similarities but also fundamental differences. Parenting roles also differ. Iroquois kinship assigns the role model, “buddy/pal”, hunting partner fathering role to maternal uncles. Biological fathers retain a role as disciplinarians. Children belong to the mother’s clan and family, not the father’s.

    • Replies: @Ray Huffman
  86. Anonymous[872] • Disclaimer says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    The notion that “pretty” equals “genetically superior” is crucial to evolutionary psychology but holds little if any water. In practice a small–i.e., weak–delicately built girl with a cute face and coquettish manner will leave the bar with the alpha guy

    You sure can’t beat latinas, africans and orientals for demonstrated fecundity.

    For that matter, celtic women, or those of Angle, Jute, Scots and Pict ancestry sure as hell ain’t known for beauty. You need to inject European blood to get a few purty ones.

  87. Liza says:
    @Rosie

    @Rosie. Well, infant male circumcision has been plenty normalized over the past 4 generations. And the reality is that some forms of FGM are less drastic than the common, standard-issue cut that male babies receive every day in hospitals in this godforsaken country.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Rosie
  88. JSM says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Men are emasculated and I’m not sure why. We still hold 100% of the hard power in the world. Women hold the soft power to control us domestically, but not outside the domicile. What’s the reason for us becoming such weak sheeple?

    Estrogen in the water, that got there by women consuming birth control pills and excreting in their urine?

  89. @Liza

    LADIES

    Removing foreskin and cutting off a woman’s clitoris are too different things. The latter is a form of mutilation and harm.

    And because I’m a man who wants access to women who enjoy sex to the fullest, I would not want to see such a thing become imposed upon society.

    • Agree: Rosie
  90. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    Ah, I should have seen this one coming- if you don’t explicitly say “I think all forms of female circumcision/genital mutilation are wrong” when you’re questioning the standard feminist claims (that seemingly near-everyone has come to believe without question) or even worse, compare it to male circumcision, then you’re more than likely going to get accused of defending it or justifying it (even that doesn’t always save you from this.)

    But since I didn’t state it myself- I think all forms of female circumcision/genital mutilation are wrong, and I’m not trying to justify it. I know why you made that leap though, and it’s probably one of these or a combination of them:

    -You’ve been sold an image of FGM that portrays it as this unique, incomparable, sexually devastating crime against humanity, and it’s so unspeakably evil that there can be no room for nuance, and any attempt whatsoever at that is downplaying/denying/justifying it.

    -FGM is a practice almost exclusively occurring in African and Islamic cultures and is therefore seen as a prime example of their barbarism, and comparing it to a practice that’s been still common in America makes no sense to you (I am not denying, however, that African and Islamic cultures are backwards.)

    -You know little to nothing about what male circumcision involves and for that genuinely can’t fathom why it’s harmful, so when someone compares it to FGM, they’re comparing it to something that is harmless in your mind.

    -You’re a woman, and even though you’re apparently not a feminist or a leftist of any kind, it affirms a gynocentric mindset that there’s this special form of sexual violence and oppression against women for you.

    I could keep going though, and most of these clearly have an “agenda.” It’s as if FGM/C has to as bad as it’s been claimed by feminists for it to be objectionable. Anything contrary to that is somehow seen as justifying it. Even researchers who’ve found most women subjected to the most extreme forms can still experience pleasure/orgasm have been accused of this (and never refuted). Their findings and those of others don’t seem to have had much effect on campaigning, and even less so with journalistic and public perceptions, because there’s an agenda here.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  91. @renfro

    Most expats are perverts and I’m headed off to enjoy a nice BJ from a dusky beauty in a hammock by the beach soon anyhow, do you think that there will be an all-points bulletin?

    And where would anyone look?

    I have not lived in the US since 1999 because like most whites with a college degree I did not have a spouse or dependents to chain me into life as townie at 25 so I was free to go. Which I did.

    My money is in the Hong Kong branch of a British bank.

    The house I own, which I paid $20,000 for, is in my wife’s name.

    White hicks usually have a wife and kids young and do not have a skill-set that would allow them to be employable overseas (Also, I inherited some money from my grandmother, enough to live cheap my entire life overseas) so moving to another state would be a big thing to them.

    They are unable to grasp the anonymity of urban whites-Bubble City or Rust Belt-who will drift to other countries for years at a time.

    Lower class whites on the other hand, are stuck in the same Zip code with the people they had scuffles with in Kindergarten.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    , @renfro
  92. @renfro

    RENFRO’S Addendum

    There is nothing you can do with people who just don’t give a shit about their birthplace and are happy to live in other countries.

    The last time I broke the law in the US was driving without insurance when I was 24 in 1998.

  93. Rosie says:
    @Liza

    Well, infant male circumcision has been plenty normalized over the past 4 generations. And the reality is that some forms of FGM are less drastic than the common, standard-issue cut that male babies receive every day in hospitals in this godforsaken country.

    Well, that’s fair enough, but it seems strange to me to justify female circumcision on the grounds that it’s “sometimes not as bad” as male circumcision. Why not just oppose male circumcision and leave it at that? SMK is correct. Certain people are trying to rehabilitate the image of the most barbaric cultures on the planet, precisely because they think those cultures should be emulated. Misogyny is rife on the dissident Right, and I’m not talking about misogyny in the sense that SJWs use the term (to refer to any assertion that men and women shouldn’t have exactly the same rights and responsibilities). I’m talking about misogyny in the true, etymological sense of the word.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  94. What’s in charge again?

  95. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:
    @Koiytenin

    This issue with “scar tissue” rarely happens in reality. I made a post right before yours showing this.

    You say tearing of the birth canal ”rarely happens in reality” with FGMed women, and ”you’ve shown this”.
    Pardon my guffawing, old mate, but grazes and tears [and Episiotomies] are quite common in the West among women who haven’t been FGMed.
    And, as I said before, scat tissue, she don’t stretch.

    Now, even you can’t deny that the Labia is the end of the annular muscle known as the birth canal.
    So, if the Labia is trimmed or removed, natural childbirth is going to result in injury to the mother due to tearing of that scar tissue, and a traumatic experience for her and the baby.
    Common sense must tell you it can’t be any other way.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  96. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    The FGM rate among Muslim Pakistanis is around 100% according to Maternity Ward nurses in London Hospitals.
    Pakistanis are a non black group, and they don’t have ”proportionately much smaller heads”.
    Look at some sometime.
    They do require Hospital births and surgical intervention pretty much 100% of the time, though.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  97. Corvinus says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    “GRANDMASTER FLASH was the first time any white heard the word “rap” in 1982 during the last days of Disco but no whites really listened to rap until 1984 or so.”

    Right, poor (and non-poor) whites were listening to metal and rap earlier than what you stated.

    “FAT BOYS were hardly gangster rap…”

    Yes, but they were a group that whites were quite familiar with.

    “At that time, the rural whites whose kids today are whiggers listened to Metal.”

    Again, why are you hating on your own kind?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  98. Corvinus says:
    @Anon

    Doesn’t change the fact that there are a number of old to young mentorship programs out there.

  99. @Corvinus

    “Hatin’ on your own kind”

    Middle-class whites listened to grunge and later alternative; towards the latter part of the nineties they listened to techno.

    There was also the “swing revival” of the mid-90′s.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  100. Rosie says:
    @Koiytenin

    I’m not trying to justify it.

    “I’m going to keep posting numerous paragraphs about how this practic is really not that bad, but I’m not trying to justify it and I have no agenda whatsoever.”

    Koiytenin doth protest too much.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  101. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ray Huffman

    LOL. Too damned well-informed for ya, huh, Ray?

  102. @anon

    ‘The FGM rate among Muslim Pakistanis is around 100% according to Maternity Ward nurses in London Hospitals.
    Pakistanis are a non black group, and they don’t have ”proportionately much smaller heads”
    Look at some sometime.
    They do require Hospital births and surgical intervention pretty much 100% of the time, though.’

    This raises two queries. First, how radical is the genital mutilation? That was a distinction I made.

    Second, if they invariably ‘require hospital births and surgical intervention’, how on earth did they survive in pre-modern Pakistan?

  103. Corvinus says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    “Middle-class whites listened to grunge and later alternative; towards the latter part of the nineties they listened to techno.”

    Along with rap music, gangster or otherwise, since the mid-1980′s.

    Now, stop stalling…why are you hating on your own kind?

  104. @Jeff Stryker

    Most rootless cosmopolitan perverts have a tribe to fall back on, though.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  105. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    Ok, let me do you:

    “Even though you’ve made explicit you think the practice in question is bad, I’m going to keep accusing you of justifying it and you being the one having an agenda, just because you don’t think it’s universally as bad as how feminists have endlessly portrayed it, and I’ll provide absolutely no evidence to substantiate what I and the insane feminists I align myself with believe.”

    Rosie is a delusional, projecting moron.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  106. @Rosie

    What I find utterly insane is this notion that somehow the natural state of affairs is that each man provide for his own children.

    You misunderstand. It’s not simply “the natural state of affairs.” The “natural state of affairs” is hunter-gatherers living in caves. Civilization, on the other hand, is based on certain social systems superimposed on that “natural state” — that have been proven to work over thousands of years. You are welcome to cite examples of successful advanced societies based on the sort of sexual communism that you advocate — go right ahead.

    Your eagerness to compel men to pay for other men’s kids only reinforces Stan’s point about “soft power,” of course. It’s hardly surprising that you want women to be exempted from all consequences for their choices — it’s a very common attitude among the fairer sex. What you miss in your solipsism is that men don’t want to pay for other men’s kids — and that you have no right to force them too.

    For a longer answer, see either J.D. Unwin’s “Sex and Culture,” or F. Roger Devlin’s “Sexual Utopia in Power.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
  107. Koiytenin says:
    @Colin Wright

    If you weren’t paying attention, there is no evidence “radical clitorectomies”, the majority of the time, result in this. See this post: http://www.unz.com/article/patriarchy-its-a-mans-world-and-sociobiology-says-its-womens-fault/#comment-2459699

    The idea it’s related to head size is bizarre, since that practice isn’t common even in Africa.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  108. @Koiytenin

    ‘If you weren’t paying attention, there is no evidence “radical clitorectomies”, the majority of the time, result in this. See this post: http://www.unz.com/article/patriarchy-its-a-mans-world-and-sociobiology-says-its-womens-fault/#comment-2459699

    The idea it’s related to head size is bizarre, since that practice isn’t common even in Africa.’

    I haven’t pretended to extensive knowledge about clitorectomies. I’ve merely observed that if they did lead to difficulties in childbirth when the the head crowned, the smaller relative size of negro heads would ameliorate this problem.

    …and without researching it, I believe clitorectomies are common in Africa. I’ve certainly heard of numerous examples from Nigeria, I’ve read of them in the south Sudan, and they were universal in the area of Uganda my brother worked in.

    If I visit three towns in Germany, and in every one, there is a tavern full of people drinking beer, I can reasonably conclude that beer is popular in Germany. Absent any coherent evidence to the contrary, I’ll make the equivalent assumption about Africa.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
    , @Kratoklastes
  109. Dueling anecdotes are neat and all, but perhaps we should look at some actual data?

    World obesity rates:

    40% of females > 15 years old in the US are obese. Not overweight, but obese. Obese + overweight = 70%. It’s been going up for quite a while, of course:

  110. Rosie says:
    @Koiytenin

    Rosie is a delusional, projecting moron.

    Look. You’re the one who won’t stop writing about something you claim not to care about. In my several decades of life, I have learned from experience that normalization starts with some sneering know-it-all telling the rubes that intelligent, cosmopolitan people know that their certainties are actually just irrational prejudices.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  111. Rosie says:
    @James Forrestal

    that have been proven to work over thousands of years.

    Only they didn’t work out so well for all kinds of people. In your ideal world, my mother would have had to sell herself (and eventually me as well) on the streets to support me, leave me in a workhouse, or kill me before I was born. No thanks.

    https://attackingthedevil.co.uk/pmg/tribute/mt1.php

    It’s hardly surprising that you want women to be exempted from all consequences for their choices — it’s a very common attitude among the fairer sex

    It’s hardly surprising that you resort to hyperbole and straw-man sophistry–it’s very common among degenerate MGTOW crybabies.

    My mother worked her tail off to get her life together after I was born, yes, with a little help from the state. If you claim that is”exemption from all consequences,” then you’re either stupid, or a liar.

    What you miss in your solipsism is that men don’t want to pay for other men’s kids — and that you have no right to force them too.

    Too bad, so sad. Being a part of a family, or a nation, means helping each other out, knowing that you too will get a hand up if you ever make a mistake or fall on hard times.

    I’m curious, young men used to be put to hard labor for petty crimes, and were rarely able to recover and earn a honest living. Were men who advocated criminal justice reform trying to escape “all consequences” of their actions? Or is it just women you say shouldn’t get a second chance in life?

    For a longer answer, see either J.D. Unwin’s “Sex and Culture,” or F. Roger Devlin’s “Sexual Utopia in Power.”

    No thanks. I’ve heard quite enough of Diabolical Devlin. He has brought the alt-Right to the brink of destruction with his divisive diatribes against women. His fanboys openly fantasize about raping women while they’re chained to household appliances, yet he has never once told them to cool it so far as I know.

  112. @James Forrestal

    Why don’t Anglo-Saxons have a tribe to fall back on? Italians sort of do. As do Asian-Americans.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  113. @Rosie

    ROSIE

    I’m all for prostitution and freedom of choice, myself. I’m an advocate of women’s choices because of course I do not care what arrangement results in coital action.

    Thank goodness so many women choose prostitution-though per choice I like women who want to engage in these fun activities for free.

    Nor am I really sympathetic to guys who end up paying child support when all they want is 20 minutes of fun. They should use protection or hire a prostitute, who will never run around and try to get DNA test.

    If I had to “orbit” around women and be a Beta provider simply to have a sexual partner, it would be a waste of my life.

  114. anon[175] • Disclaimer says:

    This raises two queries. First, how radical is the genital mutilation?

    Well, it must be noticeable enough for nurses to state that it’s universal among these women.

    Second, if they invariably ‘require hospital births and surgical intervention’, how on earth did they survive in pre-modern Pakistan?

    Pakistan is a barbaric Country, so their survival is up to them.
    Please note, I didn’t claim birth injuries due to FGM are necessarily fatal in all or most cases.

  115. Anonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    No thanks. I’ve heard quite enough of Diabolical Devlin. He has brought the alt-Right to the brink of destruction with his divisive diatribes against women. His fanboys openly fantasize about raping women while they’re chained to household appliances

    History repeats itself. The once-proud, once-morally-upright USA is on the brink of Weimar. Hyperinflation looms, perversity burgeons, societal fragmentation into “interest” groups is now the norm. Devlin is a manifestation of misogynistic homosexuality, first repressed, then eagerly pursued through Ernst Rohm’s adminstrations of the Sturmabteilung (SA) prior to Hitler’s rise to Chancellor.

    All that’s left is to select our own Adolf. He will deal harshly, and emphatically, with the sociopathic faggots in the Party.

  116. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    First it was “I’m justifying it”, now “I don’t care about it.” Which is it?

    “In my several decades of life”, “their certainties”- this says it all. You’re not only an American* woman, you’re a boomer. And you’re certain that the idea that FGM always destroys sexual pleasure/orgasm is true. You say this because you’ve grown up in a culture that has normalized a form of male genital mutilation for generations and lived through the peak period of it, and still shows a unique, undying commitment to it. And during that period, feminists presented to the world stories of how women across the whole of Africa, the Middle East etc. are having their entire clitorises removed and their vaginas sewed up and they’re incapable of feeling anything afterwards, and how this also just isn’t anything like what regularly happens to infant boys through America everyday, or boys in the same places girls are cut up. And the masses in this country believed it, and have foisted their beliefs about how cutting boys is good but cutting girls is bad on to the rest of the world.

    You’re certain of it only because of cultural bias and propaganda and because it affirms personal feelings on your part. You are certain that female genital mutilation in any and all forms destroys a woman’s sexuality only because you want it to be true. And it can’t be enough that cutting off part of a woman’s vagina in a tribal/religious setting is damaging (it is), no, it has to be as damaging as possible. If it isn’t, that’s “normalizing” it somehow. Is that what you think? It has to be as bad as possible for it to be objectionable? If you say otherwise, you’re normalizing it? If it doesn’t turn out to universally as bad as what feminists have claimed/what you want to be true, then it’s justified?

    Here’s a summation of how research finding most women subjected to even the most extreme forms of FGM can still orgasm and more, and how this was received, because you’re basically doing exactly what they did: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2013/02/politically-correct-research-when.html

    The researchers who made this forbidden finding had to say this:
    “You have real victims, women who suffer all their lives, but you also have many women who live very well with it. A respectful treatment would talk to both kinds of women, with all kinds of experiences. Don’t start by telling people they’re barbarous and that they torture their own daughters, focus on bodily integrity and human rights, a woman’s right to keep her genitals in one piece.”

    I’m sure you balked at the “don’t start by telling people they’re barbarous” line- the point of that is that when you want to actively combat something like this, you don’t upfront tell them how what they’re doing is evil, even if it is. You have to take other approaches because they’re more effective. This certainly can open up the possibility of cultural relativism, but that is not what is universally seen in these approaches, and does not, again, mean this is being “normalized.”

    I may not have several decades of life under my belt, but I know where people like you are coming from, whether it’s this issue or any other. It’s incredible how someone like you sounds as dogmatic and fanatical as a Jezebel commentator on this subject.

    *I should have emphasized your nationality from the outset instead of just “you’re a woman.” Non-American women, AKA women who generally come from countries where it isn’t perfectly normal and sane to cut off part of a child’s genitals, aren’t as partial to only being revolted at that when it involves girls.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  117. Koiytenin says:
    @Colin Wright

    Well, I’m not sure what you’re actually defining as a “radical clitorectomy”, because true clitorectomy is virtually non-existent. In Africa, it is indeed common to remove the external clitoris (the tip), but the internal, which extends several inches into the body- some infibulation rituals appear to be invasive enough they can damage/remove some of the internal part, but complete removal of the internal clitoris is virtually unheard of, if it happens at all.

    You seem to be treating “glans clitorectomy” as “radical clitorectomy”, when it really isn’t. And so complete removal of the clitoris doesn’t occur in those countries (but the external clitoris, certainly.)

  118. @James Forrestal

    Without dismissing the statistics, I find the figures for Turkey bizarre, to say the least.

    It’s shown as quite high — particularly for women.

    The thing of it is, I was sitting in a bus station in Turkey, and someone started going on about obese Muslim women. I got irritated, and went out, took photos of literally the first seven women I saw and posted them on the site.

    Six of the women were inarguably slender. The seventh was somewhat overweight, in that ordinary late-middle aged way — certainly not ‘obese’. I would think a bus station would provide a reasonably random sample of average Turks.

    I traveled extensively around Turkey, and this is what I saw — from the most Westernized parts of Istanbul to deepest, darkest Konya. I don’t know where the numbers posted above come from.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  119. Anon[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @FKA Max

    American women in the Colonial era all the way up through the 1800s did an amazing amount of work with their hands, and it was normal for every woman to be kept occupied knitting or sewing whenever she wasn’t doing something else. Woman made all the clothing for the family, and they had to work constantly at it to keep up. But they didn’t have to have their feet bound to force them to do it.

  120. @James Forrestal

    ‘…40% of females > 15 years old in the US are obese…’

    Factor out black women. I did this once, and it drops us into a tie with the U.K.

  121. Anon[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @0use4msm

    Athens excelled in the arts and sciences because they had slaves to do all the grunt work. It wasn’t the subjugation of women that did it. Many traditional cultures around the world have subjugated women, but they didn’t make advances in the arts and sciences the way Athens did. The only thing that leads to intellectual innovation is a lack of work, period. You need lots of leisure time to create and think things up.

  122. Anon[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @unpc downunder

    Marco Polo mentions passing though a couple tribes of people on his travels where the women freely offered themselves to the traders, and their men encouraged it. It was considered to be a coup by these people.

    Very likely it was just a way of obtaining higher-quality genetic offspring and diversifying a limited gene pool, much the way horse-breeders prefer to have a high quality stud to sire all the offspring in the vicinity.

    One of the reason American Indians had a habit of woman and child-stealing was to diversify their limited gene pool, although they were not sophisticated enough to understand the genes that were urging them to do such a thing. If you look it up, you’ll be amazed at how many white-Indian crossbreeds who were the children of kidnapped people grew up to became tribal chiefs. In fact, being a tribal chief in Indian circles means you have an almost 100% chance of having white blood, and plenty of it.

  123. jsm says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Removing foreskin and cutting off a woman’s clitoris are too different things. The latter is a form of mutilation and harm.

    Yes, but so is the former. Foreskin is full of nerve endings.

    because I’m a man who wants access to women who enjoy sex to the fullest, I would not want to see such a thing become imposed upon society.

    Because I’m a woman who wants her sons to enjoy sex to the fullest and not be thought “weird” or made fun of, I don’t want to see this such thing imposed on society anymore.

  124. renfro says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    I have never bought your whole story…..but what I do buy is you are a very disturbed freak …..with severe sexual problems which is why your post are 99% sewer swill about ‘white women’ – black dicks and poor whites.

    Don’t need to be a psychologist to figure you were poor white trash and still are white trash- hence your self hating white trash rants…. and locker room experience taught me the guys with tiny dicks and those that got rejected by women all the time where the ones that trash talked about women cause they couldn’t anything.

    Where ever you really live I doubt wherever that it is you could trash talk women in public so you do it on the net to engage others of your kind.

  125. Koiytenin says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    AMERICANS- whether it being insecure, brainwashed men like Jeff Stryker or narcissistic misandrists like Rosie-

    Removing the foreskin is a form of mutilation and harm, because cutting off part of the penis damages and effects how it functions. A woman’s clitoris is almost never cut off, because the clitoris is mostly internal. Part of it can removed though, and this, like removing the foreskin, is also a form of mutilation and harm, even if they are different things.

    You’re a man who was likely circumcised at birth and has grown up in a country that has regularly done this to men for generations, denuding their sexuality in the process. And on top of that, have been fed healthy doses of propaganda about how this is nothing like what Africans and Muslims to do their women, which resonates with you because female sexuality seems more profound by comparison (“the clitoris!!!”), since their sexuality isn’t damaged before puberty. This leads you and many others to deify female sexuality and center sexual experience around a woman’s, hence your concern about women being able to enjoy sex to the fullest. Which of course, a man’s is nothing like, and men aren’t missing anything when they have part of their penis cut off.

  126. Rosie says:
    @Koiytenin

    In my several decades of life”, “their certainties”- this says it all. You’re not only an American* woman, you’re a boomer.

    Gen X actually, not that it matters.

    Non-American women, AKA women who generally come from countries where it isn’t perfectly normal and sane to cut off part of a child’s genitals, aren’t as partial to only being revolted at that when it involves girls

    Having had six children with a circumcised man over twenty years of marriage and many hundreds of rolls in the hay of various durations, I admit I’m very skeptical of claims that circumcision significantly undermines men’s ability to enjoy sex as much mutilating a woman’s clitoris.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Koiytenin
  127. anon[136] • Disclaimer says:
    @unpc downunder

    If you’re talking about Australian Aboriginal Tribes, then I don’t think that’s right.
    According to Malinowski, sex wasn’t seen as shameful in these societies, and the connection between sex and pregnancy hadn’t been made.
    On the other hand, warfare between Tribes was mostly over women, as was intra-Tribal fighting.

  128. @Rosie

    ‘…Having had six children with a circumcised man over twenty years of marriage and many hundreds of rolls in the hay of various durations, I admit I’m very skeptical of claims that circumcision significantly undermines men’s ability to enjoy sex as much mutilating a woman’s clitoris…’

    Admittedly, this would impose innumerable moral, psychological, presumably domestic, and potentially medical difficulties, but your experience is really meaningless unless you widen your sample.

    However, I’m inclined to suspect you’re right. I was circumcised, and for better and for worse, I suspect my sexual career hasn’t been materially different on that account. I’d just as soon it hadn’t happened, but then, I’d have rather not chipped my front tooth when I was ten as well.

    Now, as to mutilating a women’s clitoris…surely it’s a function of how extensive the mutilation is? All of these discussions seem to lump all forms of feminine circumcision together, as if they’re essentially the same thing — which I’m inclined to suspect they’re not.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Koiytenin
    , @JSM
  129. @Jeff Stryker

    If women want to enjoy sex to the fullest (and want men to too as well), they would oppose male circumcision.

    • Agree: Liza
  130. @Rosie

    ‘…His fanboys openly fantasize about raping women while they’re chained to household appliances…

    ! This, I had not considered.

    I suppose it would need to be a fairly substantial household appliance. In fact, everything but a washing machine would seem to impose difficulties of one kind or another. A microwave, for example, wouldn’t really bar escape. A refrigerator might topple over.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  131. @Colin Wright

    OECD:

    https://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm

    Says it’s “measured,” rather than self-reported. Don’t know the details of sampling — I guess you’d have to dig through the OECD website.

  132. @Jeff Stryker

    Why don’t Anglo-Saxons have a tribe to fall back on?

    It’s illegal for the historic American nation (and all of the indigenous peoples of Europe) to have any form of group identity in the current year. As you surely must know… if you actually possess an IQ higher than your body temperature, that is. Which seems increasingly unlikely.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Corvinus
  133. @Rosie

    You seem quite triggered by the suggestion that random men might perhaps not be obligated to support your illegitimate children — or to accept your ludicrous “patriarchy” conspiracy theory unquestioningly. I’m afraid that’s your problem, not mine. Too bad, so sad. The consequences of your sexual incontinence are your problem, not mine — or society’s.

    Not thanks. I’ve heard quite enough of Diabolical Devlin. He has brought the alt-Right to the brink of destruction blablabla

    Your open confession that you are incapable of reading (let alone processing) any sort of written argument of any length more than a paragraph or two, and prefer to base your “thoughts” about these clearly-unfamiliar objects called “books” on your emotional reaction to third-hand rumors, is appreciated. Thanks for further proving my point.

    Remember — no matter what your feelz, and your blind, reflexive loyalty to The Narrative tell you, you have no “right” to the products of my labor. My body, my choice.

    You may whine some more now — please continue.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  134. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    Now, as to mutilating a women’s clitoris…surely it’s a function of how extensive the mutilation is? All of these discussions seem to lump all forms of feminine circumcision together, as if they’re essentially the same thing — which I’m inclined to suspect they’re not.

    You’re probably right, but then, I just don’t find the details of female circumcision to be particularly worthy of notice or debate among White people.

    BTW, apparently the the evil White men of the Obstetrical Society of London tossed a man out for allegedly performing clitoridectomies without consent in the late 19th Century. You learn something new every day.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Baker_Brown

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  135. Rosie says:
    @James Forrestal

    You seem quite triggered by the suggestion that random men might perhaps not be obligated to support your illegitimate children

    I don’t have any illegitimate children. What I do have is empathy for them. You wouldn’t understand.

    — or to accept your ludicrous “patriarchy” conspiracy theory unquestioningly.

    What on Earth are you talking about?

    Remember — no matter what your feelz, and your blind, reflexive loyalty to The Narrative tell you, you have no “right” to the products of my labor. My body, my choice.

    Apparently I do. Don’t pay your taxes and see what happens. You see, we already had this debate, and human decency fortunately carried the day.

    I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what their plan is for “illegitimate” children.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @James Forrestal
  136. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    “Gen X actually, not that it matters. ”

    It actually does, and I made it clear why your generation matters in this. Gen X is basically the same if not worse here, since male Gen Xer’s were circumcised at the highest rate in all of American history. During this time, America switched over to a private healthcare system, and coming on the heels of the US military promoting circumcision post-WWII (while ignoring countries like Britain and NZ who dropped the practice altogether), circumcision was widely covered under medical insurance, and American doctors became absolutely obsessed with it (and they still are), to the point many hospitals during this period would make it standard policy to circumcise without parental consent. I’ve seen it estimated the nationwide newborn circumcision rate in some years was up to 85%.

    The fact second-wave feminism largely expressed no concerns about this, and threw their weight behind what happens to girls in Africa also helped to make this all seem like no big deal.

    And then you admit your husband is circumcised. Well, that helps explain things further, since you have a personal bias here, and you think your single anecdotal experience really amounts to something, putting aside things like how no two circumcisions are the same, and some men have less removed than others. And which is it? You “Agreed” with Stryker’s post that removing the foreskin is not harmful or a mutilation, now you just don’t think it’s on par with mutilating a woman’s clitoris. Since most of the clitoris is internal, it’s really honestly doubtful it is (removing the external part of the clitoris), but female genital mutilation does not involve just that- it can involve damage to or removal of any part of the vagina, including the clitoral hood, which is very similar to the foreskin. I probably should have mentioned that as well.

    You find it hard to believe circumcision is severely damaging/damaging at all because of your husband, but have no trouble believing hundreds of millions of women are sexual cripples, even after posting research showing most infibulated women experience no significant differences in reported sexual enjoyment as compared to unmutilated women. This of course is probably because these women were all “cut” before puberty, so they have no real point of reference, but they don’t support the undying idea all women like this are sexual cripples.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  137. @James Forrestal

    Its not illegal-there are no signs posted saying that such a thing.

    But the Anglo-American always celebrated the loner like Clint Eastwood who went his own way, independent and individualistic.

    As a result, the Anglo-Saxon is atomized.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  138. @Colin Wright

    I suppose it would need to be a fairly substantial household appliance. In fact, everything but a washing machine would seem to impose difficulties of one kind or another. A microwave, for example, wouldn’t really bar escape. A refrigerator might topple over.

    A washing machine doesn’t really have any good points to tie to, though. What, the hoses? That’s risking a major plumbing disaster — which might really put a damper (so to speak) on ol’ Rosie’s rape fantasy. Nah, I think she’d be better off setting up some kind of purpose-built dungeon — then her only problem would be convincing a man to go along with her plan…

    • Replies: @Rosie
  139. Koiytenin says:
    @Colin Wright

    “However, I’m inclined to suspect you’re right. I was circumcised, and for better and for worse, I suspect my sexual career hasn’t been materially different on that account. I’d just as soon it hadn’t happened, but then, I’d have rather not chipped my front tooth when I was ten as well.”

    But you have no point of reference and likely haven’t researched it at all. You also perhaps did not have an especially invasive circumcision.

    Many men who’ve been circumcised as teens/adults will say otherwise, or who’ve undergone foreskin restoration. And there is scientific and visual

    “Now, as to mutilating a women’s clitoris…surely it’s a function of how extensive the mutilation is? All of these discussions seem to lump all forms of feminine circumcision together, as if they’re essentially the same thing — which I’m inclined to suspect they’re not.”

    You’re on to something. Female genital mutilation basically encompasses any harmful, invasive procedure done to the vagina. That means just about any alteration or removal you can think of. And that’s what they always do- it’s always about treating FGM is all one thing or obsessively fixating on the clitoris. Look up the WHO definitions.

    For example, the traditional Islamic form of female circumcision involves varying degrees of removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris. Removing the glans clitoris is a practice almost exclusively confined to Africa.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  140. @Colin Wright

    I’ve certainly heard of numerous examples from Nigeria, I’ve read of them in the south Sudan, and they were universal in the area of Uganda my brother worked in.

    If I visit three towns in Germany, and in every one, there is a tavern full of people drinking beer, I can reasonably conclude that beer is popular in Germany.

    Your brother must’ve got unlucky.

    Uganda-wide, the incidence of FGM runs at ~1.4% (this is from a publication by 28TooMany – a group vehemently opposed to FGM). UNICEF thinks it’s more like 1%, with no Ugandan region exceeding 3% (the buckets in the UNICEF study aren’t very granular – they go “<10%, 10%-20%, etc", but mathematically you can't get to ' <1% overall' with any individual region exceeding 3% – because the regional populations are roughly equal at 8-9 million).

    Nigeria's significantly worse (27% of women 15-49, 14% of girls <15), but it's by no means the worst (and again, the difference between the older and younger cohorts indicates that information programs work – most FGM happens in childhood).

    Places like Sierra Leone, Mali, Eritrea, Guinea and Somalia are a much bigger problem – the numbers there range from ~88-96% among women 15-49 (and thankfully less than a third of that for girls aged under 15: again, information programs work).

    Your beer hall example is badly expressed (everyone knows Bavarians like their beer) or alternatively is a good example of why anecdotes and evidence are two different things… what if, in each town (population 10K-100K), you happen to be in the only tavern? Massively unlikely, but it’s something that properly conducted quantitative analysis has to rule out.

  141. Koiytenin says:
    @Koiytenin

    “And there is scientific and visual”

    Somehow forgot to continue here. Meant to say:

    And there is scientific and visual affirming this. See:

    (NSFW) http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm

    As a few caveats- much of the damage of circumcision can be reversible. For example, the claim that circumcision always removes inner foreskin tissue is wrong. The large majority of circumcised men still have remnant of that.

  142. The core thesis of the work cited in the article conforms to my prejudices, but with a tiny tweak.

    I think that the following two premises are uncontroversial –
    ① biological drives evolve slowly, and male physical prowess was the key driver of reproductive success for thousands of generations;
    ② in a modern industrial society, reproductive success is largely determined by paternal economic success, which in very weakly correlated with physical prowess.

    ‘Reproductive success’ in ① and ② means the woman having children that survive to adulthood; it’s her success when she has a kid – it might not be her mate’s, since he might not be the father.

    (Take it as read that both ‘sides’ want their genetic material to propagate).

    The ‘biology-driven’ strategy for a modern woman is to pair-bond with an economically successful man (to ensure access to resources)… and then get impregnated by an athletic hunk whenever the opportunity presents itself (ideally, someone from the same broad racial category as “her and her husband, combined“; dark brown babies born to white couples, and light brown babies born to dark brown couples, tend to raise eyebrows).

    Her biological drives still view physical prowess as indicative of ‘good genes’, even though there is no longer any strong link between prowess and resource acquisition. Women find masculine males (hairy [up to a point], muscular, large masseters) more attractive than feminine males – but by and large they’re not economically successful (except in vanishingly rare cases – pro sportsmen, who have to beat the ladies off with a stick).

    For the man, it’s still “fuck anything that moves; if it doesn’t move, give it a push just to check” (in a modern society there’s a risk of “fuckers remorse” because of the whole “you helped make it, you pay for it” idea the stems from women not being considered full humans capable of flushing unwanted fetuses).

    There’s still a bit of a biological bias for men to choose a pair-bond partner who exhibits signs of fertility (big rack; red lips; higher bodyfat [up to a point]), but since we put so little at risk in the “fuck or not” decision, economic success in a female partner is also a thing now.

    Plus the ability to make a half-decent sandwich, of course. That’s just plain common sense.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  143. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    Well, you should strap in and be ready to learn even more that isn’t touched upon in that short Wikipedia article. That practice came on the heels of male circumcision being promoted by British medicine as a cure-all for masturbation, because they knew removing the foreskin was sexually damaging and they thought masturbation was the root of all evil. And so the noble white man gave the world something never before truly seen- the medicalization of genital mutilation, when it had once long been overwhelmingly a tribal and religious practice that was completely alien to Western culture, being condemned as far back as the Greeks and Romans (the latter of whom eventually issued an empire-wide ban on the practice) and for nearly 2,000 years had been seen as an Unchristian mutilation. Then the British spread it throughout the English-speaking world- America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and possibly elsewhere- where it has persisted in many of these countries since, but none so much as the US, where about half of all newborns to this day are circumcised.

    I’m familiar with Isaac Baker Brown, and this is the first time I’ve read he was excommunicated because he was doing it without consent. Which is strange because in Victorian medicine, they readily performed other genital mutilations on men and women without consent, often as a punishment. And it figures you’d see that as a hallmark of the white man’s nobility, while somewhere like America shows an unerring commitment to male circumcision- but you’ve made it clear you struggle to fathom that as harmful despite it being done every day in America thousands of times or in the same places girls are cut, so of course a man being tossed out for doing ultimately the same thing to women 150 years ago is going to resonate with you.

    There appears to be another reason why he was tossed out- it was widely believed in Britain women rarely masturbated, so cutting off the tips of their clits was unnecessary the vast majority of the time (but it was bound to do that if the woman did masturbate): http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=13&id=76&Itemid=68

    [MORE]

    “The most famous of these was the prominent London obstetrician, Isaac Baker Brown, who specialised in the surgical treatment of disorders such as epilepsy, catalepsy and hysteria induced by “irritation of the pudic nerve” (that is, masturbation). Although he attracted considerable interest at first, his procedures fell rapidly into disfavour, and he was expelled from the London Obstetrical Society in 1867. While his critics condemned clitoridectomy as a “questionable, compromising, unpublishable mutilation” which would ruin the women’s sex lives, leave them permanently maimed and cast an indelible slur on their honour, Brown defended himself by claiming that masturbation caused hysteria, epilepsy, mania, insanity and death, and argued that clitoridectomy was no more mutilating than male circumcision, as proved by the subsequent pregnancy of several of his patients. As he wrote in reply to his attackers:

    Clitoridectomy is neither more nor less than circumcision of the female; and as certainly as that no man who has been circumcised has been injured in his natural functions, so it is equally certain that no woman who has undergone the operation … has lost one particle of the natural function of her organs. [10]

    His critics did not dissent from the proposition that masturbation could provoke the ills he mentioned, but they insisted that the practice was so rare in women that radical interventions of this kind were not necessary.”

    This likely set the precedent for why female circumcision never caught on like male circumcision did anywhere else in the Western world, but this didn’t stop it completely. In America, various forms of female circumcision (of children) were known to persist until 1950′s in some parts of white middle America: https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Innocence-Genital-Mutilation-Circumcision-ebook/dp/B00492CMZ6

    The victim who wrote this book also regards what happened to her as essentially the same as male circumcision.

    And it likely didn’t stop there, since forms of female circumcision were covered under Medicaid until the late 70′s.

    Another reason why female circumcision likely never caught on is the ascendancy of Jews in America and the rest of the english-speaking world, particularly in the medical community, where their influence stretched back to Victorian Britain. Since Jews have enshrined male circumcision for millenia, they were bound to be less inclined to female circumcision, but there’s another reason. The Victorian commitment to circumcision essentially revolved around a demonization of male sexuality, and Judaim has traditions of that going back centuries or more- see Moses Maimonides. They have until fairly recently long performed circumcision as not just a covenant with god, but for the purposes of damaging and controlling male sexuality, and to even curb male violence against women and make a man more in-tune with his wife. This is openly attested by many Orthodox Jews to this very day: https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379485/jewish/Healing-Swollen-Ego.htm

    “The commandment of circumcision is mentioned in connection with the impurity of menstruation, since by being circumcised, a person will be kept from being defiled with the impurity of menstruation. This is why G‑d commanded us to circumcise baby boys when they are eight days old, for through this we weaken the power of impurity and eliminate evil lust.

    The foreskin of the male reproductive organ effects his experience of marital relations in two ways: it increases his gross sensual pleasure and decreases his sensitivity to his wife by insulating him from her to a certain extent. By removing the foreskin, the experience of marital relations becomes for the man less of a narcissistic indulgence and more of a true spiritual coupling between him and his wife. Once the spiritual dimension of marital relations is allowed into the picture, it enhances the physical dimension as well. The sages of the Talmud therefore state that ideally, at least, it is the Jewish couple that experiences the truest enjoyment in marital relations.”

  144. Rosie says:
    @Koiytenin

    And which is it?

    I don’t know. I think the matter is a subject of legitimate debate. I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other on male circumcision.

    The fact second-wave feminism largely expressed no concerns about this, and threw their weight behind what happens to girls in Africa also helped to make this all seem like no big deal.

    My goodness! Talk about conspiracy theories! Feminists are, ideally, advocates for women, so of course they are going to focus on matters of concern to girls and women. Men are entitled to their own advocates to address men’s health issues, of course, but it’s ridiculous to suppose that feminists are motivated by a desire to make male circumcision “seem like no big deal.”

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  145. Rosie says:
    @James Forrestal

    That’s risking a major plumbing disaster — which might really put a damper (so to speak) on ol’ Rosie’s rape fantasy.

    I’d avoid acting on your belief that women like to be raped, unless you want to wind up in the joint.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  146. Rosie says:
    @Kratoklastes

    The ‘biology-driven’ strategy for a modern woman is to pair-bond with an economically successful man (to ensure access to resources)… and then get impregnated by an athletic hunk whenever the opportunity presents itself (ideally, someone from the same broad racial category as “her and her husband, combined“; dark brown babies born to white couples, and light brown babies born to dark brown couples, tend to raise eyebrows).

    This fails to account for women’s love of musicians, artists, philosophers, etc.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  147. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    I somehow overlooked this reply. This makes your views somewhat less obnoxious and extreme, but not by much. This was also before you seemingly came to accept I wasn’t trying to justify it, and you apparently even accused Liza of justifying it, or anyone else who compares the two.

    It’s an understatement to say that female circumcision is “sometimes not as bad” as male circumcision. Here is how the Women’s Health Organization classifies it: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/

    “Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons (WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, 1997).”

    “Or other injury.” Guess what that entails? Basically anything. That’s type IV:
    “Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.”

    [MORE]

    “Pricking, piercing, scraping”- given how male circumcision involves actually removing tissue, then there are forms of female circumcision many orders less invasive than male circumcision. You’ll see regular claims of “200 million girls” having been genitally mutilated, but there’s no real numbers. Given how female circumcision is near-universal among southeast asian muslims- who comprise well in excess of 200 million women- the numbers are likely far greater. But we don’t really know. And this might be because of how minimally invasive the procedures can be: http://jakartaglobe.id/news/indonesia-ignores-un-ban-on-female-circumcision-denies-mutilation/

    “Thrashing wildly, 5-year-old Reta wails as she is hoisted onto a bed during a circumcision ceremony in a school-hall-turned-clinic on Java.

    “No, no, no,” she cries, punching and kicking as her mother cups her tear-soaked face to soothe her.

    Doctors clap and cheer encouragingly. One of them gently swipes her genital area with antiseptic and then swiftly pricks the hood of her clitoris with a fresh sewing needle, drawing no blood.

    The ordeal is over in seconds as other girls and babies waiting for their turn shriek in fear.

    Doctors say the procedure will have no effect on the girl, her sexual pleasure in later life or ability to bear a child.”

    “Drawing no blood.” It is likely procedures like this- along with clitoral hood reduction/removal, AKA traditional Islamic female circumcision- are the most common procedures of all, and therefore most forms of female circumcision ARE less invasive than male circumcision. Infibulation, the most extreme form everyone thinks is the only form of FGM, is one of the rarest.

    Oh and it’s not that simple to oppose male circumcision and not commit the mortal sin of comparing it to FGM. See, when people have tried to do this- such as in Germany, where it briefly passed but was then struck down because it made Jews and Muslims feel bad (and similar stories have happened in many other places)- feminists opposed it because it elevated to the level of a crime they decided only women could be subjected to: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish

    “Women’s rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were “in no way comparable”, said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany.”

    It’s actually not outlawed in Germany, and that’s the case for quite a few number of other Western countries in reality. It’s still technically legal in most countries on Earth. Male circumcision, on the other hand, is fully banned in none at this point.

    This isn’t the only instance, but it’s one of the worst. Here is an anti-FGM activist and victim openly proclaiming not only is labiaplasty genital mutilation, but even adult women can’t actually consent to it, and lashing out at a circumcised British man who dares compare what was done to him what was done to her:

    It goes without saying this woman is a lunatic and a sexist hypocrite, but this sort of fanaticism and hypocrisy is basically never acknowledged on the part of anti-FGM activism. Or any other number of incalculable instances of unawareness and projection on the part of people who uphold this double standard.

    Like what you’ve been doing. Circumcision is genital mutilation. It is permanently damaging. It has been repeatedly used as a tool of sexual repression throughout history and has typically been found in tandem with female circumcision. Any honest analysis of it requires acknowledging those things, and ends up sounding virtually identical to the rhetoric behind FGM. But that’s often hard to do, because feminists have managed to brainwash scores of people with the idea they’re incomparable, and you’ll often get shouted down if anti-circumcision rhetoric sounds too similar to anti-FGM rhetoric, even without any explicit comparison. I’ve seen it happen too many times.

    You’ve done the exact same thing here. You have repeatedly struggled to acknowledge circumcision is harmful in any real capacity, despite being basically beaten over the head with information it is. You complain about misogyny on the dissident right, but look at you- you are a sterling example of how extensive this misandrist double standard and the gynocentric fixation on female sexuality permeates American culture and much of the rest of the Western world (and increasingly much of Africa, where America and feminists have seen fit to export it.) Your criticism (and you’re not alone) of the feminist element in anti-FGM rhetoric goes only as far as cultural relativists who try to downplay it or defend it, and have repeatedly treated that as emblematic of all criticism of the mainstream claims about FGM. You talk about “the most barbaric cultures on Earth” when circumcision is near-universal in the Muslim world and widespread in Africa, and more common among them than even female circumcision- which should tell you something about the nature of the practice. I posted articles about this (including the practice of penile flaying, which is easily comparable to infibulation, but really probably worse), but you ignored them. You snark about SJW’s when you’re unaware that most of what you proclaim with certainty about FGM has been informed by radical feminists (man-hating lunatics)- one of the articles I posted (the one you picked out that started this) notes this:

    “Other radical feminist writers in the US and Western Europe admitted there was a discrepancy involved in labelling female circumcision as a form of male violence when women are generally the ones arranging the procedure and are often the most fervent advocates of the tradition. A way to resolve this paradox was to ascribe “false consciousness” to all the female actors who uphold and defend these practices, e.g. see Daly and Thiam.

    “Mentally castrated, these women participate in the destruction of their own kind – of womankind – and the destruction of strength and bonding between women.”

    One may argue that everything evil that afflicts women has to do with the patriarchal order in one way or another. But it is important to note that this standpoint is ideological – not empirically proven, through observation, for instance. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the dominant discourse has its origin in radical feminism, the public view is that African women are victims per se. Rather than being seen as reflexive actors and decision-makers, they are mirrored as passive “bearers of tradition”. This has influenced legislation in many Western countries, where laws on “female genital mutilation” were passed to prohibit any procedure on the external female genitals, irrespective of age. ”

    “Everything evil that afflicts women has to do with the patriarchal order in one way or another” about sums it up- “everything bad that happens to women is men’s fault.” That is what the radical feminist lunatics who informed popular views on FGM did, they blamed it all on men when it’s been overwhelmingly women doing the cutting and advocating for it. And they got people to believe it, even Western governments. Even people on “the dissident right.”

    That, combined with the endless denial of the harm of male circumcision and affording only women the recognition they’re harmed and violated when their genitals are cut without consent and proper medical need, is misandry in the true, etymological sense of the word, and is more destructive and harmful than any modern manifestation of misogyny.

    If you don’t believe me: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

    These same health organizations make it a matter of policy to protect women from the same abuses and shut down any research into the idea women could see health benefits if parts of their genitals were removed. I mean, when have you ever seen the term “male genital mutilation” ever crop up? It’s basically just “botched circumcisions”, even these (VERY NSFW): http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html

    • Replies: @Rosie
  148. JIMMY THE GREEK

    You have it backwards.

    These days women will be impregnated by the Alpha of their choice who gives her powerful orgasms and desirable children but tends to be a poor provider and even abusive.

    Luckily as a single mother, she can find a Beta male to provide for her children and marry her.

    He is happy to have a partner and to get sex, so he is not too choosy.

    Because he is not the first-choice Alpha he is used to swallowing his pride. Meanwhile, the Alpha who fathered the child will continue going around being a cad and siring children.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  149. info says:

    For those who think prettiness that arises naturally isn’t evidence of good genetics:

    journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002106

    This may be related to low genetic load.

  150. @Rosie

    ROSIE

    Males with less success with women will assign it to wealth or the materialistic tendencies of women.

    The reality-this is harsh for males to deal with but we all have to-is that women want a man with a superficial potent appearance. Tall, muscular, handsome, large hands, at least medium-sized penis (Let us be honest with this one), thick hair etc.

    Few males are born with every attribute a woman desires. Others have unpleasant personalities.

    • Replies: @Kyfho Myoba
  151. T. Weed says:

    The gist of the article suggests that “civilization” is not possible without patriarchy.
    The two great apes that we humans most resemble, that we share 98% of our genes with, are the chimpanzees and the bonobos. Both these apes live in south central Africa, the chimps north of the Congo river, bonobos to the south. But the difference between them is like night and day. Chimpanzees are violent and warlike and patriarchal, males always fighting for dominance. Female chimps are only ready for sex in estrus, a fact highly frustrating for the testesterone-laden males, who relieve their through aggression and fighting neighboring tribes of chimps.
    Bonobo females are receptive at any time, and not only receptive, which implies passivity, they are also givers, initiators, in fact all bonobos seem ready for sexual encounters all day long, shocking the missionary wives (habituated to only one, supine, position) who first beheld them in their little Eden. Their society is matriarchal. Females rule the roost. When arguments arise, fighting is avoided by sex and kissing. If that doesn’t work, and if some knucklehead male does get out of hand, several sisters will beat him up. But males in bonobo society are content. Why wouldn’t they be? What else can a sane male desire but enough fruit to eat and sexually active and inventive females all around him?
    The reason our world is in such a violent, chaotic mess is that those of us who carry chimpanzee genes have become our rulers. There is historical evidence that human society was once matriarchal, rules by bonobos, but, according to Merlin Stone (When God Was a Woman), there appeared in the Middle East a chimpanzee god who ordered his followers to destroy all the bonobo-inhabited towns in Canaan, to “utterly destroy all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,” and his followers did so, installing patriarchal rule where female sexuality was strictly controlled by males, as it is to this day among Jews, Muslims and Christians.
    Proof of the difference between warlike chimps and peaceful bonobos is this: When the Brits and Americans were bombing civilians and destroying ancient cities of defenseless Germany in the final days of WW2, the bonobos in the Munich zoo died of heart attacks while bombs fell nearby; the chimps survived.
    T. Weed (letter published in the Hoboken Reported, Dec. 24, 2017)

    • Replies: @Luze
  152. Rosie says:
    @Koiytenin

    I posted articles about this (including the practice of penile flaying, which is easily comparable to infibulation, but really probably worse), but you ignored them.

    I have already told you that male circumcision is a legitimate subject of discussion, but I’m not obligated to read an article just because you posted it.

    You seem to believe male circumcision is more invasive and damaging than FGM, at least as it is commonly practiced. I’m skeptical, but I will freely acknowledge the possibility that you are correct. I also don’t really GAF one way or the other. The question of male circumcision should be resolved by reference to the risks and benefits of the procedure, not whether it is or is not worse than FGM.

    I’m not interested in discussing the issue of FGM with you or anyone else. Moreover, whether anti-FGM activists are “radical feminists” is of no concern to me whatsoever. That is a genetic fallacy, i.e. ignore this argument because it comes from bad people.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  153. Anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:

    Is the sequence of 100+ horrendously disgusting postings by Messrs Stryker, Koiytenin, Weed, Kratoklastes, Wright, Forrestal, et al finished? Do any of you perpetually adolescent Millennials, faux-Millennials or pseudo-Millenials have anything to say that is not an endless vomiting of obscenity, preoccupation with primitive sexual practice, and bugeyed panting fascination with modes of either female or male sado-masochistic pursuits?

    DO ANY OF YOU FUCKING SEX-OBSESSED MORONS KNOW JACK-SHIT ABOUT PATRIARCHAL CULTURES?

    I’m guessing “No.”

  154. T. Weed says:
    @Anonymous

    Hey, pardner, watch your filthy language. Patriarchal cultures? Maybe, as American historian Charles Beard said, it’s “perpetual war for perpetual peace”.

  155. jhan says:

    Feminism is an offshoot of socialism.

    It is in fact not possible for a woman alone to raise a family.
    But now we have all these government safety nets providing for the children of women who fuck around with different men.

    It is kind of a sad tale that it are eventually responsible men (men who would be rejected as a possible mates by such women) and women, , who end up paying the bill for the offspring of womanisers and sluts.

    If women don’t actually need a man to raise their children then eventually western societies will be following the African model. Single woman households with ‘cats’ doing nothing useful but chasing them.

  156. Low IQ poor whites on welfare do not have any property to sell. They are wards of the State, body and soul. “Social housing”, the legendary “Council flat”, or a “Housing Association” (council housing by another mother).
    It is though quite true that they also have nowhere to run, since if one “voluntarily” relinquishes one’s tenancy, “homeless by design”, you’ll never get another. Boom! another poor afflicted “immigrant” tribe will be instantly ensconced in your old drum, and showered with gold.

    “Sod off and be a pikey then, mush. Get a van” is the caring local authority response to native serfs seeking to vacate the manor.

    These must be hopeless, broken, isolated “underclass” folk, crucially lacking (male) kin. Or Rotherham, Savilletown (lol) and likely Chapeltown (the Sheffy one) would have burned for days, after the natives’ families had been evacuated to the Dales or wherever. “Blood-feu’d” is a northern English-language dialect term, gifted to the world.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  157. Corvinus says:

    “Feminism is an offshoot of socialism.”

    Thanks, I just won a sawbuck from my friend playing “Guess who is a RooshV acolyte”.

    “It is in fact not possible for a woman alone to raise a family.”

    It’s actually possible and quite probable.

    “But now we have all these government safety nets providing for the children of women who fuck around with different men.”

    You mean the children of men and women who f— around.

    “It is kind of a sad tale that it are eventually responsible men (men who would be rejected as a possible mates by such women)…”

    Thanks, yet again! I just won another sawbuck from my friend playing “Guess who is bitter”.

    “If women don’t actually need a man to raise their children then eventually western societies will be following the African model. ”

    So how many white kids have you sired? If it is not 4 or more, you are really behind.

  158. JSM says:
    @Colin Wright

    Now, as to mutilating a women’s clitoris…surely it’s a function of how extensive the mutilation is? All of these discussions seem to lump all forms of feminine circumcision together, as if they’re essentially the same thing — which I’m inclined to suspect they’re not.

    What is WRONG with you people? Mutilating other people’s body parts without their consent, whether foreskin or clitoris, or binding their feet and crippling them — or “merely” piercing a baby’s ears — is a a savage, heinous thing to do.

  159. Corvinus says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    “These days women will be impregnated by the Alpha of their choice who gives her powerful orgasms and desirable children but tends to be a poor provider and even abusive.”

    Women are impregnated by men. That’s it. Everything else you said is manospheric mumbo jumbo.

    “Because he is not the first-choice Alpha he is used to swallowing his pride. Meanwhile, the Alpha who fathered the child will continue going around being a cad and siring children.”

    Not Roosh and Roissy, they just go around being a cad. How about you, Cochise? Are you an “alpha” or a “beta”?

  160. Corvinus says:
    @James Forrestal

    “It’s illegal for the historic American nation (and all of the indigenous peoples of Europe) to have any form of group identity in the current year.”

    Of course it is legal! It may be just that most white people prefer to make their own decisions about race and culture that you personally disagree with.

    And what is it with this “historic American nation” schtick? Our nation was originally settled by people from certain European ethnics. Later, other ethnic groups from Europe came in droves; the nativists were not particularly fond of the Germans, Irish, Italians, and Slavs. It did not matter that they were white; these groups simply did not have what it took to become immersed into our nation. So, if you are unable to trace both of your ancestors directly to those ethnic groups who settled in the Thirteen Colonies prior to 1700, you must go back, for you are other than a “heritage American”.

  161. @Expletive Deleted

    Native Britons have been running to the misty hills of Wales or wherever since the Romans showed up so what’s to say it won’t happen again?

    In the United States the Irish, for example, entered cities circa 1900 but their kids moved/built suburbs and now Irish-Americans live 50 miles away from the ghettos of Boston or Chicago in leafy comfortable bedroom communities.

    UK does not seem to have that gradation and you either live in a dense population center or you can live in North Wales in some remote farmhouse like Witnail and I retreated to.

    Also, the UK does not have the car culture of the US (Yanks think nothing of sleeping in our cars) so people walk everywhere-especially the poor-and this leads to immediate physical danger. Americans can drive around the problem at 120 km with the doors locked.

  162. @Rosie

    Funny how race realism gets forgotten when women are under discussion.

    Women aren’t real people therefore what they do, or do not do, has no impact on the veracity of race realism. Aren’t race realists always claiming that “their” women flock to mate with big black dudes every chance they get because white guys are turning into effeminate milquetoasts? Ergo, women are biologically unequipped to practice race realism. (Or maybe “race realism” is a real load of bollocks and expecting it to make logical sense is a fool’s errand to begin with.)

  163. @Anonymous

    Do any of you perpetually adolescent Millennials, faux-Millennials or pseudo-Millenials have anything to say that is not an endless vomiting of obscenity, preoccupation with primitive sexual practice, and bugeyed panting fascination with modes of either female or male sado-masochistic pursuits?

    Well,without a doubt today’s young womenfolk are very much into rape fantasies, degradation, extreme submissiveness/fetishizing abuse and calling it “empowering” (of course) which is probably a reaction to the enforced official egalitarianism that pervades society.

    As any man worth his salt knows women tend to be sexually submissive and now that this fact is officially verboten it has become taboo and, therefore, it is also erotically exciting again. Kind of like the kids of parents who raised them to be liberal atheists like themselves being attracted to religious conservatism instead.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  164. Corvinus says:
    @Stan d Mute

    “What has really collapsed is the vital animal nature of men. Most men today would starve to death before they went out and killed something to eat. They’d calmly and silently watch as the cops came to collect a savage who raped their wife or daughter. They’d call the cops if they found a sex deviant molesting kids in a playground. Can we call them “men” any longer?”

    Thanks for the false premise.

    “Men are emasculated and I’m not sure why.”

    Because they do not measure up to what YOU think is masculinity?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  165. Skeptikal says:

    Methinks a lot of this territory has already been amply (and entertainingly) covered in Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker, and The Alphabet vs. the Goddess, by Leonard Shlain. The latter also presents an ancient Iraelite lens, to make it that much more interesting for Unz readers.

  166. Anonymous[651] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lincoln Blockface Squarebeard III

    As any man worth his salt knows women tend to be sexually submissive and now that this fact is officially verboten it has become taboo and, therefore, it is also erotically exciting again.

    May I suggest you get a job? You’ll be much happier.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  167. Skeptikal says:

    Human females do not go into estrus, dummie.

    “Unlike other mammals, which go into “heat” during fertile periods, women can be up for sex any time of the month. Evolutionary theorists have tried at several explanations for the loss of this estrus cycle in humans, one of the most common being that humans lost the “heat” phase to conceal ovulation.”

  168. Anonymous[651] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Thanks for the false premise.

    “Men are emasculated and I’m not sure why.”

    Because they do not measure up to what YOU think is masculinity?

    Stanley Moot’s mind wanders betimes. He has noticed that masculinity is no longer a recognized phenomenon. For that matter, femininity isn’t much, either. There seem, instead, to be sets of behavior that media recognize as “hot”, equally applicable to both sexual domains. All these factors come together on Caribbean island resorts known as “bachelor paradises” or “bachelorette paradises”.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  169. TKK says:
    @SMK

    Agreed and well stated.

    I am not allowed to use the agree button. It’s a privilege, not a right.

  170. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “He has noticed that masculinity is no longer a recognized phenomenon. For that matter, femininity isn’t much, either.”

    Masculinity and femininity are, of course, still recognizable phenomenon. It just happens that he has his own set of standards as to what they constitute.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  171. @Anonymous

    He wouldn’t be. It is much more fulfilling for many white males to watch degrading porn on their laptop all day in their rooms.

    Most of the outrageous behavior of Gen Y is a result of being force-fed pornography their entire lives due to the internet.

    Gen X was the last generation where pornography was considered a seedy activity involving visits to sleazy sex stores or illicit videotapes or DVD’s.

    Read RETURN OF KINGS. There are comic articles about how Gen Y (Born 1983 or after) cannot stop beating off to porn. Gen X associated porn with adolescents and dirty old men but Gen Y’s entire sense of self and gender relations has been defined by internet porn.

    In 1985 when Gen X was 10 years old, they could not see grotesque pornography. They had no idea what it was. Men had to visit seedy sex stores zoned to the worst areas of town with blacked out windows to see pornography.

    Gen Y women actually ACT OUT pathetic imitations of things they have seen in porn films. This is why bisexual women became such a trend, or anal sex.

    Now it is getting far, far worse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  172. Anonymous[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Masculinity and femininity are, of course, still recognizable phenomenon. It just happens that he has his own set of standards as to what they constitute.

    Would you accept that masculinity and femininity have been redefined by the media, which definitions contain few, if any, elements of true masculinity and femininity?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  173. Anonymous[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Now it is getting far, far worse.

    Yes, the overall situation is far worse. No, it is not substantially attributable to Gen X’s access and preference for pornography. It is a product of laziness, privilege, and inferior education methods that have established the most godawful “standards” of knowledge, performance and ambition. Gen X is incapable of getting out of its own way; Gen X is a Fiat 850 entered in the Daytona 500 of Life.

    Oddly enough, Gen Y is doing a little bit better. I am not sure why that is, just yet. It probably makes no difference, as Gen-Y/Millennials are totally fucked-up. What America was, for awhile, died with the manifestation of the Millennial generation. It’s not so much a case of there being no intelligent and purposeful members of MillenGen — there are. But there’s not enough, and what few exist believe YouTube to be the economic engine of the future. Go figger.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  174. @Anonymous

    WRONG COHORT

    Gen X was born from 1964 to 1981. The oldest of us are now 54 years old and the youngest of us are in our late 30′s.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  175. Anonymous[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Ah, so substantive of you.

    Have a nice day.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  176. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    It’s not a conspiracy theory so much is it being another example of an identity politics-centered ideology that claims to be about “equality” when it isn’t. Feminists are supposed to be about “equality”, but they (outside of, say, nordic feminists) have shown a stunning disregard and hostility towards the idea male circumcision is an issue or at all comparable to female genital mutilation- all while they tell men to focus on their own issues, but then get really angry when anti-circumcision rhetoric starts to sound too much like anti-FGM rhetoric for their liking. They have enforced the idea that genital mutilation is something that only happens to girls and women and have even actively fought efforts to make it all comparable to a crime they’ve led people to believe is something unique to women. This is hardly the only thing feminists have done like this, or again, any other identity politics ideology. See for example the “prejudice plus power” definition of racism, which is of course underscored by the idea that anti-white “prejudice” is basically non-existent and if it does is a non-issue. It’s really very much the same as that.

    For someone critical of SJW’s, you seem to be exempting feminists much criticism here and don’t sound much different from them.

  177. @Anonymous

    GENERATION GAP

    Gen X cannot understand the Gen Y obsession with porn. Back in 89 when I was 15, porn was something 15 year old boys looked at. If you were 25 and haunting sex stores with blacked out windows, you were either a dirty old man or a budding serial killer.

    The funny thing is that Gen Y males make no bones about their porn addiction. Gen X males in 1996 would stash their porn videos under their underwear, Gen Y beat off in front of their wives.

    In all fairness, Gen Y women go along with it. You could never get a girl to do anal sex with you in 1994 when I was 20 (I tried).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  178. Anonymous[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Great googly-moogly! By “not substantive” I was not requesting a continuation of the horrifically obsessive, and dimwitted, dialog on sexual perversions and child sexual abuse that you and others have pursued and encouraged for 100+ postings — this on an article discussing a not-very-authentic presentation of reasons for patriarchy.

    It is disgusting in the extreme, has been disgusting throughout 100+ postings, and continues to be disgusting, moronic, sex-obsessed, and a thorough condemnation of Gens X, Y, and Z.

    Adieu. You are now blocked just like the rest of the Tijuana whorehouse contingent.

  179. Koiytenin says:
    @Rosie

    ” The question of male circumcision should be resolved by reference to the risks and benefits of the procedure, not whether it is or is not worse than FGM.”

    I think that’s more applicable to female circumcision/genital mutilation, since the whole thing was heavily predicated on the idea it’s incomparable to male circumcision, hence the term “female circumcision” being made into a dirty phrase. But of course, it’s also as absurd to treat them as wholly separate issues, kind of like male rape or female rape, or child abuse of boys vs. girls. And we’re talking about a case where many people have tremendous difficulty acknowledging an abuse of one sex is an abuse at all, as we’ve seen with how circumcision has been approached by the soulless international “human rights” community or scum of the earth journalists.

    The two occur so frequently together and done for such similar purposes that distinguishing the two is insane. Most never really did so until feminists convinced the world they’re different.

    I am not saying the anti-FGM movement is wrong just because it was started by radical feminists and to this day largely reflects their beliefs, but boy- it should really give someone pause if a movement was started by, say, man-hating psychos who blame everything bad that happens to women on men, even the women who rip apart their daughter’s genitals, shouldn’t it? And this was about how people’s perceptions of the issue have been colored. The belief the women who perpetrate it are brainwashed by men or whatever is a radical feminist belief, and as the article notes, one that has not been substantiated by reality, and never will be. It is insane.

    And let me just say one last thing, to your remark about “the most barbaric cultures on Earth”- if you look at a map of where it occurs, you will find male circumcision is found overwhelmingly in those exact places, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Muslim World. If it had never been normalized in much of the Western world like it has, you would have no trouble seeing it as a manifestation of the nature of those places.

  180. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “Would you accept that masculinity and femininity have been redefined by the media, which definitions contain few, if any, elements of true masculinity and femininity?”

    You are making two false assumptions here. First, you assume that the media has redefined these notions. In reality, it has been men and women themselves, of their own volition, within the past 100 years who have initiated changes in gender roles as a result of a number of factors (e.g. political freedom, technological breakthroughs, social reforms). Second. what is “true masculinity and femininity? Is its something that is definitively objective, or is it prone to cultural and personal biases?

  181. @Rosie

    Projecting again? No one asked you to share your rape fantasies with the general public, cupcake — you did it on your own. Seems like you have a lot of difficulty accepting responsibility for your actions, hmm?

  182. @Rosie

    I’m sure you’d love to chat longer about your conspiracy theories, your mother’s job as a sex worker, and your graphic rape fantasies, but I’m late for my neighborhood patriarchy meeting already — gotta go. Shhh… don’t tell anyone!

  183. @Jeff Stryker

    Presumably, while you’re busy attributing societal breakdown to some mythical “individualism” intrinsic to the people of the historic American nation, you also whine about the threat of White nationalism (American nationalism), as well as so-called “racism” and “anti-semitism” — right? Without ever admitting the link between the two. Sad.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  184. @James Forrestal

    When did I complain about “white nationalism” in the US? Because I remember the Reagan/Bush era when the US was still effectively a white middle class country as a fairly decent era.

    Watch an old film about California like FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. There was a time when “The Valley” was associated with white middle-class prosperity. That’s long gone now.

    However, a white ethnic state is impossible because

    A) the centers of power and finance are firmly entrenched on the East Coast and this is multinational.

    B) Federal government would not support such a country which would represent a loss in natural resources (Because most white nationalists live in the bread baskets or oil-rich centers of the US and this would put them in a position of strength).

    C) Jews and ethnic whites and Asians on the East and West Coast have all of the earning power.

  185. Not a shred of evidence presented in the article. Perhaps in the study? T

    This is theory explicitly the way Rick Perry used the term: “Just a theory.”

    This is hypothesis without evidence or an operationalized experiment with inferential statistical data; it has cherrypicked cross-cultural references not annotated and footnoted. Not even ethnography.

    Like all the “The Russians Did It” faith-based assertions without a shred of evidence. You gotta do better, dude …. F- on the story

  186. @Curiouser

    Curiouser:

    Why aren’t more humans “high T”? How do you know that we aren’t? Who’s to say what would’ve been? Evolution selects for the most “fit” – what would things be like if the less fit happened to outreproduce? Would that out-reproduction redefine them into being fit?

    One side effect of civilization (medical care) is the survival and reproduction of those that would’ve died (out) without it.

  187. @Anon

    Anon[156]:

    Not just brain power, co-operation is the overriding factor. Remember the ‘alpha’s’ (the male desired for his genetic benefits, i.e., he’s hawwwwwt!) main characteristic: social dominance. The betas (resource provider) can acquire resources much easier/faster by cooperating, a behavior outside the wheelhouse of the typical alpha. We see this in analysis of dating site data sets as well as academic studies: women are not as attracted to men that rank high in agreeableness, male photos that show a large smile get fewer responses than those that show a somewhat angry face.

  188. @Frederick V. Reed

    Frederick V Reed:
    > Unless you can show that hourglass-shaped women are more fertile than boxier ones, or that plain features correlate with lower resistance to disease or less endurance or lower intelligence or some such, the evolutionary just-so story fails.

    All of which have been shown in several studies.

    Read an evo-psych textbook. Female preference for male symmetry (indicative of high T) has been shown numerous times. Not only that, but her preference changes across the ovulatory cycle, in that her desire for a high T face is highest during ovulation. Also, during ovulation, her scent preference for males with differing major histocompatability complexes [MHC] (males with genes further differing from her own, i.e., less related) increases. The MHC is a primary part of the immune system. Facial symmetry is known to be correlated with a healthy immune system.

    Every measure of attractiveness, male or female, has been shown to confer a reproductive advantage.

    In short, I’m busy, you’re wrong.

  189. @Rosie

    Rosie, are you more attracted to men with money or lazy homeless bum? If your husband/lover/boyfriend decided to stay home all day and play video games, how long would it take for you to dump him?

    All women are whores (and that’s a GOOD thing), they merely differ on the terms – for some it’s marriage, for others it’s marriage to a man of certain means, most western women don’t even need that. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, if women weren’t concerned about resources, we wouldn’t have civilization.

  190. @Jeff Stryker

    Jeff Stryker:
    The good news (for most men) is that behavioral cues trump genetic cues six ways from Sunday. Hence, the pick-up artist community.

  191. Luke57 says:

    Correction re what men on men’s issues sites commonly want for custody in divorce: we commonly want default father custody for children the mother is not currently needfully breastfeeding. That is, we want an end to the Tender Years experiment disaster.

    Oh, and an end to “men’s fault” divorce is top priority as well. She gets itchy, she leaves EVERYTHING behind that she didn’t bring into the marriage, with zip zero no money or rights to the marital home, assets, and husband’s income. (The children, being the primary assets created during the marriage, of course remain behind as she flits off to go skanking.)

  192. Luze says:

    Apart from the usual evolutionary bullsh*tting (it has zero predictive power), and the implicit criticizing of patriarchy, this touches upon an interesting subject.

    The cause for patriarchy is much simpler; males are stronger and are more exploratory and tend to protect and provide for their (extended) family, which includes the weaker (women and children). That only works if their authority is effective. Feminism is trying hard to destroy patriarchy. As such society will eventually collapse (look around you; what in society is designed, built and maintained by women?)

  193. Luze says:
    @T. Weed

    “The gist of the article suggests that “civilization” is not possible without patriarchy.
    The two great apes that we humans most resemble, that we share 98% of our genes with, are the chimpanzees and the bonobos.”

    Yeah, look at the civilizations they have built! I recently went to visit some of their museums! Luckily they had air-conditioned airports because it’s HOT over there!

    • Replies: @T. Weed
  194. T. Weed says:
    @Luze

    Sorry, I don’t get what you mean. Apparently, you didn’t get what I meant, either.

  195. @Koiytenin

    Cutting off a clitoris means no orgasm, you cockroach. We’re putting you in the Trump catapult as soon as he signs off on the executive order for it.

    • Replies: @Koiytenin
  196. Koiytenin says:

    I just saw this comment now. I’m surprised this is only the second time this happened to me here- as I said to Rosie, when she started attacking research that questioned the idea “FGM always destroys pleasure in a woman” (even if it supported the idea it damages pleasure):

    “Ah, I should have seen this one coming- if you don’t explicitly say “I think all forms of female circumcision/genital mutilation are wrong” when you’re questioning the standard feminist claims (that seemingly near-everyone has come to believe without question) or even worse, compare it to male circumcision, then you’re more than likely going to get accused of defending it or justifying it (even that doesn’t always save you from this.)”

    And admittedly, my post could be read as supporting it- I did after all say “There are also virtually no studies in existence supporting the claim “circumcised” women can’t enjoy sex.” Well, there are- but I should have said “there are also virtually no studies in existence supporting the claim every “circumcised” woman can’t enjoy sex.” But that probably wouldn’t have saved me from this accusation, because when it comes to this, people usually think anything that strays from FGM as ALWAYS being this unimaginably horrible, devastating procedure ALWAYS done to oppress and brutalize woman is justifying it (and even if it always isn’t, cases where that doesn’t happen are too rare to really change that image.) Because there’s little to no critical thinking on this subject most of the time, it’s pure visceral emotional hysteria and personal insecurity.

    And just to reiterate as well (but I’m not betting this will do anything):

    “But since I didn’t state it myself- I think all forms of female circumcision/genital mutilation are wrong, and I’m not trying to justify it. I know why you made that leap though, and it’s probably one of these or a combination of them:”

    I could also past the rest of my post there, but I’ll make this special in your case.

    There is no evidence whatsoever removing the clitoris means no orgasm, you brainwashed, hysterical moron. If you were to remove the clitoris, you wouldn’t be cutting it off- you’d be ripping it out of the body, and that wouldn’t be easy. The clitoris extends several inches into the body and is exceptionally difficult to completely remove. There is perhaps not a single recorded instance of any FGM ritual removing the entire thing. It is basically only ever removed in cases of extreme injury or ultra-rare medical necessity. Complete removal is so rare as to be considered a case study. The effects of complete removal have never been studied. And there is no reason to believe it destroys orgasm, just like there’s no evidence removing the penis destroys orgasm, for the fact orgasm is ultimately found in the brain.

    What is often removed is the glans clitoris, or the external part. Removing this is highly damaging, but there is no evidence whatsoever this means no orgasm. Other times, other parts of the vagina are removed. Often times, nothing is removed at all.

    You believe this because of a mix of anatomical illiteracy (that’s ironically little better than the groups who remove it in women), a subconscious deification of female sexuality (because large parts of the Western world have been regularly denuding male sexuality at birth for the past 150 years), and retarded feminist propaganda. You’ll put me in the Trump catapult, while you’ll probably go back to mindlessly defending or downplaying male circumcision, completely oblivious to what it was originally done for as a “medical practice” and how it’s far more common among the groups who practice FGM (and was for the bulk of Western history regarded as the same), for the simple reasons it’s been freakishly normalized in America for generations now, it most likely happened to you, and years worth of propaganda about how this is nothing like FGM, because that REMOVES THE CLITORIS!!! (propaganda that ultimately derives from sociopathic, man-hating radical feminist cunts who blamed men for everything bad that happens to women and more than likely had an ulterior motive with leaving the world thinking “cutting girls is bad, cutting boys is a non-issue and actually has medical benefits/is really important to Jews and Muslims and therefore must never be questioned”.)

  197. Koiytenin says:
    @Eric Novak

    Forgot to directly address my previous post to Eric Novak- since he was the last person to reply, I overlooked that field.

  198. Koiytenin says:
    @anon

    I would imagine complications such as this aren’t rare in the most extreme forms of FGM, such as infibulation, but that, again, is the most extreme. It is not representative of the array of “procedures” across Africa and amounts to a minority in Africa alone. The research I quoted was taking all African procedures as a whole, not infibulation alone.

    “So, if the Labia is trimmed or removed, natural childbirth is going to result in injury to the mother due to tearing of that scar tissue, and a traumatic experience for her and the baby.”

    Plenty of women in Western countries get their labias (and other parts of their vaginas) “trimmed” all the time. Unless the procedure was botched, I’m not aware of it being remotely common for women who’ve undergone cosmetic/rejuvenating vaginal surgeries to suffer these things. I’m not terribly familiar with the birthing process, but there’s simply no data out there suggesting any degree of scarring on the vagina is going to make childbirth a traumatic process. None. Some of what I quoted also noted that as far back as 1999, much of the data on the health outcomes of FGM was based on poor data or none at all. What has been carried out since has unsurprisingly found women who’ve had their vaginas mutilated in primitive tribal conditions have worse health and childbearing outcomes, but excluding infibulation, the extraordinary health problems regularly claimed in media propaganda are not common. There is even on study in Sweden of infibulated Somali women that found they had an easier time giving childbirth- I have lost track of that, and that is most likely an outlier, but it is not a guarantee being infibulated is going to make the birthing process catastrophic. What you describe comes off as nothing more than a simplification.

    “Common sense” doesn’t mean much here because this issue has sorely lacked any. It is an objectively evil thing that is at the same time ruled by unending hyperbole and hysteria. You can’t talk about “common sense” when people with this topic will regularly proclaim (as someone did to me) the clitoris is just the tiny external nub, and this small piece of flesh is where a woman’s entire perception of sexuality is located, or that women across the whole of Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia etc. are having this removed or that along with every other external part and their vaginas sewn up, and sometimes get violently angry if you say this isn’t exactly the case. That is what is regularly conjured in people’s minds when they hear the dreaded acronym “FGM” and that is how they act when you say that this is atleast a tad exaggerated.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.