The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
It's a Man's World
The Truth and its Consequences
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years, because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said. “You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ’em.”

The first rule of human thought is that everything is somebody else’s fault. American whites note that violent crime is mostly committed by blacks or Hispanics, who see all their problems as due to whites. Terrorism is the domain of Muslems. Democrats blame everything on Republicans and vice versa.

Most of the world points out that America causes most of avoidable destruction and suffering on the planet. The Americans believe themselves virtuous, indispensable, exceptional, and entirely dedicated to promulgating democracy. No group is itself guilty of anything.

Nobody (except feminists) says the obvious, that all of these evils are committed by….

Men.

It is always men–some other men, of course, men of another race or country, or religion or tribe or social class. We ourselves–men–are pure. But however you cut it, it is men.

The crucial problem for humanity is, probably always has been, how to control men, how to to harness their vigor and inventiveness for the common good while restraining their penchant for destruction, mass homicide, individual mlurder, rape, pillage, depravity, and foolishness.

Wars are the vilest masculine behavior. They never end. Wars are not about anything. They are just wars. Men always find something for them to be about, but really they are just what men–men–do.

The martial urge is deep in the steroid chemistry. Little boys want to play with guns. If you force dolls upon them, they shoot each other with dolls. When grown up, to the extent they ever are, they fight wars. If there is no reason for war, as for example now, they invent reasons. The Russians are coming. The Chinese are coming. North Korea will nuke us. So will Iran. We must gird our loins and fight, fight, fight.

It is the behavior of a pack of dogs. For example, when an obsolete lumbering propeller-driven Soviet-era bomber approaches American air space, fighter pilots sprint for their planes and roar into the air–loud martial noises are important to men–to intercept the intruder, bow wow, arf, woof. They cannot in sanity think that the dread Russkis have sent a single slow plane to destroy America, but that, presumably due to nucleotide arrangement, is how they behave.

It is innate and starts early. When I was a little boy of twelve, my buddies Dukesy and Mincemeat and I often set out in our perfectly safe suburb to invade the equally perfectly safe nearby suburbs in search of action. We got into rock fights with other little boys who equally had no reason to get into rock fights. We were experiencing the germ of the hunting pack or war party. Girls did not do this.

If we had lived in the downtown of a city where the frail bonds of civilization are weaker, the next step would have been membership in urban gangs. These have both the behavior of the dog pack and the trappings of armies: insignia (baseball hats worn sideways or jackets of particular colors), territory (Rolling Eighties Crips), imposing titles (War Counselor), and brutal initiations (getting jumped in). There is, as with kids of twelve, the sense of belonging, the visceral appeal of concerted action, the adrenal pull of combat. Thus do we overcome the greyness of existence.

In 1916 in the battle of the Somme, England lost 20,000 dead–men–when their generals, men, ordered them to run across open ground covered by the fire of artillery and machine guns manned–note word–by German men. Can you imagine women being so goddam stupid? The war was caused, organized, and waged by, of course, men.

The world’s history consists chiefly of men killing each other and everybody else within reach. Cannae. Zama. Thermopylae, The Bulge. Bosworth Field. The Nile, Trafalgar. Yorktown. Antietam. Custer’s Last Stand. Borodin. Austerlitz. The Varian Disaster. Midway. You could fill encyclopedias with battles, none of them making sense.

In the American West, the men of the savage tribes constantly made war on other savage tribes to steal horses and women and get captives to torture. Spanish men made war on the Aztecs, who made war on everybody around them. Later, American men invaded Mexico to kill Mexican men, who wanted to kill the American men. The free will of army ants.

The literature of most peoples, chiefly written by men, glorifies war. The Iliad, the Anabasis, the Aeneid, Bhagavad Gita, the Old Testament, El Cid, the Gilgamesh Epic, Orlando Furioso. When men are not doing war, they write about war, talk about it, do high-fives in the O Club. In old age they fondly remember their wars as the most pungent and intense times they ever knew.

Men engaging in such behavior speak of honor. There is no honor in war, only hormonally mediated lunacy. Where is the honor in bombing cities, putting them to the sword, raping and looting? The perpetrators-men–care nothing for the horrors they infliict–Dresden, the Rape of Nanjing, Nagasaki, Nine-Eleven, the “pacification” of the Philippines after the American conquest.

Men. Can anyone deny this?

These days, when a thin patina of moralism lightly coats the public mind, soldiers–men–pride themselves on protecting their homelands, the national security, our precious values lauded but seldom practiced, and so forth. Why do countries need protecting? Because otherwise the men of other countries will attack. Our men must protect us against their men. Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” but men who carry big sticks cannot speak softly. They always want to use the stick.

The barbaric behavior of men is not restricted to soldiers. Watch documentaries about serial killers on YouTube. You will note that all are men. Men will kill thirteen women after torturing them at length, perhaps copulating with the corpse, will kidnap and rape a chilod of seven for three days before throwing her off a bridge (an actual case). Women do not do this. There is an occasional nurse poisoner and women sometimes kill their husbands, but we do not have Jane Wayne Gacys, Theodora Bundys, or Jessica Dahmers. Sexual torture-murders are, as we say, a male thing.

In cities like Chicago and Baltimore–there are many cities like these–barely organized black men–men–kill each other in hundreds. Black women do not. In Mexico, well organized criminal gangs kill each other in tens of thousand. Mexican women do not. In America, men kill with truly national enthusiasm , constantly attacking other countries and killing, killing, killing. A few women are involved as political baubles, but it is a man’s game. Which is how they regard it. As a game, an adventure.

The mass murderers of history–Joshua, Alexander, Timurlane, Genghis Khan, Titus, Napoleon, Pol Pot, Stalin, Adolf, Mao– were all–men.

In the past, men were not disingenuous about their moves. Conquering was expected of kings and emperors. They did it for its own sake. Alexander didn’t really need Afghanistan. Today men have to speak of spreading democracy and human rights and overthrowing evil dictators. Like wind-up victrolas they speak of duty, honor, country. They insist that war crimes are isolated incidents. In fact a war crime is business as usual that a reporter has heard about.

Short of genetic engineering, how can this grotesque misbehavior be controlled? The question is made difficult because men would have to do the controlling. They will not. They won’t give up their aircraft carriers and tanks and hero treehouses like the Green Berets.

At the level of countries, only the complete domination and disarming of the planet by one power can stop the murder. It takes two to fight and if you have only one, peace will arise, astounded. Here China is the best hope. No other country has the population and economic potential.

The other possibility is America, but it declines in both power and leadership. Which makes the times very dangerous as men, once they control the sandbox, do not readily give it up. Think Pompeo, Trump, Pence, Dsper, Bolton, Bannon, etc.

As long as men have militaries, they will use them. Wars are what men do.

Write Fred at [email protected] . Put the letters pdq anywhere in the subject line to avoid autodeletion.

In these the End Times the gates of Hell have opened and a fiery cloud belches from the Pit to punish us for our sins. See above. Alternatively, sunrise over Lake Chapala. Photo: Violeta
In these the End Times the gates of Hell have opened and a fiery cloud belches from the Pit to punish us for our sins. See above. Alternatively, sunrise over Lake Chapala. Photo: Violeta

Killer Kink

Hardboiled is back! Gritty crime fiction by longtime police reporter for the Washington Times. who knows the police from nine years of riding with them. Guaranteed free of white wine and cheese, sensitivity, or social justice. Not recommended for Democrats, has been linked to apoplexy in feminists. What the critics are saying: Psychology Today: “Fred deserves his own entry in the DSM-V.” Ms. Magazine Aaaaaaagh!”

 
SubscribeUnsubscribe
Hide 190 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Easyrhino says:

    Mostly true Fred but there are exceptions when it comes to the ladies:

    Hillary Clinton was the architect (“We came, we saw, he died”) of the Libya invasion resulting in 40,000 deaths.

    Madeline Albright apparently thought it was okay for 500,000 Muslims kids to starve to death:

    Sixty Minutes: We have heard that a half million children have died. Is the price worth it?

    Sec of State Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

  2. Hillary Clinton was the architect (“We came, we saw, he died”) of the Libya invasion resulting in 40,000 deaths.

    Madeline Albright apparently thought it was okay for 500,000 Muslims kids to starve to death:

    As J. Stalin, socialist philosopher said, a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.

  3. Yeah, so why the push to put women into front line combat, or in the military at all? What’s that about?

  4. DrCiber says:

    I don’t think it’s men so much as their hormone. So, mass unavoidable castration. The women are gonna have to figure out how, probably chemical/biological, and they’re gonna have to create the most perfect false flag ever so the guys are convinced they did it to themselves. 😉

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  5. Anon[287] • Disclaimer says:

    Fred, if you insist on publishing your stepdaughter’s term papers, shouldn’t you at least share your byline with her?

    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • LOL: Gunga Din
    • Replies: @36 ulster
  6. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:

    I give you Boadicea. I could give you more – Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, various contemporary crocodiles, but let’s stick with Ms. B.

    History ( always a reliable source) has it that Queen B., leader of some tribe in Britain before it became Great, had had her “honor” insulted by some Roman soldiers in some manner. Justifiably offended, she promptly took reprisals against some Roman settlements through the usual device: massacres of the innocent, that sort of thing. She raised such a ruckus that the Romans dispatched an army of 15,000 to deal with her. The queen was able to field a much larger force, complete with shrieking witches prancing around, hurling curses at the terrified Romans, the cheerleaders of their day. The Romans fought with careful calculation; the Britons fought with . . . feeling. Eighty thousand of the queen’s men were slaughtered. The Romans prevailed. History does not record whether they were ashamed of themselves, nor whether Boadicea felt her honor avenged.

    But I leave it to you, does that sound like something a woman would do, or is history lying again?

    • Replies: @Bp
  7. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years, because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said. “You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ’em.”

    Oooh, American white males are so manly. They cuck to Jewish nerd supremacists. They take orders from bitchy women in the military. They suck up to globo-homo and fight wars to spread sodomy worship around the world. These white guys watch black guys take white girls and cheer. They come home and raise daughters who dress like whores and have black babies. They raise sons who are castrated by the Jewish Media that make stuff like THE HUNT and Jewish academia that says It’s NOT Okay to be White.

    White men in the military are tough dogs, not tough men. If they’re really men, they’d realize the West is not threatened by Afghans but by Jewish supremacists, blacks thugs, white race traitors, mass-immigration-invasion, and globo-homo degeneracy. But THOSE are the very things that white American male soldiers fight for and promote around the world. They only do as told. No matter how tough they are, they lack agency and follow orders of the Master. Bunch of dogs.

  8. Well, Mr. Reed, welcome to the human condition. The question is this: what, in your opinion, is the antidote to it?

  9. @Easyrhino

    Thanks for your comment. I would like to complement it.

    Fred’s argument is a logical fallacy. Men do all those violent things because they have had a lot more opportunity for decision making than women. Thus, women’s performance in similar situations can only be judged after they have had enough opportunities of power. And, based on the examples of the exceptions who did have those opportunities, their record is terrible (I’d say worse than men).

    So, perhaps preventively it’s best to keep men in control.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  10. @Joseph Doaks

    Exactly, why? Isn’t it true that eggs are expensive, and sperm is cheap? Unless the long term goal is to have the spectacle of young women coming home in body bags, so that public sentiment will turn against any military action, even (or especially) if taken in self defense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  11. T. Weed says:

    Fred Reed says that as a twelve-year old he fought with other boys, and so did we boys growing up in Texas, chunking rocks at rivals, shooting “guns”, playing war, etc. But WE OUTGREW IT and became fierce peaceniks. Those men who didn’t, are the problem.

  12. It all comes down to status for men. Men have to compete for status and what better way to do that then go conquer other nations. Men then are able to seize resources and land, which leads to a gain in status. Men defending nations have to protect their resources and women to retain their status, or they will be slaughtered/end up a slave. Wars between will always be here because it is the ultimate way to compete for status.

  13. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:

    The mass murderers of history–Joshua, Alexander, Timurlane, Genghis Khan, Titus, Napoleon, Pol Pot, Stalin, Adolf, Mao– were all–men.

    … and they all ended up swimming, neck-deep, in willing and eager punani not despite, but because of that perceived power.

    Old age can sometimes infantilise people to the point where they even forget basic truths about the oppose sex. You should stop posting and wait for someone to give you a “boy meets world” talk, again.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Rosie
  14. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

    Given absolute power, women will not hesitate to send armies to go to war, as Margaret Thatcher did in the Falklands war. Women are not any better or wiser than men in this regard, just give them the tools and they will do it. As a side note, all boys are not into violence (and this doesn’t mean that they are any less masculine), some are creative and dissipate their masculine energy in creating and building things.

  15. That soviet era bomber can launch very potent atomic and nuclear weapons, from far enough away to avoid the fallout. It is also inexpensive to produce, maintain and easy to deploy.
    Enjoy reading your work and in off duty time read older posts, very well written and always worth the time.
    Get well, be well, stay well,

  16. Rosie says:
    @Brás Cubas

    Fred’s argument is a logical fallacy. Men do all those violent things because they have had a lot more opportunity for decision making than women.

    I am inclined to agree with this to a very limited extent, but then, don’t forget about who has had more opportunities to achieve great things, either. I’m told men did this, and men built that, and where are all the women scientists and philosophers? etc. Well, you can’t have it both ways.

    And, based on the examples of the exceptions who did have those opportunities, their record is terrible (I’d say worse than men).

    So, perhaps preventively it’s best to keep men in control.

    In an awful big hurry to declare the case closed there, aren’t you? In any event, it’s nice to see that you admit men are (still) in control, and have brought us to the brink of civilizational catastrophe and racial extinction through greed and shortsightedness, even to the point of letting a foreign rival manufacture our weapons, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  17. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    … and they all ended up swimming, neck-deep, in willing and eager punani not despite, but because of that perceived power.

    So you say. I have yet to see any evidence at all that the spectacular reproductive success of the likes of Genghis Kahn were the result of consensual relations. Even if they were, when men hoard all the wealth, women don’t have much choice, do they?

    Women are accused of:

    1) Setting men viciously at each other’s throats so we can pick the fittest.
    2) Being natural socialists who insist men share the wealth and treat each other humanely.

    Like war, hatred of women will always find a reason.

  18. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Even if they were, when men hoard all the wealth, women don’t have much choice, do they?

    Yes, that’s your problem. That’s why you ended up hoarding cat piss and box wine stains.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  19. Wilson says:

    “only the complete domination and disarming of the planet by one power can stop the murder” is the plan of every ambitious military dictator, not sure if Fred Reed dreams of being in this position or is hoping for such a man to sweep him off his feet, I’d say the focus on how brutish and rough men are leans towards the latter

  20. Biff says:

    When women are in charge of everything:

    England: “Hey France, why did you invade me?”

    France: “I think you know why.”

  21. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes, that’s your problem. That’s why you ended up hoarding cat piss and box wine stains.

    When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.

    -Cicero

    FYI, I have a husband and six White children who need a movement to represent their interests. Why else do you think I would come here and engage the likes of you? The witty repartee?

    • Agree: AKAHorace
    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  22. @DrCiber

    Enjoy your cave-dwelling lifestyle after the men are gone, Doc.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  23. @Priss Factor

    Great comment, P.F! Yep, they will fight you with fists over a slur on their favorite gang of ghetto-thugs, err, football team, but if you want to talk about the American population being replaced, they are so cucked-out they will shy away like pussies from saying anything that may cause them to be called names.

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  24. @LegendSchola

    Men defending nations have to protect their resources and women to retain their status, or they will be slaughtered/end up a slave.

    This very important point negates your point about “status”. It’s not about status at all.

  25. @Rosie

    So you say. I have yet to see any evidence at all that the spectacular reproductive success of the likes of Genghis Kahn were the result of consensual relations. Even if they were, when men hoard all the wealth, women don’t have much choice, do they?

    It has never been confirmed that Genghis Khan was the progenitor of the infamous Y chromosome that ~8% of the population across, and bordering, the Eurasian steppe region carry. He’s the most likely candidate due to the overlap between the parameters of the Mongol Empire and the area in question. Accepting that, it was his sons who spread it far and wide and not him personally.

    One of the most tiresome, easily disprovable bromides oft repeated about history is that women lacked power until recent times. Class and race as reliable proxies – most men wielded very little power that wasn’t allotted to them from on high – are commonly conflated with sex when evidence is cited, and civilizations exhibited multiple, heterogeneous levels of influence from various groups. Mongolian society itself is replete with women leaders acting as administrators, advisers traders and power players acting independently, and often in defiance, of the kindred men in their vicinity.

    Women are accused of:

    1) Setting men viciously at each other’s throats so we can pick the fittest.
    2) Being natural socialists who insist men share the wealth and treat each other humanely.

    Like war, hatred of women will always find a reason.

    It’s a paradox, not a contradiction.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
  26. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Enjoy your cave-dwelling lifestyle after the men are gone, Doc.

    Another one of the stupid manosphere talking points that nobody ever bothers to produce any sort of evidence for, but we’re all supposed to take for granted. That said, I can think of worse things than living in a cave.

  27. Rosie says:
    @The Inimitable NEET

    One of the most tiresome, easily disprovable bromides oft repeated about history is that women lacked power until recent times.

    Just the other day someone was telling me that everyone took it as common sense that women shouldn’t have any power until the last hundred years or so, and therefore I should just STFU or something. I guess it just all depends on what the particular misogynist is trying to prove at that particular time. Or maybe it’s some sort of “paradox.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
  28. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    It guess some sort of paradox explains why women are to blame for war even though they are more likely to express opposition to war.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @AKAHorace
  29. Yeah, but since you bring it up…

    If you want a society controlled by women, you can forget about any independence or freedom whatsoever. Women compulsively seek total consensus; just listen to them sometime.

    So I’ll take men. You may have to fight for your freedom — but at least you can try.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  30. anon[134] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    be a wolf again not a dog

  31. Anon[922] • Disclaimer says:

    Considering Fred’s points, I think we can now nominate Secretaries of State Albright and Clinton as “honorary” men.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  32. Fred exhibiting the negative nelly nimcompoopery. For every one guy who tries to violently take something, there are 99 who get along just fine and abhor violence, theft, or aggression. Civilization would be completely impossible if most dudes weren’t peaceable and cooperative.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Truth
  33. @Rosie

    It’s obvious upon reflection. No, I don’t think you would. You’d be instantly complaining to your cave-man husband.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  34. @Rosie

    After I commented, I thought of some more arguments which I would like to present, and which I am sure you will enjoy.

    Even through the male dominating periods in History, it was evident that women were a bad influence. There is an old saying that goes: ‘behind every great man there is a great woman’. This saying was perhaps coined to make women feel less excluded, but it is obvious that it has some truth to it.

    Even in recent times, there have been ‘great’ men who were totally dominated by their wives. I remember Reagan being guided by Nancy’s astrologer (please don’t counterargue that the astrologer was male!). And there was Pinochet, whose ambition and bloodthirst was abetted by his wife, a hag of mythological proportions. And the list could go on.

    So, looking through the perspective of ‘great’ men being actually monsters, it is obvious that the old saying becomes ‘behind every male monster there is a female monster’.

    Compare this with powerful women such as Thatcher and Merkel, whose husbands were (are) totally irrelevant creatures that led opaque lives and were completely off the political game.

    The case with science is different. You are right that one can’t have it both ways. But power should play no role in science, ideally. It is an objective field. If this is not so in the real world, let us change it. I am all for it. Even so, I think there is enough evidence that women are noticeably worse in fields like mathematics and theoretical physics. Perhaps they are better in other areas. I have no quarrel with that.

    But perhaps you are right to some extent and I should retract my observation about men keeping control at all times. If they are to be puppets of some woman, it is best to give control directly to those women. The results would be less catastrophic.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Rosie
  35. Renoman says:

    Great work as always Fred, thanks!

  36. @LegendSchola

    Absolutely.

    Higher status within human tribes/societies has long conferred greater security and reproductive success – greater evolutionary fitness. Defense (and even growth) is a vital need of all societies, so societies naturally will elevate among their ranks those that demonstrate vigor here, in strength, bravery and valor. The appeal of higher status cultivates in the short term the attributes needful to the society, and over the longer term the fitness of higher status selects for these attributes – not just attributes of the warrior but also prosocial attributes such as honesty, empathy, generosity, gratitude, politeness that enhance the organic function of the society. Status is such a significant dynamic operating upon human nature that in contemporary humans the tangible rewards that come of it are often lesser motivations to the thing itself.

  37. Biff says:
    @Brás Cubas

    So, looking through the perspective of ‘great’ men being actually monsters, it is obvious that the old saying becomes ‘behind every male monster there is a female monster’.

    You know you were thinking about the Clintons when you wrote that. Didn’t you? Say it! SAY IT!!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  38. Anonymous[129] • Disclaimer says:

    Fred,

    I have been reading your great blogs for many years. This latest one is your best ever. The best of the best.

    It would seem that as long as male Homo sapiens keep being conceived with DNA that produces testosterone to ruin the future mind of the zygote, mankind is doomed to having an eternity of wars. So be it. Some day we will all understand why this had to be, but not very soon.

    My best to you, your wife, your family, your friends and neighbors, and especially to your failing eyesight. Thank you for all your great insight delivered so cleverly. Even as your eyesight fails, your insight grows and grows.

    I am especially thankful that you linked up with UNZ, since I had never heard it before. Now I read many of the columns that come along with your occasional joyous blog. I am hooked on Fred, and now I am also hooked on UNZ.

    Thanks again. Cheers. Oorah.

    • Agree: John Achterhof
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  39. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s obvious upon reflection.

    What is obvious upon reflection is quite the contrary. I’m the best cook in my family, and if something were to happen to me, culinary standards in this house would suffer, no doubt, but people wouldn’t starve. Nor would they be forced to subsist on cereal and frozen dinners. They would learn to cook.

  40. I bet that opening admonition about Afghans could have been uttered by some Soviet general in the 1980’s. So why did the US oppose them?

    Anyway, Edwin Starr said everything there’s to say about it:

  41. Rosie says:
    @Brás Cubas

    Even through the male dominating periods in History, it was evident that women were a bad influence.

    That is not remotely evident. Assuming your history is accurate, which I doubt, your claim of a causal relationship between the wives and the monstrosities is totally speculative. More likely, bad men attract bad women.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  42. Rosie says:
    @Anon

    Considering Fred’s points, I think we can now nominate Secretaries of State Albright and Clinton as “honorary” men.

    I guess this is an IKABO argument (I know a bad one, or two), as if a couple of counterarguments negate the general rule.

    Do I get to say that women are just as good as men at chess because Judit Polgar beat Magnus Carlsen once? I didn’t think so. There is no integrity in manosphere propaganda, just self-serving, just-so hypocrisy.

  43. Gene Su says:
    @Easyrhino

    Mostly true Fred but there are exceptions when it comes to the ladies:

    No, Easyrhino! Fred Reed is, for the most part, spot on! Physical violence, combat, and force are the domain of the male sex, not the female. It all boils down the men being far more psychologically
    aggressive then women.
    Sure, little girls get into catfights with one another. They prefer to spread nasty rumors about one another but they do sometimes get into physical combat. But note two important points: They are less likely to engage in physical combat and, more importantly, do far less physical harm to one another. An older teen male who engages in a fight is more likely to be hospitalized for, say, a broken bone if things go badly for him. It is well know that young black men will shoot each other for “looking at each other funny”. Black women are far less likely to do that. More importantly, they will not be packing heat and looking to kill each other. A fight between two women is more likely to be settle with fists than with guns, which still remain a guy thing.
    The reason is the men fight over everything: not just the tangible (land, money, women) but also the intangible (privileges, insults, respect). The only thing women really fight each over is men. That was true 5000 years ago when, if the Book of Genesis is correct, Sarah exiled Hagar and her son Ishmael. It is true still today. Women go nuts only over men. Men go nuts over everything.

    • Replies: @Jasonxxxxxx
    , @Jeff Stryker
  44. nebulafox says:

    The same impulse in men responsible for the most grievous atrocities and destructiveness in human history is also the same impulse that has given birth to the greatest achievements and heroism. The absolute best and worst in humanity, the extremes: deeply male stuff.

    Why? Simple: we don’t get the luxury of having value by virtue of our existence as women do.

  45. No, Fred. You’ve only got it half right. When men go to war, who’s back home cheering them on? How about Hitler’s female prison camp guards, were those men dressed in drag? When the savage tribes captured men in war to torture, did you know that it was the women who did much of the torturing? Are you aware of the recent study that was done revealing that over the last 700 years or so, nations ruled by queens were 39% more likely to go to war than nations ruled by kings? Here’s the link if anybody doubts me… https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/warlike-queens-0012861

  46. @Gene Su

    Just a question. Were Hitler’s female prison camp guards more, less, or equally psychologically aggressive as the men?

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  47. Uncle Al says: • Website

    If one wishes women to be abattoir labor, put them in charge of keeping their families/countries alive. Milwaukee grandma Golda Meir slaughtered Arabia. “Iron Maiden” Margaret Thatcher danced with Argentina. Men forgive; women do not.

    Have a woman hold her arm straight out from her shoulder, palm up. See the bend at her elbow? That holds a baby. Do the same for yourself. See the straight line, fist and backwards? That smashes a face. For every colony of ants there is a grasshopper demanding equal rights and a God-given share. If violence was not the answer, you did not use enough of it. Somebody must be the daddy or everybody starves.

  48. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:

    Fred is losing his eye-sight, balls, and now mind.

    FACT: Men create societies! MEN, not women!

    That includes magnificent shelters (whether homes, cathedrals, universities, etc.) sewage systems, communication networks, potable water delivery, heat and cooling, food growing/transporting/preparing, advances in medicine, educational institutes, and trains-cars-jets-ships.

    Men also harnessed electricity, invented radios and TVs, built computers, established libraries, wrote laws, learned to navigate, conserve resources, predict weather, and climb huge mountains.

    Men are the best poets, musicians, composers, explorers, writers, chefs, dancers, film-directors, and so on in the world.

    >”Can you imagine women being so goddam stupid? The war was caused, organized, and waged by, of course, men.”

    Wrong. Allies/Axis women urged their men to fight; built bombs in factories; packed parachutes; spied; sold war bonds; chauffeured planes; slept with enemies; drove jeeps; broke enemy codes; worked as nurses; rationed food; worked on draft-boards; guarded camps; etc.

    As always, Fred thinks vaginates were innocents, pure as the driven snow.

    Stop, simping, Señor Reed!

    [MORE]

    FACT: Women, historically and now, are the biggest murderers of children.

    Women are also the biggest abusers/neglecters of the young and elderly.

    No war…EVER…was fought without the eager support/urging of women.

    Women call men cowards who refuse to die for females in wars women exempt themselves from.

    In the West, women got the vote without the concomitant obligation to protect that right with their lives.

    Women often use proxies to kill.

    Women often shit-stir, too, playing “Let’s you and him fight!”

    Women lie to ruin men’s lives.

    Women often use poison and other “passive” and covert means to murder.

    Women start HALF the fights with men in hetero couples…and ALL in lesbianated ones (often the worst in terms of viciousness).

    Women murder their way out of parenthood while forcing men, unilaterally, into fatherhood.

    Women consider their feelings more important than males’ physical lives.

    Women are often the first saved in disasters.

    Women are often the last to enter disasters to help/save others…whether fires, tornados, floods, hurricanes, etc.

    Women do not go en masse post-disasters to re-string power lines, repair drains, etc. Nor do they physically rebuild what was destroyed.

    Women do not die building dams, highways, tunnels, bridges, etc.

    Women do not die while commercially fishing, mining coal, driving long-haul trucks, etc.

    Women did NOT volunteer in huge numbers to test new drugs/vaccines.

    Women DO commit suicide less and live longer than men. Mostly because they are helped, not hectored.

    Women do not march to force women to register equally with Selective Service.

    Women never-ever-EVAH push for an Equal Responsibilities Amendment.

    Most divorces are initiated by women who treat children as female property/meal-tickets.

    Women can, and often do, use child-support for themselves…states requiring no accounting.

    Women think their sex organs are gold, the mere touching them without consent a hanging offense. The same women think kicking/amputating male sex organs is funny.

    Women shame boys for showing emotions, then bitch about the destructiveness bottled sadness/anger fuels.

    Fred used to call a spade a spade, refusing to be ashamed of being white and/or male. Today he echoes feminists who “bathe in male tears.”

    Guys like Fixed-Fred do not see females as equal, but princesses to be put on pedestals and allowed to piss on males.

    If brutality and murder comes so easily to men, why do all militaries have to expend HUGE amounts of time and energy to get males to kill?

    Why, post-bootcamp, do most men NOT fire at other humans in combat?

    “S.L.A. Marshall did a study on the firing rates of soldiers in World War II. He found that the ratio of rounds fired vs. hits was low; he also noted that the majority of soldiers were not aiming to hit their targets. This is attributable to the inherent humanity inside the soldiers who grew in a peaceful, equitable society.”

    “[M]ost soldiers are loath to kill. But armies have developed sophisticated ways of overcoming this instinctive aversion.”

    Fred has turned into a cuckified simp-pussy. Why? Has his physical sight-loss caused similar blindness per moral misandry?

    Fred has apparently devolved into a mangina. He’s become the reason young boys today prefer being gay, trannies, incels, furrykins, drag queens, gerbilists, etc. That is, anything but the straight males who failed to protect them.

    What did Marine Fred do to stop feminists from attacking boys? What did Mr. Jarhead do to stop feminists from savaging men and masculinity for the past 50 years?

    It would seem that guys of his ilk allowed feminism to metastasize. After a half-century, Reedians STILL believe men are evil incarnate, thus don’t bother creating pro-male rights groups.

    The result? There are no bigger cowards, wimps, simps, cucks today than so-called “conservative Christian” men. They fight for nothing, just whine effetely online.

    Guys like Fred Reed saw feminists and turned tail, fleeing to Meh-hee-coe to shit on males while pursuing paid-boinks from “seenwhoritas.”

    Today, he and men of his ilk fight for nothing…and thus lose everything. They drown their shame and failings in Padre Kino vino.

    Gyrenes like Reed thought they were tough hombres when killing “gooks.” They returned from the Viet Nam War to face a Gender War. They decided to unconditionally surrender during it… the better to eat endless stool from Everywoman.

    Pathetic. Tragic, too. Not so long ago Fred saw both sides of things. Now he’s just another self-flagellating fagotso.

    Maybe his wife will offer him a compensatory hummer for his contrition. Or perhaps Fido will administer same.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Pecosbill
  49. Why did God invent man? Because vibrators don’t mow the lawn, take out the trash, and kill spiders.

    • LOL: Brás Cubas
  50. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Women, as a rule, “lay in the cut.” They do nothing overtly, waiting to get bennies after merely mortal men do the heavy lifting.

    The discrepancy might also be due to traditional roles. Mommy tended the kiddies in-house, keeping them safe there. Daddy scanned the outside world, keeping communities safe. If they spotted enemies approaching, they knew what might happen to Mommy and the bambinos.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  51. The French have a saying: Cherchez la femme, which translates to ‘look for the woman,’ but it is used mostly in the context of trying to understand why a man might do something inexplicable or irrational. To wit, Helen of Troy being the face that launched a thousand ships.

  52. Gene Su says:
    @Jasonxxxxxx

    I never saw any female prison camp guards on Schindler’s list. Can you show me where the Nazis used female prison camp guards?

  53. @Rosie

    Assuming your history is accurate, which I doubt

    Well, History books do not usually dwell on such details.

    More likely, bad men attract bad women.

    Well, ten out of ten films noirs would not agree with you. Suckers attract bad women. Regarding this point, I am sad to say I got it also from real life. The sample is very large.

    P.S. I don’t know why they are called suckers, since they are the ones who are sucked dry.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  54. @Gene Su

    America has produced some fairly awful female serial killers who went on rampages.

    The media blamed men for using Aileen Wuornos’s sexual services and thus making her feel so used by males that she decided to kill them, but then again she was the one selling sexual services in the first place.

    Similarly, Manson is blamed for the actions of his female serial killers.

    Griselda the crazy Colombian cocaine godmother was responsible for 400 murders in Miami. She mostly ordered them, but a few she did herself. Again, she had an awful girlhood.

    Rose West. Was another.

    Yeah, usually some man was on the peripheral chorus or even directly involved, but not always.

    One reason is that women can get away with more for far longer. Aileen Wuornos was displaying behavior that would have gotten a man locked up years earlier-assaults on bar patrons, on bus drivers, armed robbery.

    Women are less into honor. They kill more often because they want money. Or it is about some man. It is less about some warped sexual need, but this is because even the most perverted woman can go out and unless she intends to kill the man she can find some man who satisfy her sexual needs.

    Women don’t fight over men so much as perceived status and material wealth which they believe a man will provide.

  55. Patricus says:

    There is a series on Netflix which describes the solving of many crimes with forensic science. Of about 40 episodes almost all are about male on female crimes. Typically there is a rape and murder which are eventually solved using DNA or soil analysis, etc. Rare female crimes usually involve a husband or his girlfriend’s killing .

    Women are forced to ally with some man just to be protected from other predatory men.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  56. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    The discrepancy might also be due to traditional roles. Mommy tended the kiddies in-house, keeping them safe there. Daddy scanned the outside world, keeping communities safe. If they spotted enemies approaching, they knew what might happen to Mommy and the bambinos.

    More bullsh!t.

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  57. Rosie says:
    @Brás Cubas

    Well, ten out of ten films noirs would not agree with you. Suckers attract bad women. Regarding this point, I am sad to say I got it also from real life. The sample is very large.

    P.S. I don’t know why they are called suckers, since they are the ones who are sucked dry.

    The usual hypocrisy. Women who choose bad men do so because they’re bad. Men who choose bad women do so because they are good.

    The fact is that people in positions f power are always going to be different from the general population, and usually worse. Just as it would be wrong to judge all men by the swamp creatures in D.C., so it is wrong to judge al, women by Hillary Clinton. That said, the undeniable fact is that men are more likely to be psychopaths many times over than women. Moreover, they just are naturally (subclinically) more psychopathic than women. That is not a wholly bad thing, either, but it is a fact.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  58. @LegendSchola

    If you look at the history of the Americas or any other conquered country, women have a way out.

    A woman can offer sex and once she has a kid with the conquering race, almost equal status.

    But when the Spanish show up at your village and you are male, bending over and offering them your rectum is not going to save you. You cannot offer sex. Therefore, males are in a do or die situation.

    And this is the way it was in Latin America.

    The exception was Australia, where aboriginals were treated worse than Cherokee women because the British found them too unattractive to screw. And so shot all of them.

  59. AKAHorace says:
    @Rosie

    Sometimes war is the right choice, sometimes not. The best thing that this
    graph shows about women is that they are more willing to admit that they
    don’t know.

    Slightly off topic, there is an unfortunate tendency for everyone to place
    more faith in people who are completely sure of themselves than those
    who admit doubt.

  60. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    I don’t have time torque this lunatic’s ravings in one sitting, but for now, I’ll just note that I’ve been told o this thread that:

    1. Without men, we’d be living incaves, and,
    2. We were indispensable to the war effort, building engines, cracking enemy codes, guarding camps, etc! He even faults us for caring for wounded soldiers! We’re either not loyal enough to the tribe or too loyal, as per usual.)

    Really, the more these manosphere maniacs say, the more deranged they appear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  61. @Jeff Stryker

    How about Phoolan Devi the Bandit Queen? She massacred many. Mind you there was a lot of sympathy for her because she was a gang rape victim and she even became a Member of Parliament. I don’t think many held it against her for being a mass murderess and she became a modern day folk hero.

  62. Muggles says:

    Wow! Fred here really opened a new can ‘o worms with this one. Good for him. Aren’t we all very sick and tired (to borrow a cliche) of COVID-19 news and theories?

    This topic as set off a small storm, packed with arguments and sprinkled with a few facts. Less one- sided than what I imagine is the usual freshmen/freshwoman Women’s Studies survey class. But Rosie here holds her own, nicely. But why does she get to post a couple of dozen times here when the rest of the commentators, mostly men, get limited to about three? Female privilege?

    “Manosphere” indeed! That has to be a collegiate buzzword by now. Probably from the 90s, but it’s been a long time for me.

    As for substance, you can’t ignore the historical and persistent biology involved in all of this: women are physically weaker (nearly always). Huge female death toll in childbirth, until about 150 years ago. Women who could bear children were scarce assets. Of course women became property of male dominated families. Assets more prized than livestock. A sound economic reason for that. And religion too. Just ask any Muslim today or some backward Jew or Christian. Since female birth control, and other things. now history is being rewritten. Change is hard, fellas.

    But women have their own issues. How many of them like female bosses? Despite the Harvey Weinsteins? He mainly took advantage of the age old transactional duet, never quite obsolete. Biden did too, not to mention JFK, Billy C and practically every male in power. Hillary and Huma wrote the recent feminist version no?

    What is shocking about Fred’s essay today is that despite is oft mentioned love of all things Latin American and especially Mexican, he failed to mention at all the most commonly cited cultural tradition of these lands: love of machismo. He lives in that soup every day but somehow didn’t bring himself to note the murderous effects of that in every Mexican town and city. Not everyone there of course. But other than in mainly northern European derived cultures. machismo (or its equivalent) is the baseline male/female ethic. Legally enforced usually, and still dominant when not.

    Fred, why the blank-out here?

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
    , @Grisha
  63. @Commentator Mike

    …And the so-called Vampire Countess of Hungary who order people killed to bathe in their blood believing it gave her a youthful appearance…and on and on.

    Male killers are walking on a hard-on all the time and have a sexual drive that is so crushing that they have to rape women.

    Sometimes they have ritualistic masturbatory fantasies involving power and control.

    With males, there is usually some pathetic and deeply-rooted obscure sexual addiction-Dahmer for example wanted a sex zombie and was drilling holes in men’s skulls. John Wayne Gacy hated being gay because of his abusive father and after he had an orgasm he’d kill the male partner out of anger at the fact that he was a gay.

  64. @Auntie Analogue

    How about a gynocratic gov’t plot to put Valium and saltpeter into every Slim Jim beef stick and every can of Grizzly snuff in Amurika.

  65. Gene Su says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Women are less into honor. They kill more often because they want money. Or it is about some man.

    But it is because they are less into honor that women kill less. As Fred Reed said, it is no accident that more than 80% of all imprisoned felons are men.

    Jasonxxxx tried to argue with me by asking about female prison guards serving in Hitler’s Nazi regime. At first, I didn’t realize that there were any female prison guards serving in the Nazi government. Then, I found this Wikipedia page.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufseherin_(Nazi_concentration_camp_guard)

    Here are the first quote that struck out at me.

    Of the 55,000 guards who served in Nazi concentration camps, about 3,700 were women

    That is less than 7%! So the ultra right-wing Nazi party didn’t think that being a prison guard was a proper occupation for a young girl. They only recruited females as more and more men were shipped to the front lines.

    America employs female guards for its prisons. Traditionally, however, female guards are meant to supervise female criminals, not males.

  66. Gene Su says:
    @Commentator Mike

    The thing is that these women tend to be outliers. They don’t tend to be the norm.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  67. Fred seems to be suggesting that all is warfare is irrational.

    Is it?

    The victorious group of men gets to help itself to the territory, possessions, and women of the defeated men.

    Wars fought for purely “honor” rather than livestock and pussy…well perhaps those are a bit less rational.

  68. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    > “Isn’t it true that eggs are expensive, and sperm is cheap?”

    Er, no. Both are valuable.

    Plus it’s about something called…E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y!

    Do you let men claim unearned glory? If not, why condone women doing the same?

    Do you want women to have all the easy, cushy, best-paying traditional male positions without paying the price men must?

    Are you a doormat?

    It used to be women honored male sacrifices. Today, they mock ’em…while continuing to benefit from continued male efforts, expertise, and suffering. So let the ladies discover first-hand the “privileges” of manhood.

    Also, per “eggs being expensive”…

    Sure, a tribe with too few women will likely go extinct.

    On the other hand, a tribe with too few men will surely become the slaves of other tribes.

    As for men doing things for “ego” or “status,” that’s a cheap shot. The actual motive are to feel loved and needed and find meaning in one’s life.

    The horror, the horror!

    Also, to pretend that women don’t equally seek “ego”-gratification, status, love, and meaning is to shit on men while lauding women for breathing.

    Anyway, If you want to continue being played for a sap, be my guest. After all, guys like you let women build their anti-male army for the past 5 decades by never opposing them.

    However, if you want to know why guys die younger, are most of the homeless, routinely lose custody of kids in divorce courts, get harsher sentences for the same crimes, etc., well…look in a mirror. Then either enter the trenches and attack feminists or stop whining.

  69. @Anonymous

    as long as male Homo sapiens keep being conceived with DNA that produces testosterone to ruin the future mind of the zygote, mankind is doomed to having an eternity of wars

    The problem is those with strong minds but weak bodies control those with strong bodies but weak minds. Jewish mind controls Goy muscle. This is true in sports that are run by Jewish minds but played by black bodies. This is true in foreign policy/military affairs that are directed by Jewish minds but fought by white bodies.

    While aggressive tough guys are a problem, so are weakling soyboys with low testosterone who won’t even defend their territory and uphold their identity.

    And that Merkel and other mother hens of the West…

  70. Nobody (except feminists) says the obvious, that all of these evils are committed by…. Men. It is always men–some other men, of course, men of another race or country, or religion or tribe or social class. We ourselves–men–are pure. But however you cut it, it is men.

    But women put out to strong men, not weak men. Women prefer men who are strong in body or strong in mind and make lots of money and gain lots of power. If women put out to weaklings and gorks, this wouldn’t be a problem. But a woman is more likely to put out to a tough athlete or a general like Petraeus than to a peaceful dork. So, men are encouraged to act tough and rough and aggressive and dominant.
    And it’s the same in nature. The dominant bull among deer, elk, or moose get most of the ho-beasts.
    Females usually out to the toughest male beast that whups other male beasts.

    How many women wanted Burt Reynolds? How many women wanted Don Knots? Women prefer beasts over gorks.

    We were experiencing the germ of the hunting pack or war party. Girls did not do this.

    But girls drooled after the toughest boys who won the most fights. This is why ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs is happening. Black guys beat up white guys, and what do white girls do? They reward the black guys with sex. French women ran into arms of German invaders. Japanese women went with US men who nuked Japan and killed over a million.
    Fred Reed must tell his daughter, “Ignore the tough dominant guys. Go find a pathetic weakling dork sap as your hubby.”

    • Replies: @Truth
  71. @Rosie

    Women who choose bad men do so because they’re bad.

    I don’t recall having said that. Anyway, it appears that MOST women are attracted to psychopaths:

    https://bigthink.com/sex-relationships/dating-a-psychopath

    The fact is that people in positions f power are always going to be different from the general population, and usually worse.

    I cannot argue with that.

    That said, the undeniable fact is that men are more likely to be psychopaths many times over than women. Moreover, they just are naturally (subclinically) more psychopathic than women. That is not a wholly bad thing, either, but it is a fact.

    I am not familiar with the literature on that subject, but I’ve read that female psychopathy is different than male psychopathy, so I wonder if comparisons make sense. I also wonder how one measures something like that. I suppose someone with a really sharp psychopathic personality is more capable of passing off as a normal person.

  72. This is half the reason I am a misanthrope. The other half is women.

  73. L T says:
    @Joseph Doaks

    A country that cannot find enough men to defend it, probably isn’t worth defending anyhow. – Source unfound

  74. Gene Su says:
    @Rosie

    We humans are not base animals.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @The Scalpel
  75. @Biff

    LOL You’re on a roll this week, Biff!

  76. Bel Riose says:
    @Patricus

    Which also explains, in large part, why women inevitably prefer “bad boys” (who, presumably, will do anything to protect their women, including breaking the law — rules be damned) to “nice guys” (who are presumably less prone to conflict, more inclined to follow the rules, and thus less able to protect their women).

    Women’s awareness of how inferior (physically, emotionally, and mentally) they are to men — and the resentment, anger and fear that goes along with that awareness — explains their actions much more than you’d think. Never forget this.

    • Agree: Sulu
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Sulu
  77. Bel Riose says:
    @Muggles

    Of course women don’t like working for other women.

    A slave wants to work for a master, not another slave.

  78. The world was a paradise of peace until that woman screwed it all up and men were then cursed by evil to do what they do. Her name was Eve and it was she who ate that forbidden fruit which started the whole mess and more as described by Fred. Men are forced by fate to act as they do. Before Eve’s act, it was never as described by Fred. Men are compelled to act by Nature by the perfidy of a woman, just one woman and look what she wrought. All the evil in the world flows from Eve’s conduct in the paradise of Eden.

  79. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Watch documentaries about serial killers on YouTube. You will note that all are men. Men will kill thirteen women after torturing them at length, perhaps copulating with the corpse, will kidnap and rape a chilod of seven for three days before throwing her off a bridge (an actual case). Women do not do this. There is an occasional nurse poisoner and women sometimes kill their husbands, but we do not have Jane Wayne Gacys, Theodora Bundys, or Jessica Dahmers. Sexual torture-murders are, as we say, a male thing.

    False. Women molest and kill children. They seldom get convicted, because juries are typically loaded with idiots like Fred Reed.

    • Replies: @Kim
    , @Rosie
  80. anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:

    newsflash: man screams at weather

  81. Sulu says:

    Fred, you are largely correct but I see little that can be done about it, short of genetically editing the human genome to eliminate aggression. And that won’t be done because there is no money in it for the arms companies. And if it were done would the result still be human? Aggressive genes served us well in prehistoric times. If that were not the case we wouldn’t be here to write about it.

    If you are obliquely suggesting that men should hand over the reigns of power to women, well, after I stop laughing I will try and formulate an objection.

    Sulu

  82. Haole says:

    Men are evolution. Only something like 40 percent of men have passed on their genes. Most of us fail. The percentage of women who pass on their genes is much higher.

    The men who win wars get the women, they dont have ton rape them in many cases. Their genes are passed on, losers no.

    Nature has made men violent.

  83. It’s why God came to Earth as a man, not a woman. What He modeled and taught would have been easily dismissed if He’d been a woman – by men, at any rate, and in higher numbers than they still do. There are those who’ve made up their own false version, what I call the War Jesus. If you want to know what men can be, what we ought to be, not what we are by default, Jesus is your example. And the power to achieve the needed transformation is made available by God.

    • Agree: Jedi Night
  84. northeast says:

    Cripes Fred…this is high school level nonsense. Back in the day, you ruled. These days, not so much. Sorry about your eyesight issues.

  85. I like Fred Reed and he makes wonderful sense very often. Here’s one occasion where he misses the mark.
    Correct in a general sense, Fred Reed goes on a tear where he leaves common sense sometimes.

    1 Every one of the men he mentions has one thing in common – a mother. Maybe their mothers screwed them up beyond redemption.
    2 Every woman to have achieved a position of power has also acted as stupidly as any other men: e.g. Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Mutti Merkel etc.. Is it that the female gender hasn’t had enough opportunities as the men to demonstrate their stupidity and venality as the men, or, as Reed suggests, they are better?

    If anyone has had the misfortune to work in an environment where there are many females, and there are many such today, will attest to the toxic environment that these environments create in very short order. The female of the species is given to jealousies, pettiness, vindictiveness and sheer unadulterated viciousness for very little reason.

    All in all Fred Reed must have been having a surcharge of estrogen or a sudden drop in testosterone to go off on this rant more reminiscent of a college Women Studies freshman.

  86. Kim says:

    Headline:

    FRED READ OBJECTS TO SEXUAL REPRODUCTION.
    FINDS RESULTS MORALLY REPUGNANT.

  87. Kim says:
    @anon

    Not All Men Are Like That!

  88. Women tend to prefer men who do the kind of things that Fred describes, and not just those who suffer from hybristophilia. Thus the men whom Fred describes are more likely to reproduce and pass these traits on to their male offspring. Ghenghis Khan has thousands of descendants.

  89. One of the dumbest articles of all time.
    Feminists are usually the only ones stupid enough to blame men for violence, and that’s because they are totally uninterested in any truthful assessment of the question being feminists.
    Tell you what Fred when the bad guys come to the border, just down arms and say you won’t fight, and we’ll all hold hands and sing “Great Big Melting Pot”.
    And when they take over don’t be surprised when all the women drop you like a cowardly slug and take up with the strong guys. Women will never fight, its not their nature, what is their nature is to survive by making out with the strong violent guy.
    And what then, the violent guys take over, do they then become nice guys, no they simply get far worse, like in the Soviet Union.
    Yes some men and women are capable of incredible violence and barbarity, and the only thing, the only thing which holds it in check is the strength of the good to resist their evil.
    On this reading its the strength and willingness to fight of decent men which holds the worst evil in check.

    This “we are the world” garbage which has grown in the West has led to an enormous growth in evil and violence in our own society, its everywhere, the proxy wars, the millions of slaughtered unborn babies, the drug wars, legal and illegal, the fact we’ve shipped our business to communist China where people are treated like slaves to make our stuff.

    Men aren’t fighting enough Fred that’s why evil is out of control.

  90. Rosie says:
    @Gene Su

    We humans are not base animals.

    True, and totally beside the point.

  91. Rosie says:
    @Bel Riose

    Which also explains, in large part, why women inevitably prefer “bad boys” (who, presumably, will do anything to protect their women, including breaking the law — rules be damned) to “nice guys” (who are presumably less prone to conflict, more inclined to follow the rules, and thus less able to protect their women).

    We want men who understand that:

    3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

    2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

    3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

    4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

    5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

    6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

    7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

    8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

    Women’s awareness of how inferior (physically, emotionally, and mentally) they are to men — and the resentment, anger and fear that goes along with that awareness — explains their actions much more than you’d think. Never forget this.

    Speculative, unfalsifiable psychobabble.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  92. Rosie says:
    @anon

    False. Women molest and kill children. They seldom get convicted, because juries are typically loaded with idiots like Fred Reed.

    Muh biased courts. We victims, now.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  93. @Gene Su

    Neither is Jeffrey Dahmer, but in terms of human sexuality violence and sex in male offenders is fused-female psychopaths usually have normal, albeit sordid, sexual behavior (Like screwing their way to the top or run-of-the-mill promiscuity). Dominance and control is irrelevant to female reproduction and so the urge is not hard-wired into women.

  94. Peace. says:

    Fred, I’m astounded to hear a man state what many women (with guilt and self-questioning) often think but rarely dare to voice. I’m only 64 so maybe I’ll figure this out someday….but for now I think often of the men of peace and intelligence who exemplify the opposite of this, namely, my three sons and my partner. Not to say those sons didn’t fashion guns out of legos, play “first person shooter” video games, or cast aside that “My Buddy” doll I tried to push on them at age 3…..but I do know many men who lament the acts you wrote about with the same passion as you expressed here. You are a rare gem, but there are others sparkling out there too and I know them and cherish them. Be safe; be well.

  95. @Rosie

    Rosie, I disagree with these posters.

    Most female psychopaths have an ordinary-if sleazy-sex life unrelated to their crimes. Usually the sex life of a female psychopath is simply sh&tty behavior-sleeping their way to the top in the corporate game, run-of-the-mill promiscuity, manipulating some male (Or female) into doing something by gaining false trust through intimacy…but there is not the same fusion of sex and violence with female psychopaths. The wiring seems to bifurcated there.

    The only thing you notice about female psychopaths is that they are often bisexual and bisexual females often (Though not always) seem to have no moral compass at all and are more likely to be deviants than hetero or homosexual women. You’ll find without exception that most female sex offenders have what is known as “Fluid sexuality” which means they’ll sleep with anyone for sexual gratification.

    Female psychopaths can be atrociously sadistic-the Cocaine Godmother, for example. But not sexual sadistic. And for the most part women who do put on leather and whip men and get into SM are not psychopaths.

    So I would say that female sexuality is bifurcated from aggression.

    The only exception to this, of course, are Women’s prisons. There is some forced sexual activity in their, most black female on white female.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  96. @Auntie Analogue

    The only antidote now and throughout history is the truth found in the love of Jesus Christ. His love alone can tame the hearts of men….

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  97. Gene Su says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yep, they will fight you with fists over a slur on their favorite gang of ghetto-thugs, err, football team, but if you want to talk about the American population being replaced, they are so cucked-out they will shy away like pussies from saying anything that may cause them to be called names.

    I have just been abandoned by all my Facebook friends, college classmates far more liberal than me. I reposted some articles from this site and lewrockwell.com, which was not to their liking. My last offence was to circulate a petition to fire Fauci, who, even if driven by “good intentions”, seems to have done us more harm then good.

    Srdja Trifkovic once said that modern political correctness might be far worse than communist controlled discourse.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  98. Tulip says:

    While world government would end the war between nations, it would not end the struggle for power to control that government. You would just be trading internecine conflict between nations for internecine civil wars.

    In the state of nature, if you meet a stranger, you can treat them as a friend or treat them as an enemy. If you are wrong in your assessment, the first choice results in your death, the second in the death of the stranger. Unless you are suicidal, the default has to be to treat strangers as enemies, and that is true for both you and the stranger. [Xenophilia is the actual psychological pathology.] So there really is no choice except in the chance encounters of the mutually suicidal (who won’t survive for long). In the state of nature, man is a wolf to man.

    War, of course, is distinct from interpersonal violence, because it is an organized social affair engaged in by social animals. Humans are distinct from other great apes because we are able to form impersonal, collective identities with strangers.

    This would seem to be grounds for optimism at overcoming the Hobbesian impasse, but alas the same game theoretical calculus controls rival collectives. In fact, it makes humans capable of collective social behavior only found in insects like ants. Impersonal collectives are more effective killing machines, and it is the human capacity to form collective killing machines that explains the disappearance of many of our rival great apes, and the dominance of humans over the Earth.

    Men are simply the means, wherein woman require a lot of biological specialization to carry on child-bearing, men can specialize for the efficient infliction of collective violence, both in physical capacities and in sociability. Men are fungible, fertile women are not.

    War and violence are not some metaphysical conundrum, they are essential behavioral adaptations to the kind of world we live in. This post is written in English and not German or Cherokee because of war. Men are just the suckers caught up in the role of executioners and soldiers, and while a small fraction end up ruling (and who better to run a killing machine than a natural born killer), most are simply cannon fodder and serfs that support the killing machines with their blood and sweat.

    If you look within a colony of Argentine ants (which can spread for thousands of miles), it will give you the illusion that these creatures can live peacefully with one another. The truth is found at the boundaries of the colonies, where it relentlessly expands until it encounters a rival ant colony, which results in total war. . . and the tranquility of the colony is explained as the necessary fuel for expansion and warfare. A collective that is not expanding and killing everything in its path is in the process of dying.

    • Replies: @Tulip
  99. Rosie says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Most female psychopaths have an ordinary-if sleazy-sex life unrelated to their crimes. Usually the sex life of a female psychopath is simply sh&tty behavior-sleeping their way to the top in the corporate game, run-of-the-mill promiscuity, manipulating some male (Or female) into doing something by gaining false trust through intimacy…but there is not the same fusion of sex and violence with female psychopaths. The wiring seems to bifurcated there.

    Pretty much. I would add that female psychopaths are especially prone to prostitution in all its forms, formal and informal. Whereas most women will resort to it only when they are addicted to drugs, have a sick family member who can’t otherwise get medical treatment, or situations of similar desperation. You can see this play out in the fact that the overwhelming majority of women marry men close to their age, though they could probably do better financially by marrying older men.

    OTOH, female psychopaths do not have these reservations. If they can use sex to get resources, they will do it, and they see themselves as exploiter rather than exploited.

    Also, though I say that men are more psychopathic than women, I don’t mean that as a criticism. Society cannot function without a bit of psychopathy. One could even say that psychopathy is an essential ingredient in heroism. I basically agree with Fred. Everything “bad” about men is inextricably bound up with everything good and indispensable about them. It’s just a matter of channeling energies in the right way and finding balance.

    https://www.fandom.com/articles/batman-portrait-psychopath

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  100. Gene Su says:
    @Antidote Seeker

    And remember, Jesus was the real outlier. The God who became a man. He worked as an itinerant preacher for 3 years before being executed in the most gruesome way for nothing more than speaking a Gospel of Love and Truth. Could you do that? Most men can’t. I know I can’t.

    • Replies: @Tulip
  101. Tulip says:
    @Gene Su

    I believe Jesus’s troubles stem more from challenging the authority of the controlling rabbinical sect rather than the specific content of his message. It was not a historically unique event in world history in this respect.

  102. Fred, Your argument here is completely INVALID and potentially dangerous, in that it surely gives significant ammunition to persons and groups you probably (hopefully) don’t really want to. The reason is THIS: in each and every case you cited, men’s alleged propensity for violent and evil “solutions” propelling the awful wars of choice and regime change wars that turn the world inside-out, the vast majority of both sexes DON’T want to see that happen, but the heavy majority will is somehow overridden or seduced time after time. In the case of Afghan men bullying women for not wanting to wear burkas, that’s the Taliban, from from representing the Afghan majority, and where’s your evidence that anywhere close to a majority of Afghans of either sex favor that policy? Of the rogue soldiers who enjoy shooting Afghans because they assume (or pretend) they favor brutal assaults on women, what percentage of male US soldiers commit such thought crimes and carry through with committing them? ALL of your several examples represent your assumptions that more than a small minority of men think and act that way – which I confidently dispute. You’ve, in fact, constructed a powerful straw-man, for which you owe your readers a heartfelt apology. Can I recruit you for starting to favor an promote carrying out the MAJORITY will and actions, instead? We could make this a much better and more peaceful world!

  103. Fred,

    Bang on as usual!

    Ignore all of the numb skulls (males only) who will disagree often and vehemently. Ignore them all as is your wont!

    Freda

  104. Pecosbill says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    “Similarly, Manson is blamed for the actions of his female serial killers. ”

    Technically correct but Charles “Tex” Watson killed all seven victims on those two nights of murders. However Patricia Krenwinkel did give it a go and may have killed Abigail Folgers but Tex is the one who finished Abigail off by knife to make sure she died. The other girls on the raiding party refused to kill. Susan Atkins refused to stab Sharon Tate and Frykowski. Leslie Van Houten did stab Rosemary LaBianca but only after she was dead according to Leslie.

    So, the girls where found guilty of murder and sentenced to death because they assisted and were on the scene of the crime although they didn’t kill anyone krenwinkel excepted. In that sense you are correct.

    The State alleged and the jury agreed that Manson setup the murders and was therefore convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Murder.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  105. Tulip says:
    @Tulip

    The real problem is explained by the geometry of a circle. The circumference of a circle is 2 pi times the radius of the circle, but the volume is given by pi times the radius squared.

    As empires and nation-states expand, the volume of the governed approximately increases by the square, but the border increases linearly. This creates two problems: you don’t need as many men to guard or expand the borders, so increasing numbers of men inclined to such duties become disaffected, and two, your leadership class increasingly includes people who have never been on the border, and neither understand nor appreciate the sacrifices necessary to insure collective survival. Thus, you end up with a decadent leadership class and hordes of disaffected men generating unrest and ultimately, it ends in collapse.

  106. Pecosbill says:
    @Anonymous

    Agree with almost all of the assessment by Anon on Fred.

    Early on I admired Fred. But then after his move to Mess-he-ko he began the slide into what I call, “Mexicans good and North Americans bad, (except the Mexicans living there)”. More and more I find him a phony. He throws rocks from across the river to the Gringos pointing out the faults and overall how they are the problems with the world, all the while Carteleros are controlling half or more of his adopted country. Fred would say, and probably has, ‘it’s the Gringo’s fault’, and not totally wrong on that account. Other states in Mexico are under government control but that control comes in the form of martial law.

    He’s an Expate but he cheated. He married a Mexican and moved there. The impression he tries to get over is that he bravely took the chance to live in Mexico because of Gringo insanity he had to escape from. Fine, I thought he simply walked across the border with two pesos in his pocket and ‘made it’ on his own in the vastly superior Mexican culture. No, he married a national.

    In my experiences in Mexico, Central and South America I’ve met a number of Expats from the US, but most admit they are simple extended tourists for a year or more and living on a paycheck from the States. Few made their way on the local economy although some did and I admired their pluck.

    The most despicable are those who, like Fred, point out the center of evil in the world the US while receiving funds likely from the US Treasury or a US protected corporation. All the while they know should they run into trouble as a group of Americans they are assured the Marines, Army or whatever can come to the rescue while they hold up in the US Embassy. I put Fred in this category. He’s a fake.

  107. @Pecosbill

    Tex Watkins held Sharon while Susan Atkins stabbed her.

    Manson was present at the LaBianca killings prior to the crime itself.

  108. Andy says:

    Good point. I always thought that the worldwide explosion in sports after World War II was because it provided much of the nationalism that sports provides without the actual bloodshed. With nuclear weapons, wars between major countries became just too destructive and sports provided an alternative.

    • Replies: @John Achterhof
  109. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    One could even say that psychopathy is an essential ingredient in heroism.

    You just can’t stop spewing garbage, can you?

    One would have to be more than a little ignorant or delusional to say that. Virtually everywhere on the planet heroism is synonymous with selfless actions that carry significant risks, or actual guaranteed, significant costs to the hero. That’s the exact opposite of psychopathy.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  110. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    That’s the exact opposite of psychopathy.

    You misunderstand the nature of the psychopath, who is characterized more by ruthlessness and lack of empathy than selfishness as such. Psychopaths are not necessarily amoral. Hence the Batman link.

    Note, I’m not saying that all psychopaths are heroes, only that lots of heroes share common traits with psychopaths, including impulsivity and fearlessness.

    https://www.livescience.com/37483-heroism-psychopaths.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  111. Hi Fred. Entertaining article. I’m amazed at all the anger that your slightly over-the-top description of the gap that exists between male/female expressions of physical violence has aroused. Relax boys! It’s just his opinion.

    As to your points, haven’t people noticed that organized warfare has been an All-Male endeavor since the beginning of time? (OK, in recent years, radical fems have reserved a few safe and cushy spots for women in the military). But the enduring fact of male violence and predation surely explains why so few women can hurl stones or spears as well as men.

    Among men, physical fighting to the death is part of their genetic history. Only surviving males get to reproduce.

    And check out the muscles and upper body strength that men are endowed with. Whoa! Men are muscular, powerful, aggressive, and built for combat. Young males are also loaded up with testosterone. And THEY NEED TO GET LAID.

    Watch out ladies. The young bulls are locking horns!

    This may shock some people, but there is surely meaning behind the innate physical and emotional differences which distinguish men and women. Men are larger and more powerful and more aggressive. These physical differences find real expression in human personality.

    Consider human history: men have done most of the hunting and killing (of animals as well as other men) since time immemorial. Violence: it’s part of what men do. Otherwise, they’re dead.

    This explains why men are statistically more dangerous. For instance, over 90% of all murder suspects as well as those who have been convicted of homicide are male. This pattern of violence is cross-culturally universal. Men (especially young men) are ‘testy’ and dangerous. Haven’t you noticed? Check the prison populations, please. Plus, men rape.

    Women on the other hand, are soft and lovely and fun to have around. Women submit and they can seduce, too. But it’s a gentler game. Women are also good with children. For this reason, nubile females have commonly been taken as booty when one army of men defeats another. This glorious bonus is yet another compelling reason why men go to war.

    Meanwhile, women have dominated the World’s Oldest Profession since the stone age. (And they do it well.) In the modern age, one entrepreneurial female invented the art of pole dancing. Before that, the brassiere was invented by a thoughtful female. Will these clever innovations never cease?

    Men on the other hand, build skyscrapers, construct dams, design inter-continental ballistic weapons, jet fighters, plastics, transistors, motorcycles, microwave ovens, high-speed rail, artificial intelligence, stone cutting, metallurgy, and nuclear bombs. We also invented all the sports, including boxing, wrestling and MMA. Do you detect a pattern?

    Men comprise most of the world’s geniuses as well as most of the knuckleheads. It’s simply a fact of life. Men who do reach the very top happen to enjoy a delightful utopia of power, prestige, and opportunities, including sexual ones. These rewards can be highly motivating.

    As for genetic differences, there is also a racial angle to patterns involving violence.

    As a group, African men are measurable more aggressive and violent than Asian men, no matter the setting or income level. Might this, too, have a genetic basis? Oh, it’s possible.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  112. Hah. Yeah, but who eggs em on. Who whispers in their ear that Bruno over there gave em a pat on the ass?

    If Helen’s face launched a thousand ships couldn’t her mouth have stopped it?

    Do women go for poets with an English garden or are they jumping labia first into the beds of thugs no matter if it’s Patton or El Chapo. So long as they’re sufficiently ‘decisive.’

    Most men want adventure not war. It just so happens that war is one of the ultimate adventures. And it comes with the most enthusiastic cheerleaders.

    Let’s you n him fight!

    Note:
    Fred has provided me with countless hours of joy and insight so I’ll forgive the shallowness of this polemic.

    • Replies: @julian the apostate
  113. Bel Riose says:
    @Rosie

    What you want from men is exactly what every other woman wants from men — what I like to call the “Three P’s of Feminine Existence”:

    Protection

    Provisioning

    and Progeny.

    Three P’s….get it ?

    Your entire existence is centered around obtaining these three things (“The Three P’s”….remember that, Rosie!) from men.

    Funnily enough, we men also have a “P” which we desire from women.

    Do you know what it might be?

    I’ll tell you!

    Ready?

    Here goes…

    P-P-P-P-

    …Personality!!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  114. Bunch a sick puppies on this thread. Young men liking physical combat does not translate into all men longing for killing slaughter and rape.

    We are a peaceful and cooperative species. It is impossible to explain or understand human society without that basic foundational fact. 99.99% of human interactions are peaceful and cooperative in nature.

    Dominance hierarchies are created with usually minimal and ritualistic violence. Then peace and cooperation ensue.

    Violence and war are outliers to the typical human experience. Very very few humans enjoy killing.

    • Replies: @Kim
    , @Colin Wright
  115. Kim says:
    @Jedi Night

    Cooperation is perhaps the defining characteristic of men in groups.

  116. do not have Jane Wayne Gacys, Theodora Bundys, or Jessica Dahmers. Sexual torture-murders are, as we say, a male thing.

    Gacy was bi at best, and Dahmer a full-fledged homo. Their manhood is highly questionable.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  117. Anonymous[964] • Disclaimer says:

    Fred, old boy, I’ve seen more women destroy their families and kill their children and husbands than anybody should have to. Get real.

  118. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Hence the Batman link.

    Uh, I get it now. Your knowledge about the subject comes from memes, Hollywood movies, fan pages and brainless pop psychology clickbait. In that case, start your journey by searching for “never go full retard” clip on Youtube.

    Back in the real world, psychopaths are not fearless. That’s a common misconception among people who get their info about the world from Tinseltown. They fear for their life, limb, social and material standing just like everyone else. A full-on psychopath is also always selfish (opposite of selfless) because they completely lack empathy. Therefore, any seemingly selfless action they might perform is not genuine and your claim that “psychopathy is an essential ingredient in heroism” couldn’t be more wrong. It’s an inversion of truth, to be exact.

    Second: heroism can consist of selflessly dedicating one’s time or material goods for others. That doesn’t have to be – and often isn’t – a result of impulsiveness or fearlessness.

    Something is seriously wrong with your own psyche. These are some of the most basic human emotions/behaviours and you’re beyond clueless.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  119. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Uh, I get it now. Your knowledge about the subject comes from memes, Hollywood movies, fan pages and brainless pop psychology clickbait. In that case, start your journey by searching for “never go full retard” clip on Youtube.

    It’s not “brainless pop psychology clickbait,” you infantile smartass. The question of the role of fearlessness and other traits in anti-social personality disorders is being actively debated in the scholarly literature right now. I will admit I am not an expert on this literature, but such expertise is not normally considered a prerequisite to discussing one’s impressions and hunches about a controversial issue on a comment forum.

    Your replies have to me have been hysterical, clearly indicating that you are emotionally invested in this question, even offended by my suggestion that personality traits associated with psychopathy might be adaptive (have a bright side).

    Personally, I don’t particularly care whether there is or is not any overlap between heroes and psychopaths. There may be none whatsoever. Here is an article that argues that heroes and psychopaths have certain traits in common, but the element of selflessness in heroes (as opposed to “impulsive aggressiveness” in psychopaths) clearly distinguishes the former from the latter.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201209/who-are-you-calling-psychopath

    Fine, suppose that’s true. Since traits shared by heroes and psychopaths are more prevalent among men, the point remains that, as I said, what is “bad” about men cannot be extricated from what we all agree is good. Therefore, mutual hatred or contempt among men and women is silly and counterproductive.

    If you are so very interested in this question, and I admit it is a very interesting question, perhaps you should review the literature for yourself rather than post half-baked, hysterical responses to my own well-intentioned comments that do nothing to illuminate the issue.

    Second: heroism can consist of selflessly dedicating one’s time or material goods for others. That doesn’t have to be – and often isn’t – a result of impulsiveness or fearlessness.

    I agree, but this is a tedious question of semantics. On this view, nurses are just as heroic as firefighters. In a manner of speaking, this is true, but it really just obfuscates the issue. It’s much better just to call things what they are. An excellent firefighter is a hero. An excellent nurse is more akin to a saint.

  120. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Gacy was bi at best, and Dahmer a full-fledged homo. Their manhood is highly questionable.

    No true Scotsman.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  121. Rosie says:
    @Bel Riose

    What you want from men is exactly what every other woman wants from men — what I like to call the “Three P’s of Feminine Existence”:

    Protection

    Provisioning

    and Progeny.

    Three P’s….get it ?

    If that were true, would I not stand to reason that women do not divorce men who provide these things? Is that your position? If so, what a relief! Many misogynists around here seem to be laboring under the impression that women are frivolously divorcing men for forgetting to bring them flowers on their birthday.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  122. @Rosie

    We are also supposed to take for granted women’s talking points, even if most of their ancestresses would have frown upon them and would have made short work of such descendants of them. Take care not to dishonor your forerunners.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  123. @Rosie

    Gacy was bi at best, and Dahmer a full-fledged homo. Their manhood is highly questionable.

    No true Scotsman…

    …would think of lifting another’s kilt.

  124. @Andy

    Maybe also team sports provide fans of diverse backgrounds within a region new tribal identities to express and experience in conflict in a drama more-or-less disconnected from real life.

    George Carlin saw baseball as native to America’s agrarian past, and football as expressing modern military-industrial America.

  125. Rosie says:
    @Marghioala

    We are also supposed to take for granted women’s talking points

    I have no such expectation. I’ll debate any talking point you like. Bring it!

    (WARNING: I rarely lose, mostly because I never stake out a position I can’t defend.)

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  126. To some extent, I think the article is beside the point. The implication seems to be that men ‘should’ stop being the way they are.

    Even if we grant that they ‘should,’ can they? Male Sea Otters reproduce by biting the female otter on the lip and thus holding her in place while they force themselves upon her — ‘rape,’ by any reasonable definition. Male Sea Otters are actually dreadful ‘rapists’ –they’ve been known to go after dogs in the water.

    One would have to be fairly unbalanced to see this as wrong — male Sea Otters are what they are. Judging their behavior unfavorably is meaningless.

    So if men are irremediably attracted to violence, ultimately isn’t the response ‘so what’? If that’s the way we are, it’s the way we are. The sensible thing to do is to accept it and plan accordingly — not sit around objecting to the fact in the hope that it will thereby go away.

  127. @Jedi Night

    ‘Violence and war are outliers to the typical human experience. Very very few humans enjoy killing.’

    I’m somewhat startled to realize that perhaps I really have had more acquaintance with violence than most, but actual, successfully consummated killing — admittedly, no.

    However, that’s just the point. Most of us have no way of knowing if we would enjoy killing people or not.

    In my experience, one’s expectations of oneself in novel situations often turn out to be quite erroneous. Both for better and for worse, I keep surprising myself — and I’m sixty one.

    So maybe I would enjoy whacking people. I’d prefer it if it turned out I didn’t — I’ve been pleasantly surprised in this way in the past — but I wouldn’t care to guarantee it.

    So if you’re going to provide me with a test sample, perhaps you’d best be sure they deserve it.

    …just to be on the safe side.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  128. Bel Riose says:
    @Rosie

    And the sole misandrist around here — you, you nitwit — is apparently incapable of reason.

    You’re a prime example of why we only recently allowed your gender to participate in politics…and of why we’ve regretted it ever since.

    Thanks to punitive divorce laws, women can divorce men and (a) keep the Progeny; (b) still obtain Provisioning from their ex-husband, and (c) have the state Protect them.

    You really are dense, aren’t you?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  129. Bel Riose says:
    @Rosie

    Uh-oh!

    Rosie’s warned us she rarely loses.

    That settles it.

    Case closed!

  130. Bel Riose says:
    @mark green

    Agree 100%.

    And yet, in an effort to claim a bit of male power and dominance, women simply cannot resist aping male dress, language, mannerisms, and behavior.

    As just one example: is there anything more ludicrous than watching two “female MMA fighters” engage in a “stare down” at a pre-match weigh in?

    Such spectacles call to mind a little girl dressing up in daddy’s suit and tie, and pretending to go to the office.

    • Replies: @mark green
    , @Gene Su
  131. Fred is so p*ssy whipped. That wife of his has him by the short and curlies… Explains all the girly columns lately..

  132. @Alex V. Weir

    Fred is just “p-whipped” is all…can’t help it.

  133. Truth says:
    @Jedi Night

    1:99? Where did you grow up, Berkeley or Boulder?

  134. Truth says:
    @Priss Factor

    How many women wanted Burt Reynolds? How many women wanted Don Knots? Women prefer beasts over gorks.

  135. @Colin Wright

    Colin,

    I’ve known three people who used to work as official executioners in Muslim countries. They were all quite disturbed by what they had to do in their day job to their own people, and they couldn’t get drunk after work to help them deal with the trauma. On the other hand, in Singapore and Malaysia they use Sikhs as executioners. I don’t think Mr. Singh is bothered too much by having to flog and hang Muslims and Chinks, or the odd white or black, and may even enjoy it, although some Indians get to swing there too.

  136. @Bel Riose

    As just one example: is there anything more ludicrous than watching two “female MMA fighters” engage in a “stare down” at a pre-match weigh in?

    So true. Men pathetically mimicking women as drag queens is surely more ludicrous, but watching two potentially lovely young women trying to demonstrate how dangerous they are by imitating male brawlers is truly a depressing sight. I realize that others will disagree with me on this, but I don’t think that hand-to-hand combat is in sync with the female spirit. It marks a tragic step downward.

    Fortunately, women don’t generally engage in physical fights like men do (which is commendable) but for those women who do, playing ‘tough guy’ is a very dangerous path since it’s men–not other women–who are the ones that generally end up attacking women. When that happens, women are at a real disadvantage. Straw-weight femmes are simply not going to prevail in a battle against their larger, more muscular boyfriends.

    There’s certainly nothing wrong with women learning self-defense, but it would be wiser for them to stick with maintaining a pacifistic tradition as a group. The female tradition of not participating in blood sports actually protects women as a group. It’s a taboo worth preserving. Besides, what would you prefer: to see women in a boxing match or in a beauty pageant?

    • Replies: @Biff
  137. Rosie says:
    @Bel Riose

    Thanks to punitive divorce laws, women can divorce men and (a) keep the Progeny; (b) still obtain Provisioning from their ex-husband, and (c) have the state Protect them.

    As I have explained dozens of times, I oppose no-fault divorce. On the other hand, I don’t believe women divorce their husbands without cause in any event. (Why would they? Child support stops when the child turns 18, leaving the mother with nothing, and alimony has been all but abolished, no matter how egregious the husband’s behavior.) Manosphere creeps say that women become less desirable with age, but then inexplicably decide after a few years of marriage that they can do better (trade up) than they could when they were younger.

    This makes absolutely no sense, of course, but then nothing ever does with you people.

    BTW, you didn’t answer the implicit question: why would women divorce men who provide the three Ps if that’s all they’re after?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  138. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    And the sole misandrist around here

    According to the misogynists around here. Noticing any statistical disparities that favor women amounts to “misandry,” though, of course, the converse is not true.

    For all the bellyaching about this article, none of the comments can refute the basic facts of the case: men are more prone to anti-social behavior than women. Hence, one would expect poorer outcomes in family court as well as criminal court.

    One of the unfortunate consequences of no-fault divorce is that it facilitates scaremongering by anti-family zealots like Bel Riose. If judges were required to make a finding of fault on the record in order to grant a divorce, we would have more statistics to use in sorting out the causes of marital dissolution.

    Fortunately, even still, we do have a lot of information. Divorce rates are low in first marriages where the spouses are close in age, married in their mid-twenties, and college-educated.

    Thus, we reach an even more dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20%!

    https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/

    See also:

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11

    Pro-tip: Don’t cheat on your wife and you can get your own chances of divorce down even lower.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  139. Redshift says:

    Perhaps its just that women have always been able to outsource their violence to males who will act on their behalf. That could be as direct as the girl who wants her boyfriend to beat up someone who’s been rude to her. More generally though consider that females are almost as likely to support their country’s (male) armed forces threatening or invading someone else as a result of their government’s national security narrative. Arguably those that encourage or support others to do violence are worse than those actually doing the violent acts. Also women are themselves violent in situations where they can prevail physically, particularly towards their children; Statistics in the UK show the mother is more likely to hit their child than is the natural father. For these and other reasons I don’t believe women are somehow more noble regarding violent conduct.

  140. Biff says:
    @mark green

    Fortunately, women don’t generally engage in physical fights like men do (which is commendable) but for those women who do, playing ‘tough guy’ is a very dangerous path since it’s men–not other women–who are the ones that generally end up attacking women. When that happens, women are at a real disadvantage. Straw-weight femmes are simply not going to prevail in a battle against their larger, more muscular boyfriends.

    Obviously you did not grow up in a multi-cultural environment chok full of Mexicans/Mexican Americans. The women were some of the most fiercest bitches on the planet. In the school yard where many fights took place, it was the Mexican Women bouts that the other kids were most in awe of. They got the blood flowing faster than anyone. The most common trait among them – “no fear”. And they liked to add insult to injury – after the opponent is whupped – rip the shirt down to expose some titty.
    They could’ve charged money.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Gene Su
  141. @Biff

    Which is odd, because Spanish women are very refined. When I visited Spain I expected a horror show of Cholos and Cholas like Guadalupe barrio in Phoenix, but there is none of the savagery in Spain that exists in Mexicans.

    What is puzzling is why Mexicans are this way and Spanish are not. Is it the Aztec? Maybe. But we also read that the Spanish were the aggressors. And many Mexicans appear to be roughly half white.

    Also, everyone is aware that the ruling elite of Mexico are whites. One need only look at the Mexican President or watch a Mexican television show to know this.

    How these small ruling elite in Mexico manage to keep those people under thumb is amazing.

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  142. Gene Su says:
    @Biff

    I heard black women are quite similar in their aggressive assertiveness.
    But as I said in my first post, the instances of a Hispanic woman being sent to the hospital after being beaten or gunned down by another Hispanic woman are far rarer then Hispanic male being involved in an altercation.
    “Bitches” can hurt one another. They don’t harm one another. There is a difference.

  143. @Rosie

    ‘Thus, we reach an even more dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20%!’

    One wonders how many women who otherwise fit that profile don’t get married at all.

    Equally to the point, what’s the birthrate for such women — eventually married or not? After all, marriage is at best only partly an end in itself.

    People want deferred marriages, career women, and egalitarian relationships to be a good idea. To date, they don’t look like the most successful sociological innovation we’re dreamed up.

    …come back in two hundred years and see who’s culture is still around. That’ll give you a clue. I don’t think these people reproduce, and in a historical sense, they are therefore a dead end.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  144. Gene Su says:
    @Joseph Doaks

    Yeah, so why the push to put women into front line combat, or in the military at all? What’s that about?

    It’s because they can’t find enough men to put their lives on the line. Thus, the military has become a big daycare center.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  145. Gene Su says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Fred Reed once gave a speech stating that a racialist will not say that there is one Mexico but three –

    1. An European elite
    2. The indigenous plebians
    3. A mixed ethnic group

    Strangely, there are none of the race riots that exist in America. Is it because everyone is scared of group #1?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  146. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    People want deferred marriages, career women, and egalitarian relationships to be a good idea. To date, they don’t look like the most successful sociological innovation we’re dreamed up.

    Sorry Colin, college-educated women are more likely to get married than less educated women. It is the manosphere narrative that doesn’t stand up to empirical investigation.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/

    Fertility rates of less-educated women are in free fall, while educated women have seen almost no decline in fertility since the 2008 economic crash.

    Anyone who pretends to care about birthrates, then attacks women’s education, rather than artificial birth control, is transparently scapegoating and using birthrates as a pretext for a backlash against women. They want women to give up rights, while they keep their own.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  147. @Rosie

    ‘…Anyone who pretends to care about birthrates, then attacks women’s education, rather than artificial birth control, is transparently scapegoating and using birthrates as a pretext for a backlash against women. They want women to give up rights, while they keep their own. ‘

    Now, here I’d never guessed I wanted women to give up rights. Learn something new every day.

    Any other insights to share, Rosie?

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

    Now, here I’d never guessed I wanted women to give up rights. Learn something new every day.

    When you imply that women having rights is leading to demographic ruin, it stands to reason that you think women shouldn’t have rights. If I’m wrong, my apologies.

    • Troll: Colin Wright
  149. @Gene Su

    I think it is a combination of political correctness and a need for warm bodies. On the supply-side, many young women have no choices. They can work a teenager’s job, join the military or dance in a strip club. There are simply fewer jobs around. Definitely not homemaker.

    So options are bad. Fast food, strip club or military. Some do all three.

    A third factor are wages. They have not risen with the cost of living in thirty years.

    Men are hard to recruit into the military.

  150. @Gene Su

    Its that and ensuring they are so poor they cannot do anything.

    I’ve lived in India and many would wonder why the caste system is tolerated. It is because people who are euphemistically referred to as daily wage owners have to miss meals if they revolt. They have no money for transportation besides public (Which is owned by Baniya castes) and they have no weapons and literally no money to do anything.

    The middle castes, like Mestizos or middle-class Americans, have enough toys to want to maintain the status quo in order to be able to keep them. This includes police and military, whose job is to protect the interests of the upper class.

    In Rustbelt America, you’ll notice that in the dwindling wealthier areas police are vigilant. In wealthier areas, if you or I drive around in an old car wearing hoodies, two squad cars are going to pull us over to ask us why we are there, what we are doing, running our ID for warrants. In poorer areas, we can shoot someone and it will 10 minutes or 20 minutes, before the police arrive on the scene.

    Same with the white deplorables in the US. They cannot revolt. They have no money to do so. Main Street cannot get to Wall Street, its too far away.

    The easiest way to do this is to depress wages. Haven’t you noticed that US politicians are less afraid of the public today than they would have been in 1989. Well, maybe you were being born then. Thirty, forty years ago no politician would have scoffed at the poor as Deplorables. Now they can, because the working poor and lower class have no money to do anything to them.

    So Id say you are right and it is the same in Mexico as India, where an intermediary caste serves as the enforcers of the higher caste.

    However, in Latin America most of the Left is indigenous. We associate Communists in Latin America with indigenous and we associate the dictators who suppress them as Spanish who look like Vincente Fax. Campesinos are always equated with Indians

    Even the leaders of the Communists are usually the children of Spanish immigrants like Castro or Che Guevara. This is because in order to be influenced by Marxist-doctrine you have to have a degree, or at least be able to read.

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  151. An illustration of Reed’s dark view of manhood.

  152. Al Lipton says:

    Fred,

    The food for thought that you offer is always enjoyable. This article is no exception. There are different ways of tackling “the problem of the men” that you put on the table and expose its vulnerabilities so eloquently and craftily.

    1. Simple feminist way: We told you so! Aha! We need men like fish needs bicycle.

    2. Cunning feminist way: Make men’s lives miserable in whichever way possible. That will learn them! Destroy little boys at school! Make them pay, pay, pay! Smash patriarchy! Make them look for mail order brides.

    3. Fake “Christian” way: Destroy the heathens. They all go to hell anyway. Nuke them back to Stone Age! God hates them!

    4. Christian way: Love your enemies. Forgive. Always. Turn the other cheek. Pray for your enemies.

    5. Eugenicist way: Thin the herd. Let the weaklings perish and the superiors rule. Lebensraum für Übermenschen!

    6. Globalist way: Force vaccinations, sodomy, and abortions to limit world population. Send out the likes of greasy Lena Dunham to dupe young women into thinking that abortion is empowerment. Make sure that media keep repeating daily that Trump is a very dangerous Hitler.

    7. Etc. etc. etc.

    8. Fred’s way: Write about stuff.

    Thank you, Fred. May God bless you and your loved ones!

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  153. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years, because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said. “You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ’em.”

    The egregious — indeed, the literally murderous — mendacity of that is striking. Mattis isn’t outraged by the affront to women’s rights; he’s just rejoicing in having come up with a rationalization for killing people.

    Two hundred years ago, Mattis would have decided it was fine to kill Afghans because they were Muslim. Fifty years ago he would have announced they were all homosexual — and that therefore it was right to kill them.

    Now they abuse women — so it’s fine to kill them.

    Notice the common thread here? If Mattis was Hindu, he’d presumably decide he was outraged that Afghans ate beef — and would conclude it was fine to kill them.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
    , @Gene Su
  154. @Priss Factor

    Great comment Priss.

    “you go into Afghanistan blah blah blah…………..you shoot them blah blah blah”

    Its the blah blah and the blah blah followed by more blah blah. Unfortunately no one in the Taliban and host of other organizations have waxed in similar eloquent and meaningful terms. That is because Americans are so intelligent and first world and Afghans are ignorant worms with no manhood living in the Third World sewer. These nobodies have outfought us dressed in homemade caps, worn out sweaters, skirts and sandals using AKs, portable rocket launchers, motor bikes, worn out pickups and cell phones. and glad to get a cup of tea and some home made bread from time to time. Their training is minimal compared to that given our BIG STUDS. These fellows huddle in freezing cold houses or caves while our manhood chill in warm barracks with video games, hip hop music, TV and hot meals and showers and a defined service period. These non-men laugh at coalition forces calling them donkeys for all the gear they lug around the mountains, up down and sideways. How many years of war now with advanced weaponry, fine tuned logistics and communications, highly trained troops and billions of dollars ? How many ? How many ? And we still cannot win. I laughed my head off when some Air Force asshole dropped a 20,ooo ton ? bomb in Afghanistan touting it as a game changer MOAB and blah blah. While the bomb was falling and being pimped as changing the course of the war Afghans were fighting in the next valley.

    We do the same thing over and over again, In the Nam helicopters delivered Thanksgiving dinner, cold beer, steaks and pizza in the field. All the while the Cong and NVA ate a little cold rice with day old fish heads, jungle greens, snakes and lizards that is when they were not scavenging for US rations.

    Tough dogs ? Tough men ? On which side ? We exited Nam off the roof of the Embassy building with our tails up our asses just before the non-men rolled into Saigon.

    So when Mattis puts on his warface, rubs Preparation H on his eye bags, activates his gimlet eye, adjusts his starched fatigues, frets over a speck of dust on his highly polished boots , his troops may be motivated and get all worked up that is until they meet the non-men on the other side.

    American military leaders always talk this shit to the laughter and mockery of Third World subhumans just before they give us a good ass kicking. Its Westmoreland all over again.

    Its enough to make you cry in frustration.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
    , @Gene Su
  155. anarchyst says:
    @Al Lipton

    You forgot one:

    The talmudic way…

    the idea that jews are of a “higher level” of humanity, relegating the rest of humanity to the status of “livestock with souls, created only to serve the jews”.

    Slavery is also a large part of the jewish tradition, but only to be applied to gentiles.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  156. Bp says:
    @Anon

    Since Boudicca’s “honor” being insulted involved the rape of her two daughters I am not surprised that she and her her tribe went on the rampage!

  157. Bel Riose says:
    @Colin Wright

    Astute comment on your part.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Thugs like Mattis just need an excuse to kill — or to direct others to kill.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  158. @anarchyst

    ‘… Slavery is also a large part of the jewish tradition, but only to be applied to gentiles.’

    ? Gentiles were created to be slaves. You might as well object to sheep being shorn of their wool.

  159. Betsy9 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    But the men stalked and brutally killed her. Right? Hey, It’s all in the testosterone. That was settled a century ago. So why to these cavemen keep arguing about it? Plausably deniability ??

  160. @Gene Su

    Sorry for the very late reply, Gene. Does that mean these FB friends will no longer be friends in real life too? I’m not on that Social Media, so I really don’t know.

    Good on ya’, reading Lew Rockwell!

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  161. anon[356] • Disclaimer says:

    Bp: “Since Boudicca’s “honor” being insulted involved the rape of her two daughters I am not surprised that she and her her tribe went on the rampage!”

    Did she feel better after she massacred Roman civilians and her pointless and incompetent military action got 80,000 of her tribe’s men slaughtered? A rather costly estrogen fit, paid for, naturally, by the men of the tribe .

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  162. Gene Su says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Most of my Facebook friends were never real life friends. Facebook feels so … fake. I enjoy Quora and the Unz Review blog far more. even when I am disagreed with, the responses seem more intelligent.

    • Replies: @Truth
  163. Gene Su says:
    @Colin Wright

    Fred Reed once said that most men don’t join the military because of patriotism. A few join because they have a lot of anger to get out and want to kill people.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  164. Gene Su says:
    @The Grim Joker

    The problem is that we Americans don’t fight for country or faith, despite what the Republican elite would like to have us think. Too many military personnel, I suspect, see the military as a career. They fight for a paycheck. They are nothing more than mercenaries who will give up when the going gets tough. Machiavelli knew this 500 years ago. The enemy fights for country (Vietcong) and faith (Muslim insurgents). That is why we can’t win against these “non-men.”
    The problem simply is that most wars where America is a belligerent don’t involve the defense of our country or our faith. 9/11 did not threaten the survival of our nation as much as we first thought. Although we Americans are far more religious than our European counterparts, we are far less religious than we were 150 years ago.

  165. @Gene Su

    ‘Fred Reed once said that most men don’t join the military because of patriotism. A few join because they have a lot of anger to get out and want to kill people.’

    To be fair, most people join the military just like they do anything else — for a variety of reasons.

    The mix varies from individual to individual — but we rarely have only one motive for our actions.

  166. Truth says:
    @Gene Su

    Most of my Facebook friends were never real life friends. Facebook feels so … fake.

  167. @Joseph Doaks

    Why put women into combat?
    Because it’s one of those exceedingly rare moments when there’s a surplus of female humans in a society.

    Most cultures throughout the last 20,000 years have had a shortage of women, and too few women means the society dies out.
    Today we have an excess of humans in general, including women. If we lost 20% of American women of childbearing age, America would survive.

    So, for the moment, there’s no social reason to protect women from combat. There are downsides, of course, but these as well are temporary.

    • Replies: @a_german_
  168. @anon

    ‘Did she feel better after she massacred Roman civilians and her pointless and incompetent military action got 80,000 of her tribe’s men slaughtered? A rather costly estrogen fit, paid for, naturally, by the men of the tribe .’

    It needs to be pointed out that by now, both she and they would all be dead anyway.

  169. Gene Su says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    You say you lived in India. You also said that the caste system has forced the working class and lower castes (Dalits and untouchables) to be dependent on the Brahmin caste. I have always wondered something about Indian history. How was it that the Muslim Mughal dynasty was able to conquer so much of India? I thought of how Muslims have been able to use a divide and conquer strategy throughout history. When they invade a nation that had warring factions or tribes, they might go to one tribe and tell them they would help them against their enemy tribe. Sometimes, their allies might convert to Islam willingly. It worked in Albania under the Ottoman Empire. Muslims are now trying to do it with African Americans.
    I wonder whether the Mughals attempted to appeal to the Dalits in northern India (now Pakistan), telling them they would help them throw off the yoke of the Brahmins. Whatever the case, the Hindu elite was sure unprepared for the Muslim invasion. I know nations with caste systems become less innovative over time.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Jeff Stryker
  170. Gene Su says:
    @Commentator Mike

    A lot of feminists believe that women are suited for military combat because of the presence of certain “warrior women” in ancient history. The most plausible example are the Amazons, who were noted by the Ancient Greeks and whose existence have been proven in several archeological finds. However, the more I read about these “warrior women” and similar groups, the more I believe that they were not “warriors” in the true sense of the word.

    I once read in National Geographic an article about a tribe of warrior women found in Northern India living in the wild. They said that they were descendants of a Hindu Princess who ran away when the Mughals invaded, as she would be forced to marry a Muslim prince. The women are not warriors. If anything, they are refugees and runaways. I suspect that the same situation applied to the Amazons observe in ancient Anatolia: That they were the remaining members of a tribe whose men were hunted to extinction. The women were force to flee and fight (and I suspect they did a lot more fleeing then fighting).

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  171. @Gene Su

    Except for a few exceptions you are correct. When I was young there were no women in the police or army, except as office workers. I thought it was ridiculous when they first started recruiting them into the forces but by now it’s been normalised and widely accepted by the public, even in most Muslim countries.

  172. Adûnâi says:

    > “…the “pacification” of the Philippines after the American conquest.”

    Wait, do you have the gall to talk about the cruelty of Americans in the Philippines?.. Sweet Jesus…

    Americans should have exterminated all non-Whites in the Western Hemisphere! They had the right and the duty to do so! Instead, the chose Christian self-mutilation and death. And you are scorning them for the opposite! Hilarious!

  173. Adûnâi says:
    @Gene Su

    > “How was it that the Muslim Mughal dynasty was able to conquer so much of India?”

    The history of Islam in India far predates the Uzbek princes. Sindh was conquered by the Umayyads in 711. Then there were the Ghaznavids in the 11th century, the Ghurids in the 12th century, and the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th-14th centuries.

    > “I wonder whether the Mughals attempted to appeal to the Dalits in northern India (now Pakistan), telling them they would help them throw off the yoke of the Brahmins.”

    That is about right as to Islam in India, Savitri Devi mentioned how the Shudras were particularly susceptible.

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  174. @Gene Su

    Lived there for a couple months at a time.

    The invaders were able to conquer India for the same reason Manchu were able to conquer China (Assimilated now, of course) or Mexicans are conquering the Southwest. They are using force. Moreover, they possessed a primitive moral courage.

    And, as you said, disadvantaged groups are always looking to get out of a power structure they are not doing well in.

  175. a_german_ says:
    @Diana Prinz22

    Why put women into combat?

    Simply avoided by basic instincts. The Israelis did, but in combat the mans are not able to fight because they protected “their” woman. In a modern society you normally never be aware of this, and hopefully never must.

    This all mans are warriors story looks to me a little weird. Woman are not because there did not have to. In her younger days there will be supported by endless hordes of mans, except they are ugly. Later even mans are not stupid enough to fight other peoples wars.

    There are always some psychos that go to the military, this is a legal career path for them. And you know from Abu Ghraid pictures that this is not an man only phenomenon. Me did not know one single man not trying to avoid military service as it was mandatory for young man in Germany.

  176. Gene Su says:
    @Adûnâi

    Dear Anudai:

    Is Savitri Devi the French convert to Hinduism who supported Hitler? Do you have a link to an article or a video about how the Dalits and Shudras were swayed into converting to Islam? I have a funny feeling that the Muslim elite was able to persuade them without force or threats.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  177. Grisha says:
    @Muggles

    Fred could easily be kidnapped and killed where he lives. Mexico has no rule of law. Nobody calls the police when they are involved in a traffic accident in Mexico. So he has to be careful about any criticisms of his adopted country.

    Walk outside of your house. Look up and down the street. The sidewalks, asphalt, power lines, and houses were all built 95% by men. Men provided women with the conveniences of modern life such as electrical powered appliances and computers. Men built this world. They get little credit and lots of blame for global warming, etc.

    But let’s face it. Women like to complain a lot more than men. They are more vindictive, less sentimental and less likely to band together in times of danger and march out to face it. But what would this earth be without them?

    We need both genders. Both are flawed.

  178. Adûnâi says:
    @Gene Su

    And if you speak of this to the educated Hindus of Dacca or of Chittagong, they may also tell you, like the learned village Brahmans, that another name for Hinduism is “Sanatan Dharma.” They are accustomed to see bearded men walking about the streets, with red “tupis” upon their heads. They have never seriously inquired to what extent the number of these men is increasing. Nor have they ever troubled to find out, by what mysterious mental process a Hindu (one of their own people), suddenly makes up his mind to grow his beard, and wear a “tupi,” and call himself a Musulman; by what mysterious mental process he actually becomes a Musulman, with a full-grown Musulman consciousness, ready to stand against the Hindus, at the first call.

    They will tell you that those Musulmans are nothing but low caste Hindus converted once upon a time to Islam; which is generally true. They will tell you that quality is to be sought more than quantity, which is always true; but which is not the only truth about the Hindu-Moslem problem in India, and specially in Bengal — far from it.

    – Savitri Devi, A Warning to the Hindus (1939)
    https://www.savitridevi.org/hindus-04.html

  179. Anonymous[190] • Disclaimer says:

    @Colin Wright

    “It needs to be pointed out that by now, both she and they would all be dead anyway.”

    Ah but you see, her spirit lives on in the hearts and minds of her warrior-princess feminist descendants.

  180. Anonymous[190] • Disclaimer says:

    In re: Amazons

    I was once informed by a biological female of otherwise sexually indeterminate gender that the Amazons were “the greatest fighters of all time.” So I asked what became of the Amazons. She shrieked indignantly, “Well the f –king men killed them!”

    So how did they manage that?

  181. Gene Su says:
    @Bel Riose

    As just one example: is there anything more ludicrous than watching two “female MMA fighters” engage in a “stare down” at a pre-match weigh in?

    If two girls want to beat the crap out of one another, that is their business. Why be a nasty, sexist fuddy duddy about it? I think those boys trying to masquerade as “trans-females” so they could compete in the female sports division are beyond despicable. There is a reason why mud wrestling matches and foxy boxing between two females is so popular among college boys.

    All I am saying is that I think Fred Reed is correct in this respect: When girls fight, they only hurt one another – even when they fight with fists instead of words. When boys fight, they harm one another. There is a fine line – which leads to a wide gap between the sexes.

  182. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Easyrhino

    There is a female non-participatory phenotype that is “martial.” Hillary Clinton is a good example of this. Let’s call it the “you two fight, and I will go with the winner” phenotype, YTF. Helen of Troy, for example.

  183. @Rosie

    I am a West Point honors grad turned Conscientious Objector. Have your son’s read this http://thescalpel.net/underpantsl.html It is my best effort at addressing your concerns.

  184. @Gene Su

    Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis? All available evidence points to the idea that humans ARE nothing more than animals whose evolutionary strength is intelligence rather than, say, winged flight.

  185. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Rosie

    You make good points, but to improve your credibility you need more balance. Women also have a role in this war thing. To what degree they have a role is debatable, but if one’s true intent is to brainstorm possible solutions to the problem, one must try to honestly identify all the factors and variables involved.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave