Author’s note: this post first appeared at the False Rape Society August 2d, 2010.
By ‘they’, I mean the men and males of yesterday. They were expendable because they themselves thought their lives worth less than the women in their midst. For the better, I see this attitude changing, despite attempts from old-school men, who, after having been so conditioned, can’t think any differently, and lifeboat feminist women–who reap unearned benefit from male sacrifice, and, worse, consider themselves worth more than men and therefore entitled to it–to resuscitate, through shaming and manipulation, this dying tradition best left to wither and expire.
To lead this post off, I’ll quote the usually excellent Robert Heinlein, but in this case, he shows his stripes as a hopelessly self-hating romantic, devaluing the male while elevating the female to the acme of society:
Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on… as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you’ve had it, you’re done, you’re through! You join Tyrannosaurus Rex, one more breed that bilged its final test
This quote was not a one-off, for here’s another from Heinlein clearly showing that he considers male sacrifice for the benefit of females, even unrelated, random females, to be the patriotic duty of right-thinking men:
I said that “Patriotism” is a way of saying “Women and children first.” And that no one can force a man to feel this way. Instead he must embrace it freely. I want to tell about one such man. He wore no uniform and no one knows his name, or where he came from; all we know is what he did. In my home town sixty years ago when I was a child, my mother and father used to take me and my brothers and sisters out to Swope Park on Sunday afternoons. It was a wonderful place for kids, with picnic grounds and lakes and a zoo. But a railroad line cut straight through it. One Sunday afternoon a young married couple were crossing these tracks. She apparently did not watch her step, for she managed to catch her foot in the frog of a switch to a siding and could not pull it free. Her husband stopped to help her. But try as they might they could not get her foot loose. While they were working at it, a tramp showed up, walking the ties. He joined the husband in trying to pull the young woman’s foot loose. No luck — Out of sight around the curve a train whistled. Perhaps there would have been time to run and flag it down, perhaps not. In any case both men went right ahead trying to pull her free… and the train hit them. The wife was killed, the husband was mortally injured and died later, the tramp was killed — and testimony showed that neither man made the slightest effort to save himself. The husband’s behavior was heroic… but what we expect of a husband toward his wife: his right, and his proud privilege, to die for his woman. But what of this nameless stranger? Up to the very last second he could have jumped clear. He did not. He was still trying to save this woman.
Lest anyone claim that said attitudes are indicative of the old ways of thinking, I give you columnist Jeannie DeAngelis at the American Thinker. She breaks out the shaming language in spades in a column from just last month, casting as barbarians men who dare do harm women and children. The implication of course being that those of us men in other cultures who witness it and let it pass are equally as uncivilized. Of course, such name calling is merely white-feather neo-con exhortations to make war on other cultures because they don’t do like we do–the usual left-wing whinging about how cultures are equal curiously absent:
When the Titanic sank in 1912, women on board had a 75% higher chance of survival than men, and children a 52% higher survival rate, because women and children were placed on lifeboats first. In a humane society, “women and children first” is a testimony to the bravery and chivalry of civilized men. Emphasis on the word “civilized.”
For barbarians, the standard is much different. In the past few months, the world has witnessed how cultures rooted in brutal, millennia-old practices treat vulnerable women and, more tragically, innocent children.
Last month, Del Awar, aged seven, was taken at dusk from the yard where he was playing. Del was found “hanging in an orchard the following day.” According to those who “saw his slight body after it was cut down … the bruises and scratches around the young boy’s neck suggested his murder had been neither quick, nor easy.” As punishment for the absurd crime of supposedly being a spy for Hamid Karzai’s government, the Taliban, made up of men, carried out the execution.
In Iran, cowards of a similar breed prepare to mercilessly stone a “caring mother” to death. [The woman], Sakineh, was convicted of adultery while married in 2006, after which she received the punishment of 99 lashes…Sakineh’s skin was sadistically and systematically peeled away from bone and muscle during a brutal, male-inflicted flogging that even strong men can’t endure…a kangaroo court, similar to the one that hung a seven-year-old boy for spying, reopened the case because the woman was then suspected of murdering her husband. Sakineh was acquitted of spousal murder. Acquittal aside, “the adultery charge was reviewed and a death penalty handed down on the basis of ‘judge’s knowledge’ — a loophole that allows for subjective judicial rulings where no conclusive evidence is present.” A subjective ruling without evidence is one of many shining examples of Sharia Law.
How about if America’s Muslim-friendly president instead denounces Islam’s barbaric practice of stoning women and hanging children?
But it doesn’t stop there. Another man, witnessing the growing popularity of lesbian chic, declares that men are apparently useless to women sexually these days:
I was recently reading about yet another bevy of young women who are opting for pelvic refreshment with other women, and it struck me that the abandonment of men as sexual partners might not just be a fashion of our times, but an entirely natural process. Indeed, it might well be that women are naturally drawn to one another’s beds like bees to blossoms, and that only the need to get someone to make babies, or do the Neolithic equivalent of unblocking the loo, is what caused cavewomen to agree to have sex with cavemen in the first place. Otherwise, sexually speaking, the girls get on very nicely without us.
I suspect that the taboo on lesbian sex was created by dominant males and their female allies because, deep down, so many women preferred female bodies, companionship and sexual skills. But men need women in ways that women simply don’t need men. There’s no general equivalent for women of the female prostitute, the call girl, the courtesan or the mistress — for different classes of men have always resorted to paid female sexual companionship. Sexually frustrated women have either abstained or, long before Anne Summers, looked after themselves.
Lessee…with the Heinlein quotes, we have an appeal to ancient, maybe even hardwired tribal traditions to protect the womenfolk, traditions invented and reinforced through the millennia when one’s civilization was constantly on the knife’s edge between survival and oblivion. There are two problems with this conceptualization, however. First, it is hard to make the case that, in a society that numbers over 300 million, as the modern American country does, individual womenfolk require such protection. We have far far more breeding pairs than we require. Second, the flip side to such gentlemanly self-sacrificial behavior is the implication that said women are worth saving because of their potential as breeders. Of course this assumes that women wish to be viewed as breeders, which a great many do not. But more importantly, a great majority of native American women fail to actually become breeders, and if they should deign themselves to actually whelp a child, a great great many fail to do so in sufficient quantities to replace the population. Except for the right Mormon women in Utah that is, who have the highest fertility rate in the country. This then begs the question: if so many native American women refuse to have children outright or, having had a child, have failed to execute their full duty by having more than 2.1 children, do they still merit automatic male sacrifice? What is the patriotic fellow’s role since native American women have failed to uphold their (reproductive) end of the grand bargain?
DeAngelis’ quote hardly needs any more amplification. Men are ‘inhumane’ and ‘uncivilized’ if they do not voluntarily surrender their lives for the benefit of women and children (why is it that ‘women’ and ‘children’ are always paired together? Isn’t it just as valid to say ‘men and children’, particularly when automatic father custody used to be rule in Western Civilization?), even if those women and children are unrelated to him. Men are ‘barbaric’ for protecting the sanctity of the marriage bond, for enforcing female chastity, and for seeing to the security of the State, all three of which are goods in which women benefit greatly and suffer equally greatly when they are absent.
DeAngelis makes quite a bit of hay about Sakineh Mohammedi Ashtiani, a woman sentenced to death in Iran for adultery. Yet I note that Sakineh was also convicted of sleeping with two men out of wedlock in 2006, one of whom was also accused–along with her–of killing Sakineh’s husband. I could not find any mention in media anywhere of the fate of either man she fornicated/adulterated with. Were they put to death? We do not know, partially because, as we see in this case, our culture only cares about gruesome death when it happens to women and/or children.
Yet while Angelis’ quote needs little amplification, given the usual audience of this blog, it does merit a bit of commentary, for it represents a very strong undercurrent in the culture that perpetuates the principle of the ‘disposable male’. As we have seen, men are lambasted from both left and right, from both males and females, heck, ABC even has an entire series dedicated to instill a sense of shame in others–usually men, for men are apparently expected to intervene to help vulnerable women–for failing to risk their lives, even die, so that unrelated women may live on in comfort and security. A good example of this would be a recent Time magazine cover, which featured the mutilated face of the Afghan girl.
Such obvious agitprop seems to have but one purpose: to beat the war drum and rally flagging American support for the effort to install mercantilist feminism at the point of a gun in Iraq and Afghanistan. And provide fodder with which to motivate/shame American men into risking their lives for the benefit of women on the other side of the planet.
From whence does this supposed duty come from? The best bottom-line source I can think of is the Bible, where Christian men were exhorted as husbands to lead and sacrifice for their wives and families, and as members of a Christian community to take up arms in its defense. Clearly there was an expectation that men had the responsibility to use their resources and strength for the good of their wives and children and for their tribe. The responsibility was theirs, as a duty uniquely inherent to being a man.
Thus was established the precedent for men to sacrifice themselves for women and for children, even women and children not related to him. Armchair heroes and heroines from then on graded a man’s worth by how willing they were to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of women. Yet women, for their part, never quite satisfied with a good thing, have thrown off the old restrictions in a vain search for something better. This tectonic shift that relieves women of their social roles yet retains those for men leaves men in somewhat of a quandary: how does one act toward a woman who is a ruthless peer competitor–a competitor that enjoys social and legal advantage in nearly every way over men–in the workplace, yet demands deference in the social/familial sphere? How does a man respond when traditional patriarchal marriage has been stood on its head and, rather than being an institution where men and women team economically, physically, and spiritually to raise the next generation, has instead been converted into a vehicle to transfer wealth from male(s) to female? How does a man adjust when the traditional ways of finding a mate–male initiation and female choice–become a minefield of sexual-harassment charges and rape accusations to be successfully navigated? How should a man react when supposedly more virtuous women relentlessly pursue serially polyandrous couplings with successively higher-status men, to include thugs and criminals, shunning perfectly good men like him until they are thread-bare, shop-worn, used-up empty husks unable to sustain a long-term relationship? How should a man react when his freedom has been traded for temporary security by recently-suffraged women, when the machinery of government had been perverted to conscript him to be a government sharecropper for the benefit of high-ranking men and women nationwide? Indeed, how should a man respond to women’s and other men’s lecturing of him for failing to rise to–or die in, as the case may be–the defense of such women whom are not his wife or his mother, sister, aunt, or niece?
The same way they have been responding, I am afraid: with indifference. It is someone else’s problem. The male willingness to act has been driven underground; in its place, a sense of self-preservation has taken root. The armchair heroes and heroines may bang on about where all the good men have gone and how cowardly the current crop of men are, but they are apparently ignorant of the fact that these good men have been driven away by women themselves lacking in virtue. Having heard, loud and clear, Dowd’s declaration that men are not really all that necessary,
The third quote, citing the growing feminine fascination with lesbianism, strikes me as true insofar as women’s flexible sexual appetites are concerned. But what Myers does not address is that, while women may very well have rejected the notion that they need men, in their mad dash to make love to themselves, they also seem to have conveniently forgotten that they are still quite dependent on men for security, prosperity, and safety. A society where the male half is not enfranchised is not one that survives for very long, for the distance between moon shots and skyscrapers to mud huts and foraging parties is quite short.
Indeed, as the below video quite well explicates (and occasionally overstates), women would do well to remember that it is the men they devalue who provide the very scaffolding that holds society up and permits women to labor comfortably in air-conditioned buildings:
To those armchair heroes and heroines who tsk-tsk at men who balk at risking their lives for women who are not their wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, or nieces, I ask: what purpose are you serving in your exhortations? Is his cost-benefit analysis really that selfish and short-sighted? Does he have that little to live for? Does your reactionary urging serve to pull society back from the abyss? Or are you merely propping up a corrupt system that holds men to their traditional roles as providers and protectors while releasing women from theirs as chaste, faithful mothers and nurturers? Are you pursuing justice, freedom, and equality under the law? Or are you enabling the continued trafficking of men into slavery on the government plantation, stripped of their rights under the law and their children at the same time?
And to those–particularly men–who think that men are expendable and that a society can well withstand the loss, either through death, warfare, or social ostracism/incarceration of a large proportion of its men, I suggest that the data speaks otherwise. The example of the urban ghetto should demonstrate to all that a society that loses large proportions of its men is a society with its future very much in jeopardy. For it is men and men alone who bequeath the gift of civilization to women and children. The society that loses its men faces many of the same challenges that a society that loses a large segment of its women–the inability to propagate and socialize the next generation of society.
The lives of men are too important than to be just thrown away in furtive efforts to protect those who may not deserve it. Women and men both would do well to value men for the invaluable contributions they make to society.
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at
the blog The Elusive Wapiti.
{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }
This is the flaw in the “eggs are scarce so women are valuable” rationalization. If anything, a woman’s ability to breed is a looming liability – it’s men’s ability to produce without reproductive risk that makes them more valuable at different stages of the population boom/bust cycle.
Great writing EW..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Real good, but what video?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I suspect that the taboo on lesbian sex was created by dominant males and their female allies because, deep down, so many women preferred female bodies, companionship and sexual skills. But men need women in ways that women simply don’t need men.
———————————
this is the biggest crock of shit I have seen written by a woman in quite some time. women need men’s money provided for directly or indirectly (by the state) far more than men need women or men need the state. lets get rid of the welfare state and see how many lesbians there are, what nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
There’s no general equivalent for women of the female prostitute, the call girl, the courtesan or the mistress — for different classes of men have always resorted to paid female sexual companionship. Sexually frustrated women have either abstained or, long before Anne Summers, looked after themselves.
——————————–
again if you know basic economics you know that an exchange takes place only because of a need by both parties. the fact that there are still prostitutes in this day and age of women’s lib illustrates that many women do not want to work, and will be a whore despite the risks involved because they do not want to work hard at jobs like men do.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Crap. Here is the link to that video. For some reason, the code didn’t take.
Unfortunately, that piece was written by a man. A fellow who is quite normally a masculinist.
His column in the Independent is part of what inspired me to write this column, for it seems that he values himself quite low.
And and I had the exact same thought upon reading that…only women secure in their income streams will dare reject the penis for the vulva. Take away that security and watch them drop their bi-curiousness like a hot rock.
Good essay Wapiti
Im one of those men who are now indifferent to women.
As soon as i realized that women like men collectively (government) 1st, and men individually ‘last’. Then i lost interest in them, im not playing second fiddle to number one husband (guvment) or being an optional extra.
But it is easy for women to be loyal to a guvment who asks so little of them and gives so much in return.How can an average man even begin to compete with that?
This may well be harsh, but women in general, are and continue to be the one single ‘biggest’ disappointments in my life.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
And and I had the exact same thought upon reading that…only women secure in their income streams will dare reject the penis for the vulva. Take away that security and watch them drop their bi-curiousness like a hot rock.
———————————
well it is more complex than that because some women play at being lesbians or bi in order to get attention from men and I have had women do this to me several times. I have had several women who claim they were only interested in women and were openly lesbian tell me that they would date me because they thought I was a good man. I have basically come to conclude that nothing is natural in the sexual realm, not even the hypergamy to be honest. Many women reach a stage in their life that they want a man to help them raise their kids and perceive that as a value as well and find fathers sexy. It depends on the person and what they value at that point in their life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I will say this though, if single motherhood lesbianism ever becomes mainstream I would expect to see a civil war or large scale acts of domestic terrorism become common. Not only would men be completely separated from family life, the size of the population would be completely untied from the level of wealth in society. Men would have nothing left to lose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38571850/ns/world_news-europe
Custody dispute murder/suicide by mom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women have always been cowardly manipulative animals, someone posted this on another forum:
“James Lovegrove was only sixteen when he joined the army on the outbreak of the First World War.
On my way to work one morning a group of women surrounded me. They started shouting and yelling at me, calling me all sorts of names for not being a soldier! Do you know what they did? They struck a white feather in my coat, meaning I was a coward. Oh, I did feel dreadful, so ashamed.
I went to the recruiting office. The sergeant there couldn’t stop laughing at me, saying things like “Looking for your father, sonny?”, and “Come back next year when the war’s over!” Well, I must have looked so crestfallen that he said “Let’s check your measurements again”. You see, I was five foot six inches and only about eight and a half stone. This time he made me out to be about six feet tall and twelve stone, at least, that is what he wrote down. All lies of course – but I was in!”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWboy.htm”
Jeannie DeAngelis is no different and Heinlein was a white knight mangina.
These vile creatures do not care about how men are treated within this country but are instead worried about Muslim women abroad and want us to lose our lives to impose womens lib on them.
I wish Obama at least does one good thing while he is in office by making all female infantry units and putting them into combat in Afghanistan, socon idiots be damned.
Also the phrase “women and children” is apt because like children women are incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions and behaving like grown men. Its a shame that our society has lost recognition of this fact and allows these filthy creatures to vote to send men off to their deaths in futile wars.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
i have been following thespearhead for some time. and it has done its job pretty well to make me an awakened male in the society. i also appreciate the effort of the people who bring out such anti-male stuff to public’s notice. the only problem is that everytime i read articles on this site, mostly they are about how men are loosing or how they got cheated. (because of discrimination and feminism ofcourse) it just makes me feel weak and emasculated. it just makes me believe that men would be an entirely unnecessary sex in the years and decades to come. i would have liked it more if the site also brings out equal (or more) number of victory articles of men over feminism. i belong to india, and ugly feminism hasn’t quite spread its legs here. but i can definitely say that india is standing on the verge where america was back in 1960-70. can anyone advice me what i can individually do so that india doesn’t have the face the same end that america has faced.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Women in Canada still try and shame the men at the École Polytechnique Massacre: “Why did you leave the room? Why didn’t you try and save your female classmates?”
Those men should answer: “Because those women are strong and independent”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
the Korean war left a huge proportion of the male population dead. sad for society sure, but for those who survived, they literally had the cream of the crop of attractive women. one man’s loss (death) is another’s gain (access to high quality girls)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@The Rookie
Not only what you discribed but what also added to the quality of all women was that the war front went the length of the country, north and south. The south korean women got a good dose of reality from the communist. Nothing like burning flesh and going without food and water for a few days while communist pick people up for reeducation. I bet a few months of that will make a woman very polite with a man that put that to an end.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…women and children
We need to stop lumping these two together. Women use children for their own gain. Men are the true protectors of children.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
1 Timothy 2:15
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I think a distinction needs to be made, with regards to “back then” and now. Men were always expendable, but at least the sacrifice was recognized, however small that recognition was. Today, men are cattle who are expressly bred for the purpose of slaughter.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Anyone who believes that evolution works for the benefit of the species should read Richard Dawkins “The Self Gene”. The focus of all evolution is the individual. It’s the individual who reproduces or not, the group or species is an abstract not an entity; it has no genes to pass on. The idea that men are more expendable than women is a social construct; it has no basis in biology. The purpose of all behavior is reproductive: once we’ve passed on our genes everyone is expendable, men and women. It may take less men than women to carry on the species but the driving force of evolution is to pass on ones own genes not that of “the species” or “the race” Altruism exists as a means of preserving our own genes and to insure their continuation in future generations. Except for kin relations there is no reason to defend others. Not my genes, not my fight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Great article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Unfortunately, that piece was written by a man. A fellow who is quite normally a masculinist.”
Kevin Myers likes to stir things up and I doubt he believes that Lesbianism is the natural state for women. However, you can bet that he immediately grabbed the attention of a lot of readers who would otherwise have tuned out and not read:
“What happens to a society when women are allowed to express themselves entirely for their own pleasure? More seriously what happens to men, owners of that plutonium of hormones, testosterone, if they become sexual exiles from women?”
His point:
“Amongst the most striking consequences of “sexual liberation” have been firstly the social alienation of so many men, and the growth of a huge sex industry catering for them only. To be sure, taboos can make for a great deal of unhappiness: but having no taboos at all might well make for even more.”
In the past it was taboo for a man not to defend a female stranger. It still is taboo but that is changing. Hence the need for shaming language and those magazine articles. The down side of equality for women is that men no longer value woman as much as before and are more reluctant to come to their aid at the risk of their own skin. We are not as expendable as we used to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great article. I loved it.
To further the point you made above, another example is Europe post WW1 and WW2, when two entire generations of young men were fed to the cannons. Despite the best efforts of the United States to protect and subsidize it, Europe has done nothing short of commiting civilizational suicide ever since – and with the U.S. retrenching to defend its’ own interests, the death rattles are becoming apparent.
Same with Russia / The Soviet Union. While I still firmly believe that Socialism/Communism is a failure as an economic system and inherently leads to ruin, what greatly accelerated the failure of the Soviet Union was the elimination of at least 10 MILLION men (HOLY FUCKING SHIT) in 1941-1945.* The system just couldn’t hold itself together after that – already by the late 60′s America had surpassed the Soviets technologically, despite a big head start by the Russians. The sickness of that male gendercide carries over to this day in Russia, with it’s collapsed birthrate, massive abortion rate, and an epidemic of suicide and alcoholism among the men.
All feminists try to enforce the double standard of trying to hold men to traditional roles as protectors and providers, while denying to them the benefits of these roles. They are enabled by what’s left of the traditionalist notions in Western society – indeed Obama himself shames Western men for their failures as fathers, and uses traditionalist arguments to advance this.
The ideal man, for a feminist, is either:
a) the Alpha thug who screws them and gets them pregnant, should they choose to
b) the Beta tool who (in order of descending social status)
1. marries a woman and supports her elementary-school teacher/HR specialist/Feminist blogger air-conditioned lifestyle while he either works himself into arthritis as a labourer or into diabetes and heart disease as a commuting drone
2. does all of the above and “accepts his responbility as a man”, i.e. a divorce without protest, handing over full custody and the family home, and paying maximum alimony and child support payments
3. does the above and never investigates whether the children are actually his, and if they aren’t, still pays full support
4. marries a single mother voluntarily and supports her children, born to an Alpha thug who got her when she was hotter/younger/tighter, but at least he gets access to her gaped out hole once a week with the lights off
5. decides to build a life for himself without getting married, thus not bothering Beta-hating women with his need for sex, except for the occasional stripper/hooker, but still paying tax dollars into the welfare single mom supporting system.
Paradoxically however, the most contemptible man, to a feminist, isn’t the guy who doesn’t work at all or pay the single-mom-tax, perhaps because he’s on welfare or is a criminal “entrepreneur”. No, that would make him an Alpha thug, and thus sexually desirable.
So gentlemen, if you’re in situation #5, know that indeed women hold you to be the worst of all men. Figure out a way to stop feeding into the system and playing by it’s rules to the greatest extent possible, and you automatically rise back up to the top.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
If the goal is to replicate then, at a “tribal” level, men are more expendable. I don’t see any problem with this logic. But what he lacks in “inherent” value he makes up for in his ability to “tame the universe” precisely because he is able to “go for broke” because under life and death circumstances, this is what it takes to win. non-attachment.
I’ve thought a lot about this, and I think this is the essential/fundamental difference between the sexes – from which all other differences arise. That is, when it comes to surviving (self replicating) in the hostile environments that we live in (man made or not) the delegation of tasks between men and women is separated primarily by RISK.
Somewhere along the line men realized how women leverage their inherent value against men, pitting men against one an other for “access rights” or simply “opportunities to self replicate.” This was seen for what it is (counter-productive) and women’s power to select their partner was taken away from them (obviously not without women’s disapproval), so that men could focus there attention and energies on other things. This required a sufficient amount of force,
hence the phrases “putting a women in her place”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The idea of The Selfish Gene is that the primary purpose of life is to pass down ones own genes and to continue that passing down through the generations. This exceeds even the instinct of self-preservation. The primary purpose of life is to reproduce. Looks are sometime deceiving and it sometimes appears as if behavior is self-sacrificing but in reality it is really a means of insuring that genes continue to pass down through further generations. The sacrifice is worth it if the genes continue. Herd behavior on the part of males is an attempt to protect one’s own gene stock and not the herd as a whole. Herd behavior is only valid if it serves the interest of the individual or his genes; it is not a motive in itself. All individuals are expendable once their reproductive functions are complete; this may or may not include parenting, which is a reproductive strategy in itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
“Armchair heroes and heroines from then on graded a man’s worth by how willing they were to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of women.”
I posted a quote by one uber-mangina female ass-kissing social conservative white-knight Chivalrist on the False Rape Society thread, but I believe it’s worth repeating here.
It came as (what he imagined to be) a rebuttal to the idea of rape-trial jury nullification proffered by Paul Elam. This guy doesn’t see the problem with a few men falsely accused of rape ending up in prison, because he sees it as part of the greater duty of men towards women that men (as a class) make such sacrifices in a effort to put the protection of women (all women, no matter of evil one may be) above all else in the priority list for men.
(I do hope anyone reading this hasn’t recently eaten – it’s at the end of the thread):
Jesse Powell -
Get that? Having innocent, yet expendable men sent to prison the price we simply must pay so that woman can be protected. It doesn’t matter to a Chivalry worshipper like Jesse Powell that punishing innocent men does nothing to actually protect women, nor that putting the wrong man in prison for a rape leaves the real perp free to do it to others. All that matter to these SoCon pseudo-Christians is that men simply allow for women to be protected at all cost, without any cost-benefit analysis applied.
Seen for what it has morphed into, for these Socon’s on the right, it’s become a blind devotion to the quasi-religious notion of Chivalry, which, sadly, has at it’s core the idolization of women as paragons of virtue.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“the Korean war left a huge proportion of the male population dead. sad for society sure, but for those who survived, they literally had the cream of the crop of attractive women. one man’s loss (death) is another’s gain (access to high quality girls)”
A have to disagree. Total casualties were just several percent of male population, although large in absolute numbers. Even if you consider that the casualties were related mostly to men from 18-45 they did not reach simple access to high quality girls. Because:
There are more men born than women (4%-5%).
Many of the dead men were married (and had kids) and widows did not re-marry.
There has always been some level of hidden polygamy.
So, some who would have never had access to girls before gained it and some girls had to lover their standards a bit. But no paradise for surviving men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you originally bought into the mantra that women were equal to men and deserved “rights” like most of society has, you’d be dissapointed at what’s become of them. They aren’t that great. View them as high-functioning children and you’ll stay sane, and they’ll like you better too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Curiepoint August 5, 2010 at 07:16
I think a distinction needs to be made, with regards to “back then” and now. Men were always expendable, but at least the sacrifice was recognized, however small that recognition was. Today, men are cattle who are expressly bred for the purpose of slaughter.
In all spheres
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One can only hope that a turd like Jesse Powell will someday find himself in the circumstances he describes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
That’s the key bit for me.
For all the incessant yammering about ‘misogyny’, all we’re really doing is giving them what they asked for. We not taking anything away from them.
They want to live lives free of the curse of beta males? Well, here it is: arise New Grrrrl Order and if anyone needs us for anything, you can get us one betamales@shoveit.com
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
two things I must add
1) Some of the most revered civilizations in history practiced strong male bonding and male to male sexuality. This includes the warrior culture of the Celts, whom the Romans had great admiration for. Another culture with encouraged strong male bonding was the Greeks; just look at the vastness of their intellectual achievements (mythology, math and science, philosophy, art, and more).
Men excel when they get together and form strong friendships. To make it it more relevant just consider the boy crisis in school. Studies have shown that when boys go to single sex classrooms they end up closing the large gender gap and even surpassing the girls in single sex classrooms. Boys would be achieving a lot more in an environment that is male friendly and encourages strong male bonding, feminists know this and are threatened by it.
2) Aside from the missteps in logic of saying thats how thing are so that how they should continue to be; it should be known that women frequently died from labour in the past. Therefore our society should be capable of adjusting to the idea of women dying just like men do.
Also I don’t think you naturally give up your life to someone who would not do the same for you; only if your trained to by society would you be likely to ever do that. I think a lot of the men who died in the past got their courage from the man next to him who would risk his neck for him, like hunters taking down a mammoth together. What a twisted reality to think that men should risk their lives for a fu@%ing homemade pie from their virtuous wives.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Coastal August 5, 2010 at 12:06
Having heard, loud and clear, Dowd’s declaration that men are not really all that necessary, men, being the gentlemen that they are, have stepped aside and are permitting the feminine to drive for a while.
That’s the key bit for me.
For all the incessant yammering about ‘misogyny’, all we’re really doing is giving them what they asked for. We not taking anything away from them.
————————-
I think that Dowd would be well advised to consider what she is asking for. Men are needed far more than she would have us believe. I have seen the video before and I agree with it for the most part. As the saying goes, women can do wonderful things with a house but they do need the house to be there in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The whole notion of men being ‘expendable’ only makes sense in the ‘raw state of nature,’ in which the most pressing concern was making it to the next day in one piece. In such a state, it makes sense to elevate females because ‘breeding’ guarantees survival, and survival is the highest goal of humans in a pre-civilized state. In a ‘state of civilization,’ however, the situation is totally different: in a civilization, the status levels of men and women are reversed, because civilization is based on high-investment parenting (that is, long-term emotional and material provisioning for offspring). In civilization, the goal isn’t survival but the attainment of ever greater levels of complexity. Men have high-status in civilization (i.e. they are not ‘expendable’), because civilization isn’t sustained by ‘breeding’ (the source of ‘high-status’ for women in the pre-civilized state) but by successful propagation of genes which are capable of dealing with complexity.
High investment parenting is therefore based on the mastery of sexual instincts. In some ways, it seems that the instincts of females are in conflict with the demands of civilized life. Females are mostly interested in purposeless pleasure and ‘status at all costs,’ even if the status is empty and unproductive. A ‘civilization’ based on female leadership is literally self-contradictory because females don’t know how to channel energies for productive causes. Civilization is absolutely a male enterprise. As we can see in our society today, females will be completely content with a little ‘status’, basic necessities, and endless, non-procreative pleasure, even if they create nothing meaningful or achieve anything worthwhile their entire lives. For women, a string of high-status sexual encounters is enough to make a life well lived, but men are interested in “higher” things. Only men have learned to channel irrational energies toward higher purposes.
But again, it all comes down to high-investment parenting, and high-investment parenting means that men are not only significant but critical. Civilization is now on the decline because people are falling back to ‘picking up partners’ rather than building relationships which lead to stable environments for offspring.
In some ways, this reaction against civilized life is predictable when we consider how long humans were in the pre-civilized state. Humans have yet to crawl entirely from the state of nature.
It’s also predictable that the reaction has been strongest among women, because females have suffered a kind of status decline in the state of civilization.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Vincent Ignatious wrote: women and children
We need to stop lumping these two together. Women use children for their own gain. Men are the true protectors of children.
True. Their motivations regarding children are not selfless. If a woman’s children do well, she does well by extension.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@tom47
Him sacrificing his life IS self sacrificing. Even if it serves another
purpose from the perspective of evolution. The latter part was not his reason. It was no more his intention than the plants intention to live by photosynthesizing or someone intentionaly getting sickle cell anemia to pass on a single sickle cell gene. You cant equate results to intentions or you might say the rock fell so that it would stay consistent with newtons law.
Men create, imagine, and form strong friendships… far from being less valuable. What a hatefull cow to say men’s lives are less valuable and they should thus sacrifice themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Several interesting thought provoking ideas presented in a very well written manner. Good quality work.
Forwarded to several people in my e-contact list with link to the blog presenting this article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Patr33x
Thank you for saying that. I’ve seen children getting thrown under the bus metaphorically speaking when their needs go against the mothers needs, especially when children are hurt by what women do to men.
Its the same with health issues, women try to use children to hoard the health recourses. Its amazing how many benefits they expect without any responsibilities. Also if men don’t receive attention then women are doing nothing but continuing a cycle of privileged women, ie. they are only supporting themselves.
They gather every health recource they can. Probably the most obnoxious health promo for women was a breast cancer commercial that said “cause everyone deserves a full life”. WTF… women with money are the longest living people this world has ever known. The cancer mostly effects older women too. So I guess “saving” some 50 year old woman is more important than saving any number of people who barely get a chance at life.
Ya, chivalry is great… just like in the commercials then man protects his wife from breast cancer while he and the children get nothing.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Patr33x
Thank you for saying that. I’ve seen children getting thrown under the bus metaphorically speaking when their needs go against the mothers needs, especially when children are hurt by what women do to men.
Its the same with health issues, women try to use children to hoard the health recourses. Its amazing how many benefits they expect without any responsibilities. Also if men don’t receive attention then women are doing nothing but continuing a cycle of privileged women, ie. they are only supporting themselves.
They gather every health recource they can. Probably the most obnoxious health promo for women was a breast cancer commercial that said “cause everyone deserves a full life”. WTF… women with money are the longest living people this world has ever known. The cancer mostly effects older women too. So I guess “saving” some 50 year old woman is more important than saving any number of people who barely get a chance at life.
Ya, chivalry is great… just like in the commercials then man protects his wife from breast cancer while he and the children get nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
my, bad. after accidentally posting anonymously I went back to post with my id.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
deep down, so many women preferred female bodies, companionship and sexual skills
This is complete nonsense and the sort of stuff written by NOW because most of these females are lesbians and this is an attempt to justify their affliction. In reality about 1/2 of 1 % of females are lesbians and in my opinion half of those are just confused girls like Lohan.Females are driven by the same sex drive as men (which is really just a blind instinctual drive to reproduce) If females were natural lesbians then why is it that when a female’s hormones kick in at puberty they all go “boy crazy”?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
It’s interesting to see that after years of denying the “accusation” that they were all “just a bunch of lesbians” feminists are now extolling the virtues of being lesbians. After years of denying that being gay was a choice for which they could be judged they now argue that it’s a choice to be made. This seems to fly because the internet generation usually has no idea of anything that happened more than 4 weeks ago. They never had to wade thru a ton of books at a library just to find one answer they just look it up on Google.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Just to be clear; because we view animal behavior thru the scope of human culture we see things that are not there. All behavior is derived from the quest to replicate ones genes and all “sacrificing” behavior is an extension of that. It is not truly altruistic it simply seems that way. Parenting and defending behavior is selfish in that it helps insure the continuation of the gene line. The fact that it feels good or right is the same as food or sex feeling good or right. We may eat because we are hungry but the behavior serves a different purpose; to keep us alive to reproduce further.
Animals are expendable when they have exceeded there reproductive purpose which may include parenting. For women this would be about 40 and for men about 60.
Hey why not build any Army of 40 + lesbians to fight for women’s rights in Afghanistan? Why not hand out pink feathers to all 40 + women to encourage them to go. Maybe pink isn’t the right color. Any suggestions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
tom47 August 5, 2010 at 17:32
Just to be clear; because we view animal behavior thru the scope of human culture we see things that are not there. All behavior is derived from the quest to replicate ones genes and all “sacrificing” behavior is an extension of that. It is not truly altruistic it simply seems that way. Parenting and defending behavior is selfish in that it helps insure the continuation of the gene line. The fact that it feels good or right is the same as food or sex feeling good or right
———————————————–
I totally agree! I have talked to feminists online and they really think that women are totally invaluable to the species. I would prefer a world where men and women worked together, but seeing as though that is not at all what women want I see no reason to pursue this line anymore. Absolutely no one’s children are necessary for the future of the species, men are no more worthless than women are in this regard. And to be honest, women will not support the only social system (capitalism) that will accommodate a rising standard of living for a rising number of people and that includes unplanned kids because they are so present oriented and so afraid of any personal responsibility that they would not hesistate to bankrupt the economy to meet their present needs. Women’s rights are quite frankly not necessary for civilization to thrive.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
George Orewll Responded to (or rather anticipated) Heinlein’s argument:
“Any nation at war will do its best to protect its children, and the number of children killed in raids probably does not correspond to their percentage of the general population. Women cannot be protected to the same extent, but the outcry against killing women, if you accept killing at all, is sheer sentimentality. Why is it worse to kill a woman than a man? The argument usually advanced is that in killing women you are killing the breeders, whereas men can be more easily spared. But this is a fallacy based on the notion that human beings can be bred like animals. The idea behind it is that since one man is capable of fertilizing a very large number of women, just as a prize ram fertilizes thousands of ewes, the loss of male lives is comparatively unimportant. Human beings, however, are not cattle. When the slaughter caused by a war leaves a surplus of women, the enormous majority of those women bear no children. Male lives are very nearly as important, biologically, as female ones.
In the last war the British Empire lost nearly a million men killed, of whom about three quarters came from these islands. Most of them will have been under thirty. If all those young men had had only one child each we should now have an extra 750,000 people round about the age of twenty. France, which lost much more heavily, never recovered from the slaughter of the last war, and it is doubtful whether Britain has fully recovered, either.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
You may find this interesting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-481882/Condemned-virgins-The-million-women-robbed-war.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I first saw that Time magazine cover, I thought of a lyric written by the Protomen:
“But why should we save them / when they stand for nothing? / If they deserve life / LET THEM STAND FOR THEMSELVES!”
If the women of Afghanistan deserve to be free from the vile Taliban oppressors, then let them take up the sword in their own defense. Why should we die for them? Would they die for us?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
What at an awesome article.
@Mr. N Thanks for posting your beautiful quote. I’ll have to share it with my friends.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@tom47 I don’t know how else to say it but character is about intention and results, not just the results alone. The passing on of genes is a result not necessarily an intention. Do you think the bacteria actually “wanted” to spread its genes by dividing? It has no concept of itself let alone any intentions…
Self sacrifice is a choice requiring consciousness. Those men dying weren’t thinking of spreading their genes. This becomes painfully obvious when they die for people unrelated to them, like modern society and war.
I’m still curious as to why they did. I think their bravery comes from the man next to him; the knowledge that he would put himself in harms way for you. I find it to hard to swallow dying for someone who would not die for you (ie. women). I think that the men were just trained and used but that their bravery come from comradery (a love from intense bonding).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Tom47:
“The idea of The Selfish Gene is that the primary purpose of life is to pass down ones own genes and to continue that passing down through the generations. This exceeds even the instinct of self-preservation. The primary purpose of life is to reproduce. Looks are sometime deceiving and it sometimes appears as if behavior is self-sacrificing but in reality it is really a means of insuring that genes continue to pass down through further generations. The sacrifice is worth it if the genes continue. Herd behavior on the part of males is an attempt to protect one’s own gene stock and not the herd as a whole. Herd behavior is only valid if it serves the interest of the individual or his genes; it is not a motive in itself. All individuals are expendable once their reproductive functions are complete; this may or may not include parenting, which is a reproductive strategy in itself.”
Sometimes I wonder how the selfish gene works. According to statistics about 20%-30% of western women have no offspring at all. Many of them do it voluntarily – they prefer career to children. In Germany about 40% of university graduated women have no kids. Developed world fertility rate is usually far below sustainable level. It looks like the selfish gene sucks somehow.
On the other hand there are groups of people who have, and grow up, many kids. But this is based on culture (and it does not matter if they rely on welfare (like gypsies in Europe) or not).
So cultural whatever gene is much more important that the natural one.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
—
Sometimes I wonder how the selfish gene works. According to statistics about 20%-30% of western women have no offspring at all. Many of them do it voluntarily – they prefer career to children. In Germany about 40% of university graduated women have no kids. Developed world fertility rate is usually far below sustainable level. It looks like the selfish gene sucks somehow.
—
No, we just live in a dysgenic cesspool right now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
“But this is based on culture (and it does not matter if they rely on welfare (like gypsies in Europe) or not).”
Sure it does matter with the gipsies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I suspect that the taboo on lesbian sex was created by dominant males and their female allies because, deep down, so many women preferred female bodies, companionship and sexual skills. But men need women in ways that women simply don’t need men.
I’d love to see this person explain why all sex that is not one woman, one man hetero has been considered taboo for so long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As far as feminists promoting everyone to be attracted to women and lesbianism… Picking the wrong mate is more costly to women because of their reproductive system and from an evolutionary perspective picking another woman is the wrong person. Men on the other hand can bang a less than ideal chick, an ideal chick, and a man with much less cost.
So from an evolutionary perspective I would expect to see more bisexual and homosexual men -tom47 can back me up : ) especially when you add in the fact that men went hunting in male only groups and needed comradery. I think its actually women who are threatened by men acting sexual with men and just male bonding in general. Yet is men who have had to deal with the lesbianism is cool crap…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Sure it does matter with the gipsies.”
But they had many kids even when there was almost no welfare. European women had more babies too but they do not have now and gypsies have (what I can see).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
B
100 years ago almost every family had 5+ children. let’s say family and so called “patriarchy” worked. Now welfare is still a motivation for the gipsies (to have many children), but not for the others.
In my country gipsies live often unemployed, uneducated, changing little- once beautiful- villages into favellas…. of course not all of them, but many.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Some peole were writing here about US big city black ghettoes as matriarchy.
There are similarities between those blacks and eastern european gipsies. Most of the men was minimum once in prison, or is in prison. Lot of families live from the welfare and child custody only, what is from our tax of course…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I’m not so sure – the development of a reliable source of birth control is only 50 years old. The birth control pill and widespread abortion has allowed for the divorce of reproductive drive from sex drive. For most of human history this simply wasn’t the case – there was always a good chance any act of intercourse could get you pregnant.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Yeah, I read that article. He seems to be saying that women have turned to other women for sexual pleasure since the taboos on lesbianism have fallen away—and he cites the huge growth of sex industry as evidence that many men are going without sex due to exploding rates of lesbianism (which I have yet to observe). The far more likely explanation of ‘female hypergamy’ has, apparently, never occurred to the man.
Incredible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When you the cry “it’s for the women and children” put your hand on your wallet and back against the wall, you are about to be robbed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Some peole were writing here about US big city black ghettoes as matriarchy.
There are similarities between those blacks and eastern european gipsies. Most of the men was minimum once in prison, or is in prison. Lot of families live from the welfare and child custody only, what is from our tax of course…”
I have no information that gypsies would practice a “single mothership” but I might be wrong. The original point was that culture influences number of kids rather than an economic/career success and possibility (and gypsies were only a (maybe) welfare example). There are for example many christians who have many kids too, and raise them wery well.
“I’m not so sure – the development of a reliable source of birth control is only 50 years old. The birth control pill and widespread abortion has allowed for the divorce of reproductive drive from sex drive. For most of human history this simply wasn’t the case – there was always a good chance any act of intercourse could get you pregnant.”
Even in ancient Egypt there were some kinds of contraception. The selfish gene, obviously, does not lead to more kids in many cases.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know, me was thinking, the societies that “oppress” women-Chinese,Indians,Arabs(all Asianss?) are also the societies with booming birth rates. While liberalized, feminized Europe ,USA,Canada have declining birth rates. So, can a society only survive by following “oppressive male patriarchal system”(or whatever label feminists love to slap on us Asians?)
Cause if that’s true…..RIP Western Nations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To the writer, while I agree with the reality, I don’t agree with the post. Because it asserts no biologically emphases. There is a biological reason as to why men are more willing to sacrifice for women and children. Not some social construct (which you can’t prove the existence of).
@tom47
“Anyone who believes that evolution works for the benefit of the species should read Richard Dawkins “The Self Gene”. The focus of all evolution is the individual. It’s the individual who reproduces or not, the group or species is an abstract not an entity; it has no genes to pass on. The idea that men are more expendable than women is a social construct; it has no basis in biology. The purpose of all behavior is reproductive: once we’ve passed on our genes everyone is expendable, men and women. It may take less men than women to carry on the species but the driving force of evolution is to pass on ones own genes not that of “the species” or “the race” Altruism exists as a means of preserving our own genes and to insure their continuation in future generations. Except for kin relations there is no reason to defend others. Not my genes, not my fight.”
You have no clue what your talking about. I suggest you start by actually taking some classes. Group dynamics has everything to do with survival and reproduction.
Societies where men were more expendable and women were not survived more which is why until recently (which can be argued) men have always died. It takes 1 man to reproduce with 10 women and continue the group vs 1 women for 10 men. Taking this into consideration if we had two societies both which went to war the side which losses less women more more likely to survive.
Women roles in societies is for actual reproduction. Her entire reproductive system revolves around that. Men are designed to spread their seed. Men being physically stronger hunted more and through hunting and warfare provided and protected women. Women while in pregnancy, labor, and child rearing, had an incentive to keep a man around; particularly a strong one who could hunt and protect (and needed die) for the woman and young.
Your assertion that after we reproduced mother and father are done is retarded. The young still need the parents to survive. Ensuring the survival of your children best occurs in a group (family, etc). Passing on ones on genes while is individual has collective genes from your race and species within your DNA.
Believe me when your in a tribe and some enemy attacks a member of your tribe, the whole group goes to war on that bases of survival (from a Darwinist standpoint; especially a Social Darwinist). Choose any part in History.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Well judging form your crude understanding of History in that “Christianity is the reason as to why men are expendable,” then god help us.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
{ 2 trackbacks }