Violence and “Real Men”

by Davd on September 24, 2011

Two Lessons from Human Evolution

By Davd Martin

Human nature formed in hunting and gathering societies, where all adults were producers. Men hunted (e.g Harris, 1989: 278-281), and mostly they hunted co-operatively. Women gathered—foraged roots, berries, and sometimes other edible or useful parts of the natural environment. Most of what they gathered were plants or parts of plants.

Human evolution shifted from being primarily biological to being primarily cultural “at some point during the last 100,000 years, and perhaps only within the last 40,000 years” (Lenski, Lenski and Nolan, 1991: 92) while big-game hunting as men’s work and gathering as primarily women’s work began much earlier (ibid.: 89-90). Hunting shaped men’s nature, and gathering shaped women’s*.

Hunting is inherently violent. Those neat styrofoam trays of meat in the supermarket contain cut-up portions of the dead bodies of animals. A few days ago i spent 3-4 hours turning 47 recently killed mackerel into stored meat; i have killed and butchered fish and game many times, and farm animals a few times. As the meat providers in prehistoric human societies, men used violence to feed their communities. Real men are violent—but disciplined and restrained in our use of violence. Lack of discipline can cause injury, and it can cause tainted meat.

Undisciplined men don’t have the reproductive—the evolutionary—fitness of disciplined men. Men who resort to undisciplined violence have lost some of their humanity. They are not “real men” in the full sense. For anyone, and especially for a Feminist purporting to be expert, to describe a violent rampage as typical of man-nature, is—if not a malicious lie or a self-deception—ignorant to the point of folly.

Real men are co-operative. During the thousands of centuries when humanity evolved, there were no rifles, no shotguns, no compound bows or fiberglass arrows. Our earliest ancestors [and here i refer to the first Homo sapiens, as well as Australopithecus and H. erectus] didn’t even have crude longbows. Clubs, spears, maybe slings were the weapons available, and with those weapons, teams of our ancestors killed elephants!—as well as aurochs, bison, caribou, elk, moose, pigs [which can be both large and deadly], and zebra. Even elk and zebra are too large for one man, armed only with spears, clubs and stone knives, to reliably kill alone.

During those hundreds of millennia of human genetic evolution, human nature was formed. Men [and male pre-humans] needed co-operation, discipline, and restraint to provide high-protein, immensely valued food using tools and weapons we would find incredibly crude. Men would not be on Earth today if we did not have co-operation, and discipline including restraint, bred into us.**

* During these hundreds of centuries, perhaps millions of years of evolution, women seldom if ever hunted big game. The co-operation, discipline, and restraint that was bred into men could possibly have their main loci “on the Y chromosome”, such that women are less co-operative, less disciplined, less restrained by nature, not merely for cultural reasons associated with civilization. “Charles Martel” (on The-Spearhead, January 2010) summarized neurological research indicating major differences between men’s and women’s brain anatomy: It is virtually certain that important gender differences in personality are “inborn” rather than learned. Whether men’s co-operation, discipline, and restraint are genetically based in brain features that differ from women “is not [to my knowledge] yet established”. We should keep in mind that they very plausibly might be.)

** If there were instead, some species of big-brained ape that lacked co-operation, discipline, and restraint, it would not be human as we know humanity.

References:

Harris, Marvin, 1989. Our Kind. NY: Harper and Row.
Lenski, Gerhard, Jean Lenski, and Patrick Nolan, 1991. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
“Martel, Charles”, 2010. “Is There a Female Brain?” The-Spearhead website, January 3.

{ 79 comments… read them below or add one }

criolle johnny September 24, 2011 at 05:45
Pirran September 24, 2011 at 06:02

I broadly agree with this, but with my age-old anthropological hat on here, it’s worth pointing out that men were gatherers as well through the lean times. During periods of drought and disease, they would primarily become scavengers too.

It might be more accurate (might because so much of our anthropological evidence for early man is based on analogous studies of the few remaining hunter gatherer tribes still left in the 20th century) to describe women AND children as gatherers. Boys would learn these skills from an early age before learning how to hunt as “men” (usually puberty or slightly earlier). Therefore they could turn their hand to a range of skills to utilize according to the immediate environmental necessity.

Whether men learned co-operation from their earliest years as gatherers or later as hunters is perhaps moot. Both were required to survive and, unlike women, they could turn their hand to either. Of course, so much of this is conjecture. “Modern”, mainly African hunter-gatherers might have more clearly delineated roles between men and women, but it’s a long shot to say that’s how it was in Europe 200,000 years ago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Umslopogaas September 24, 2011 at 06:48

Indeed and through domestication of man and the destruction of masculinity feminists will thus have successfully removed the driving force of progress and prosperity.

Feminism is worse than Islam, worse than the inquisition and plague all put together. It is a suicidal sect based on hate and (biological) envy of men by women (“if we can’t have it why should they…?”).

So once society as we know it comes crashing down will women be able to link cause and effect? Will they be able to see their own role in the demise of the West? Of course not. They are too feeblebrained and weakspirited to accept responsibility and blame.

Thus they will – even after calamity – attempt to wriggle out and again blame men for their woes.

And, brothers, we must not let them get away with it this time! All men must know of woman’s nature. We cannot naively fall for a second age of chivalry after the present Fem-Nazi era crumbles…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 24, 2011 at 07:00

OT.
Women are just getting sicker and sicker.

My mum wanted a girl too…I was the third of three boys. And she told me as an adult that she was disappointed to get a third boy as she wanted a girl. But I don’t recall her saying ANYTHING along those lines until after I was 18.

When I brought the grand daughter home? My did she spoil THAT one. As is her right and privilege as a grand mother.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2041196/What-I-boy-Mother-breaks-social-taboo-admitting-disappointment-having-baby-girl.html

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11
Smh September 24, 2011 at 07:09

Off Topic,

Did you see Bill Maher last night? Once again a feminist came onto his show and criticized him for calling a woman “dumb” (in this case he was referring to a FOX news anchor). Nevermind the fact that Maher is obviously a feminist himself.

Maher: “I didn’t say she is dumb because she is a woman. Dumb is dumb. I always call George W. Bush an idiot and no one says I do it because he has a penis”

This comment completely shut the bitch up. This is one of many examples of feminists pissing off one of their allies. Eventually neither the left nor the right will want to deal with them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Michael September 24, 2011 at 07:30

If you are going to use violence, be prepared to die. That is the only rule.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 24, 2011 at 07:40

In the chapter of the book called “How are Men Enslaved?” I go into the hypothetical case of a small tribe that has managed to find a good cave and managed to get a fire going in the cave. Such a situation would have been a MASSIVE advance on not having a cave to live in and not having a fire permanently available in the colder climes.

Meat, being VASTLY more beneficial for supporting life than vegetables, was a HIGHLY prized thing. This is obvious from ancient cave paintings which depict men killing animals to eat them. And they did it with pointed sticks. Even cave men knew meat was good for them. Do I need to point out most vegetarians are women?

If any man spends more than a few minutes considering what was necessary to kill a woolly mammoth with pointed sticks he will come to these conclusions.

1. Co-operation.
2. Bound to do your job on pain of death. If one man falters from his assigned task then ALL the men might be in mortal danger.
3. Silence. Talking might just get you trampled or eaten.
4. Patience of a saint. It must have taken days some times to track down an animal.
5. Courage. Have YOU ever gone up against a woolly mammoth with a pointed stick?
6. Strength.
7. Cool under pressure. The ability to strike powerfully and with precision even when your life is threatened.

In these days men were very violent indeed. Indeed, even as recently as before the invention of the telephone when there was a “bump in the night” the MAN was OBLIGED to see what it was. Should it be a dangerous animal or a thief the man was EXPECTED TO BE VIOLENT.

Hell. Even if a woman spots a spider or a mouse the woman EXPECTS THE MAN TO BE VIOLENT and so does the rest of society. How many spiders, snakes, rats, mice and OTHER vermin do women kill as a percentage? I’m pretty sure that percentage is about the same percentage of flat tires changed by women, right? Nowhere near 51%.

And for those of you who played team sports like our Australian Rules Football. When I was a kid these games were EXTREMELY VIOLENT and I LOVED IT. Crashing into each other, testing each other, sorting out the pecking order. These are things us men THRIVE ON. I LOVED being violent and testing myself against another man to see how we both stack up. I was not good enough to make the state teams when I was a lad so I ran up against quite a few kids who were better than me and more violent than me and that was fine. They bested me on the field of combat and EARNED MY RESPECT.

I recall one time I was 14 and my opponent for the day was the state full forward. He was the best in the state and everyone knew it. Well that day I had a good day and beat him good and proper. We walked off arms around each other and he acknowledged he was beaten on the day.

Mutual respect earned between boys and men is one of the most magnificent gifts our creator has given us. Today western boys and men barely know what respect is let alone how to earn it. Look how disrespected I am even in THIS place. Boys and men alike dis-respect those who have BY FAR demonstrated that they are better as some thing or other with the womens call of “we are all equal”.

“Non-violence” is for women and men who are morons. And let’s not forget the FIRST thing a woman does is “call the cops” or “call the boyfriend” which is “violence by proxy”. Men who criticise me for saying I am prepared to defend my claimed rights with violence and force need to also criticise every soldier who ever went to war to balance that criticism because in a war we are.

My hero Norman Scarth was accused of being “violent”. LOL! He JOINED THE ROYAL NAVZ FOR CHRISTS SAKE. As he points out.

“We had torpedos, depth chargers, cannons and machine guns. We used them two. I helped send more than 1,000 brave men to their death on the scarnhorp. I am as violent a man as they come. Do you have a problem with that?”

How many men here have got the guts of Norman Scarth? None that I know of. Please let me know if you do.

“Equality?” Bullshit.

REAL MEN do not strive for “equality”. Real men strive to be the best they can be in their chosen area. Equality is for women and men who are morons.

“Average”? When I first started work at IBM I found a sign in a nick nack shop that I hung up on my workstation.

“To be average scares the hell out of me”.

This is something I live by. Why would I want to be average about anything I do? Why would I not want to do the best at everything I do?

I was talking to an Indian woman I was working with who quite strongly agrees with my position on western women by the way.

I asked her to imagine for a minute 20 men going out with nothing but pointed sticks to go and kill a woolly mammoth. Imagine what they would be thinking, imagine how they would be planning, imagine how they would be interacting knowing that one of them might be dead before nightfall.

I than said “now imagine 20 WOMEN going out to kill a woolly mammoth”. She immediately burst out laughing. She said “Peter, I can not imagine that even in my wildest dreams.” Sensible woman.

Men are violent. Get over it. Those of us who ARE violent and LOVE the combative nature of violent confrontation? Who is anyone else to tell us we can’t do that?
And now I am a bit older and it is not such a good idea to be directly violent on a football field? I enjoy competing with other men in less physically demanding, but no less mentally demanding ways.

Men who see my posts and call them “confrontational” or “abusive” have never run into a stiff arm or been coat hangered on a football field. They never had someone kick them in the knee to get them off the field or smack them in the mouth and burst their lip. THAT is what confrontational looks like. Not words on a page.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 11
Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 24, 2011 at 07:41

This is what “confrontational” looks like where I come from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v8V1_xVSd8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9
Anonymous September 24, 2011 at 07:50

This essay holds as long as only one tribe exists, as long as there is no privation, as long as there are not too many infants and elderly to feed, as long as there are no disabled, and as long as there is no covetousness or rage or confussion. Otherwise, sure.

The men who keep their violence in check become the slaves or food of the men who do not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
Migu September 24, 2011 at 07:54

The men who keep their violence in check become the slaves or food of the men who do not.

No, men who keep their violence in check surprise a man full of rage with his own demise.

The operative phrase is keep in check.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
keyster September 24, 2011 at 08:04

In other words the men would go to WORK each day, use their cunning, strength, team work and patience to compete with and/or kill other predators, risking their lives each time they did so…while the women would SHOP.

The more things change…

Do you suppose when he returned from a hard day on the plains empty handed, she’d nag him about what a hopeless loser he was? Probably.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 2
greyghost September 24, 2011 at 08:13

The ability to do great violence is a very good skill for a man to have. And the skill involves mental , physical and psychological ability. Women instinctively are atrracted to that. Children seem to gravitate towards a large powerful man. This is a video that somewhat ties in. What is really interesting it is comepletely out of the context we are speaking in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRcp4Z76jUM

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Eric J September 24, 2011 at 08:14

Slightly OT, but I had to post:
Two days ago a (happily married) woman, whom with I work out at the gym with, commented how she would like to hike the Appalachian Trail but wants a MAN with her to protect her. The sheer GALL of these women who think we Men are there to be their unpaid bodyguards! I merely told her flatly and civilly “You don’t need a man to protect you.” and left it like that.
She did not answer that, but I was ready with my favorate quote from Susan B. Anthony.
Violence by men is cried against, unless these modern women need it for themselves. I happily don’t take sides in such situations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 2
MWPeak September 24, 2011 at 08:56

I see two extremes today in terms of men and violence.

On one extreme is the undisciplined violence that is used by terrorists, abusers and men who seem incapable of dealing with life. On the other extreme is a complete lack of violence by pacifist men.

The connect is the influence of empowered women, either provoking men into violence or teaching them to be ashamed of all violence, and everything effected by destroying the stabilizing influence of fatherhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader September 24, 2011 at 09:11

Just yesterday I saw a car covered with bumper stickers that I didn’t bother to read, but one caught my eye:

“Real Men Don’t Use Violence”.

Except, of course, when some woman dials 911 and wants a problem solved. Then there better be real men, with guns, ready to use violence right now.

Then I thought of various extermination camps over the last 100 years, in various part of the world, and how from some there were survivors, and from others there were few or no survivors. The difference being that some camps were liberated, by real men, using controlled violence, while others were not liberated by anyone.

Real men use violence, when appropriate, and they use it with authority.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
mananon September 24, 2011 at 09:13

“The connect is the influence of empowered women”.

MWPeak

Bingo. And that is the nub. Since the only acceptable type of violence is that propogated by or sanctioned by women. Male violence without the approval of women is stamped out by authority, while when women incite violence in men or are violent themselves authority turns a blind eye.

Violence that harms or threatens women we label barbarity. That which benefits or helps women we label chivalry, or empowerment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
greyghost September 24, 2011 at 09:38

MWPeak
What you have discribed is what the term real is all about. When where and how to use violence needs to be detatched from the whims of a woman and needs to be based on principles of right and wrong. Women are basiclly bullies by nature and the feral women we have today are no source to be relied on to determine when violence is neccesary. (remember the article Welmer posted up with those idiots shooting up a city bus after some skank got her feelings hurt by somebody saying something about her beating her kid on the same bus.) Bully the kid and bully the bus “I am a strong woman you can’t talk to me like that.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Joe Zamboni September 24, 2011 at 10:04

Men have great potential physical power, the capacity to use violence or not, as well as the discretion to use violence where appropriate or not. This is what revolutions have been made out of. Everything can change when men are organized for a certain cause. This is a very important topic.

The key seems to be who is calling the shots, who is directing the organized male violence. MRAs need to shift men’s loyalty, need to shift who men work for. Will men use their violence in the service of unjust laws that favor women (for example police enforcing mandatory arrest rules against a man, when he is the victim of DV)? Will men use their violence in service of goals that favor corporations, whose benefits they will never see (for example soldiers who invade another country for its oil)? Will men use their violence in service of a revolution to establish a new and more free society (for example the American revolution)?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Vortac September 24, 2011 at 10:24

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 25
Rebel September 24, 2011 at 10:44

Men are violent?

Consider this:
1-Wild animals are violent
2-Fishes are violent (bigger eats smaller)
3-Insects are violent (ants..)
4-Plants are violent (tallest trees get all the light)

Anything that lives is violent. The living can only eat the living. (can’t eat rocks)

Absolute non-violence is found in minerals and rocks only.
(Sometimes, observing lava flow, I wonder…)
And what is a “real man”?

Am I a “false man”?

Our ancestors (10ky+) were ancestors: we have little left in common with them.

Basically, life is about dying. No dying, no life.
Want to eliminate violence? Kill all that lives.
Have to use violence to achieve that.

What about the “Big Bang”: wasn’t that violence?

The truth is:

Everything that lives kills.

That’s life!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Firepower September 24, 2011 at 10:54

David Martin

Real men are violent—but disciplined and restrained in our USE* of violence.

*[CAPS Mine]

THIS is why today’s millenial jared/jeremy Jeneration fails in it’s “interpretation” of GoW PlayStation violence vis a vis real violence.

Even ROME at it’s bloodiest did not use excessive violence relative to its established, centuries-old Roman culture.

(millennial brandons – look up “relative” …do NOT use TUD)

And, to ALL you tofu-sucking naysayers disagreeing with Martin’s premise

ANSWER THIS: why the hell are males such wimpy failures today compared to neo-lithic men – even the berry-picking kind?

You have no answer.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16
Rocco September 24, 2011 at 11:04

One of the greatest tricks of feminism was conflating maleness with violent tendencies.

We all know women are crueler than men and more violent even in relationships.

There is nothing violent about males and nothing male about violence.

Look at Ghaddafi, for every day violence, think police state, he used women. They did fine, one 19 year old (hottie) executed 11 rebels, I’m sure her superiour officer was very proud.

But for larger scale violence like war, they folded, although this was a mini-WW, they didn’t have a chance.

But can violence be an effective tool for change? Sure.

Can mass imprisonment be an effective tool for change? Sure.

To me, the bigger and more intersting question is, how will men in the MRM deal with the global nature of political structures emerging.

Hitlary went from meetings and proclamations to stumping to facebook friend all the women in the world.

We have the advantage that men are motivated to come to us, how could we start capturing followers in social networking?

The faux violence in the UK was organized with facebook.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
freebird September 24, 2011 at 11:11

Women are just as violent as men, but not in a physical way unless their victim is as weak as a child.

They tend to commit verbal violence and emotional terrorism to manipulate men into using physical violence, be it relational violence or state sanctioned blue gun thuggery, for and by the women!

VAWA is the most violence producing law I know of!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
keyster September 24, 2011 at 11:24

“ANSWER THIS: why the hell are males such wimpy failures today compared to neo-lithic men – even the berry-picking kind?”

Because they’ve been conditioned (and rewarded) for being weak or more feminine, and chastised and ridiculed for being strong or more masculine.

If women are to achive equality they must first villianize masculine behavior in men, while celebrating it in women. If women will not rise on their own, men must be forced down a peg through social programming via feminist propagandists.

We once exhalted women as mothers and opportunies for sexual pleasure. Now we exhalt them as tough, aggressive and dominant figures.

We’ve gifted women with a detachable penis they wear during the day, and remove when they get home from the office.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
nuff said September 24, 2011 at 11:38

A real man keeps a bitch in check

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 24, 2011 at 11:41
Rebel September 24, 2011 at 11:42

“Look at Ghaddafi, for every day violence, ”

I agree that Ghadafi is a monument to violence now that he disallows the robbery of his country. The motherfucker resists the looting of Lybia: he deserves to die. He’s a total disgrace! An extremely violent man he is.

Why didn’t we nuke him out of sheer love?

At least, we are going to shove freedom and democracy down their throats, even if we must kill them all. That’ll teach them.

We want peace, harmony and free petrol.
I’m all in favor of petrol’s freedom!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 24, 2011 at 11:52

keyster September 24, 2011 at 11:24
” Because they’ve been conditioned (and rewarded) for being weak or more feminine, and chastised and ridiculed for being strong or more masculine.”

Yep….look how many men here ridicule me based on no evidence at all. Indeed DESPITE the vast array of evidence I have presented to the public.

Being a REAL MAN is HATED ON by OTHER MEN because they are shown up to be such whimps.

Men do NOT like to be exposed as whimps by comparisons to other men who make them look so.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 12
Robert September 24, 2011 at 11:52

Women, back in that day and age, committied violence against innocent plants, seeds and other helpless/defensless objects. One sustained life. The other had life and the potential to spread life. Can any feminist deny this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Rocco September 24, 2011 at 11:53

@ Rebel

You smart ass, are you stumping for MRA backing for Libyian Oil like “Moral Oil” from Canada?

MRA: Fathers right are fathers duties, powered by Liberation Oil from New Libya.

The Saudi prince asked Canada to stop, they take this stuff seriously.

http://www.ethicaloil.org/news/saudi-arabia-moves-to-censor-canadian-tv-ad/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Robert September 24, 2011 at 11:54

Can feminists’ agree/accept such women were parasites on the enviroment?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Robert September 24, 2011 at 11:56

Yet they labelled men as the only agressors in the world!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Robert September 24, 2011 at 12:01

Feminists, and your ilk, do not try to hide your asses from the truth! Your real sacks of shit are being weighed. Accept the “equal” price you have demanded!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Robert September 24, 2011 at 12:02

By your demands; you gave your full consent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Robert September 24, 2011 at 12:07

Your word’s, deed’s attitude’s et al, speak for you. You do NOT get ba do over.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Jack Donovan September 24, 2011 at 12:09

I’ll be interested to see what your response is to my book, which is basically an elaboration on a similar point. Men have always been cooperative hunters and fighters. It is the loner that is the anomaly. In groups of men, there were always hierarchies, and thriving within a hierarchy itself requires restraint. It is also worth noting that these groups of men, in most cases, conspired to raid other tribes of men, and at the very least had to maintain a tactical mindset to avoid the violence of neighboring groups of men.

Darwin himself is also highly quotable on the possibility of our cooperative hunting nature influencing some of our nobler tendencies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Robert September 24, 2011 at 12:14

Fact; women have the propensity to commit violence and violents crime(s).

Violence is part of human nature and human survival. In doubt? Ask the thugs who work on your behalf. They are your servants to obey your every command/order. Who are they? Step away from the government forest and see the trees with political titles, badges/guns, etc. They, at any point in their careers, use violence to white knight/protect, enforce your “will”/feelings/demands, et al.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Mike43 September 24, 2011 at 12:16

You do know what the Native Americans called lousy hunters?

Vegetarians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Robert September 24, 2011 at 12:18

Robert September 24, 2011 at 11:54
Can feminists’ agree/accept such women were parasites on the enviroment?

Whomever didn’t like what I said, answer me this; Do you not require air, water and food? These are present on this planet. Them, you do need. They sustain your life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
Firepower September 24, 2011 at 12:22

Mike43

You do know what the Native Americans called lousy hunters?

Emaciated

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Rocco September 24, 2011 at 12:34

OT

When I was involved in political manuevering in the past the pro’s called me a plumber, I hook up the pipes of influence to each other to get stuff flowing.

Where have the hard core feminist gone to publicly indoctinate young women on the web? I have been having a hard time finding them.

The traditionally feminist sites like Salon and Huff Po have increasingly vocal liberal men questioning Femiarchy.

I found one place, deep inside a womans fashion spread, the comments from men and woman are the same old ones we would have seen 10 years ago.

The topic is, why doesn’t Ginsberg and others self identify as feminists. When a feminist states it’s the male hating, the others shout her down, saying that that’s what Rush Limbaugh is lying to her about.

IMO she says ” I don’t call myself one” means she’s lying, she’s a feminist, and like her, the first MRA on the Supreme Court will likely hide this fact.

Elmer, if you want to reach the real feminist you need to post at “The Gloss” (I think I just threw up alittle in my mouth, at least it’s not pink and purple).

http://thegloss.com/culture/celebrities-who-want-you-to-know-they-arent-feminists-396/gallery-page/1/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
CorkyAgain September 24, 2011 at 12:47

You do know what the Native Americans called lousy hunters?

Paleface?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
DCM September 24, 2011 at 13:03

“Michael September 24, 2011 at 07:30

If you are going to use violence, be prepared to die. That is the only rule.”

And if you aren’t going to use it. Don’t forget that aspect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Troll King September 24, 2011 at 13:24

Nice essay but I think this simplifies it a bit too much.

1. We do know that there were Pre-American tribes where women hunted. The difference is in how they hunted v. how men hunted. I think this also explains what I think is incorrect about your characterization of women, but I will get to that in point two.

We know that when women hunted they mostly hunted with the entire or most of the tribe. Now, we don’t know how many elderly and children were in these tribes at any given time, but there are many different models, so we don’t know if it was 30% of the able bodied(including women) or 70%.

Also, need to point out that the model might change depending on the environment(long hunting season, fishing v. hunting, type of animal, hoe many hostile tribes around), the structure of the tribe(fixed location or nomad or some of both) and many other factors.

I do know that my anthropology professors have done research into the killing methods of pre-American native tribes and one popular method for the medium to larger scale tribes was to herd as many bison or deer or whatever off of the largest cliff. As dozens and dozens would fall to their death or get crippled the would use stones and long spears to kill the ones who didn’t die.

It is likely that women played a big part in the chasing of these animals while the men used rocks and spears and other women used long spears.

If you think about it, this would be more efficient if you need to feed several hundred or several thousand people. Herd 50 or 80 animals off a cliff with dozens chasing them and dozens waiting to spear and stone them and then put together a collaborative effort to haul the meat back. I actually learned about this when writing a essay on the history of dogs. Dogs were apparently used as pack animals and herding animals during this process. Get the dogs to help chase the animals off a cliff and then create a small sled and have them help drag the meat back. Anyways, this was a lot more efficient than sending out teams of 15 or so men to bring back two or three animals. This way they could feed much more people.

Also, women did hunt smaller game. That isn’t even getting into tribes where they had 4 or five gender roles and a orphaned girl or a girl whose mother dies would take on the boy role and learn to hunt. But, those tribes were typically very small and that is why they created a girl who hunts role and a boy who does girl work role because each family was a separate unit and work needed to be done.

2. I tend to agree that men learned or evolved the ability to cooperate within a group from hunting but I am not sure if I agree that women are less cooperative. I think we are somewhat inversed from each other.

Women seem to be able to cooperate in large groups but not in small groups.

Men seem to be able to cooperate in small groups but not large groups.

Now small and large are somewhat subjective here, but just look around. It is easy to say that men can cooperate in large groups, look at the military. But then look at how many militaries there are. Look at how far feminism has spread from country to country. Feminism is basically any sort of benefit for women and women world wide sync up when it is to their benefit. Men do to but not to the same degree.

At the same time, look at all the cliques and cattiness of women in small groups. Whether you want to look at a office as a small group or a state, women tend to be against each other more than men.

Baumeister put it a better way in his essay, “Is there anything good about men.” He described women as forming much tighter relationships over smaller networks and men much looser relationships over much larger networks. I think that works out for some things, depending on the relationship but not for others. If we are talking about a corporation then I think baumeister is correct. If we are talking about family structures and tribes and survival or politics/nationstates, then I think he has it backwards.

But good article. Nice to see non-internet references.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Rocco September 24, 2011 at 13:31

@ Troll King

Your professors don’t know how women did or didn’t hunt, that info is long gone. But there is alot of pressure on them to say women did hunt by the women studies department.

They would like us to not notice that men are bigger than women, only the police are supposed to notice when they call them to arrest us.

When did your professors say women’s penises shrank to the economical size it is today?

/s

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Rocco September 24, 2011 at 13:37

OT

I have to get out more, apparently to the younger generation of feminists withholding blowjobs is considered emotional abuse.

“I don’t think there are any winners in these situations; the women who’ve made the threats are no better than the second boyfriend who called his girlfriend on her bluff. Either way, it is manipulative and could be categorized as emotional abuse. (Although, in context, I don’t think these situations count as abuse, including my own.) I actually have to credit the second boyfriend in this situation for proving that he couldn’t be controlled through sex and turning that stereotype about men (no sex will kill them!) on its head.”

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-on-withholding-sex-as-punishment/

Win: MRM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Ted September 24, 2011 at 14:26

@nuff said September 24, 2011 at 11:38

“A real man keeps a bitch in check”

That’s the way she wants it, too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
doclove September 24, 2011 at 15:42

I agree that men who are disciplined and violent are the best ones and society needs them. Unfortuneately, our society supports the bullies who are men who are undisciplined and violent. Take a look at the case of Jaimie Ersland, a retired disabled U.S. Air Force Veteran, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA over the course of the summer. Some criminals entered his drug store with ski masks on and one of them had a loaded gun. He went to the back and shot at them. The one with the gun fled the scene. The other one was hit and downed. Jaimie Ersland returned and fired more shots into the downed criminal saying,” I thought the criminal had a gun still on him so I killed him.” The dead criminals mother cried saying how good her boy was and how he was trying to turn his life around despite his criminal record. Possible race riots may have ensued because Jaimie Ersland is a White man and the dead criminal was a dead Black teenager. So the Court convicted Jaimie Ersland of unjustly killing the teenage thug. Jaimie Ersland called it a travesty of justice. I don’t care what race the perpetrator was because as far as I’m concerned he deserved to die and his gun wielding teenage boy accomplice deserved die with him. I agreed with Jaimie Ersland. My faith in my country lessened. Any veteran even an officer paper pushing Air Force veteran who never went to war like Jaimie Ersland is more dangerous to threaten than anyone else because he is more likely to kill you in response to your deadly threat. As an Army Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m disgusted by what they did to my own, and I would have said the same if Jaimie Ersland was Black and the teenage lads and their mothers were White.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Hayden Hanna September 24, 2011 at 15:43

I have a personal example relating to this article that I suspect most of the men here could repeat. I once managed an office with only female employees. One day one of the women came to me and showed me a video on her phone. The video showed a gazelle or antelope runnig full speed into a tree and falling unconscious beside a group of lions that were resting on the other side of the tree.

When the video ended, I automatically commented on how lucky those lions were that their meal fell at their feet that day rather than being earned. She looked at me in surprise and said that was odd. She had shown the video around the office, and all the women had commented on the poor antelope. My analysis is that most women think like prey and
are used to somebody else providing for them. Most men don’t enjoy that luxury.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
doclove September 24, 2011 at 15:46

Adding to my above post, this is why I think bullies and criminals who threaten or have harmed life limb and property aren’t truly human; and this is why I have no respect for them as human beings and noone else should either. The sooner they are imprisoned pummelled and killed, the better. Oh well, watch our civilzation collapse because our ruling elite thinks it’s mastabatory fun to watch these predators prey on us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
fmz September 24, 2011 at 16:37

Men used to go on long hunts lasting weeks. Its highly unlikely they didnt gather along the way( plants, seeds), taking advantage of distance. Similarly, women often hunted the smaller game, particularly when men were absent on long hunts. Further, coastal dwellers likely hunted what the see provided, irrespective of sex.

nb. What’s with the ‘real man’ narrative.

Men also invented agriculture, which is as far from hunting as one can get. And why does hunting have to be ‘violent.’ Catch, slaughter, butchering, preparation can all be mechanical in nature.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Davd September 24, 2011 at 16:41

@Keyster

you wrote,
In other words the men would go to WORK each day, use their cunning, strength, team work and patience to compete with and/or kill other predators, risking their lives each time they did so…while the women would SHOP.
.. plus ca change…

You noticed it too, eh? Shopping seems to me, too, to be how 20th Century greed exploited women’s inbred dispositions.

Let’s give the gatherers a little credit, though — they had to pick the berries, know the ‘shrooms, dig up the roots, and clean and pare quite a bit of their haul. And at least in Native North America, they did mini-hunting, especially with snares.

… and if they had any cosmetics or decadent desserts, they had to make them back in the cave… their prehistoric precursor to shopping produced only what grew naturally.

@ more-than-one:

It is not violence alone, but power, grace, and skill [combined = competence], imho, to which people in general are drawn with due admiration. The admiration manifests itself differently in different folks, and age and gender affect how .. [duuuuhh].

Extreme competence of any kind is extremely impressive, me-thinks. In her autobiography, [¿Shelly Winters?] wrote that Marilyn Monroe [nee Norma Jean Baker] made a pass at Albert Einstein and Einstein caught it–that MM had an autographed picture of the Great Physicist with a note whose exact words i don’t remember but whose meaning was “that was fun!!”… and it was one of her favourite mementos.

@ mwpeak
I agree the extremes you “see”, exist. So do midgets and freakily tall, fat &c people in circus sideshows. We should gently pity them and seek ways they can contribute.

As for women getting to set the terms of how men use violence, if you look at Charles Martel’s early-2010 post that i cited (and i wish i had easy access to the sources he used!) you’ll see that mostly-gathering has apparently produced a different brain structure than mostly-hunting. Quite plausibly, most women are not competent to make that kind of decisions.

And as for chivalry [chevalrie, where cheval=horse], it belonged in Rome and the Middle Ages, to the “equestrian class”–the Ruling Class. Anyone without a title of nobility who professes chivalry is pretentious at best. (Aren’t titles of nobility prohibited by the United States Constitution??)

I also see violence used sensibly by farmers and other rural men, from Farmer Stan who slaughters his own cattle to those who were out on the 3-day New Brunswick moose hunt this week. (I did not get a permit; less than 1/5 do.)

@ rebel:

Plants violent?–me-thinks that’s a stretch! Strangler figs, maybe. Competition need not be violent–and we should keep our expression clear! Plants competing for sunlight [imho] more resemble women competing for roots and berries than wolves or men killing moose.

re “vegetarian”:
That two-liner went around our Metis Association out West, too; but like this: North American Native languages don’t have a word for “vegetarian”; so the obvious way to refer to it was–
–Lousy Hunter.

Generally–it’s been fun reading the comments. Now let’s take that co-operation and put it to work for each other’s benefit, and for the boys who’ve missed out on fathering, whether for reasons of Feminism or untimely death.

Jesus and Muhammad both said, in the Creator’s name, that we are all brothers.

Davd

btw, Corky .. is your surname Evans? If so, i bought one of your campaign T-shirts after Dosangh stole the Leadership from you. I could not ‘properly’ buy it before the vote because i was in the Press Gallery. It is a valued souvenir, along with one from Canada’s first university professors’ strike… and a copy of Djilas’ _The New Class_.

My face may or may not be pale, my posterior is — comme la derriere de Riel lui-meme.

CorkyAgain September 24, 2011 at 18:55

btw, Corky .. is your surname Evans?

Nope. Different guy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
American September 24, 2011 at 19:47

The Gender-Raunch legal community of the North eastern states (Like Mary Kellet), Empower themselves by fostering and enabling womens violence, while persecuting innocent non-violent men.
The perversions of The American justice system that serve to “manufacture empowerment rhetoric” for gender-feminists, are beyond the scope of “policing powers” that the constitution calls for, and are hence “unconstitutional”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
American September 24, 2011 at 19:52

End the Violence..Break the manufactured statistics Alliance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2011 at 20:52

keyster September 24, 2011 at 08:04
“Do you suppose when he returned from a hard day on the plains empty handed, she’d nag him about what a hopeless loser he was? Probably.”

Not if it was anything like this she wouldn’t.
(skip to 10:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkApqtpfBwo

“The Elder agrees that respect must be maintained.”

With elders like that it’s quite hard to imagine wimminz being much of a problem. (So much for the primitive ‘matriarchy’ theory eh?)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2011 at 21:22

MWPeak September 24, 2011 at 08:56
“On one extreme is the undisciplined violence that is used by terrorists, abusers and men who seem incapable of dealing with life.”

Those would be the residual (long deposed) alpha thug types (along with females who haven’t changed since prehistory).

“On the other extreme is a complete lack of violence by pacifist men.”

Those would be the gamma and delta classes of ‘men’ known as liberals currently at work deposing us betas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2011 at 21:39

Vortac September 24, 2011 at 10:24

“All violence is madness. Meat-eating is wrong, unhealthy, destructive to innocent animals, the environment, the planet, the nature, and human race as a whole.”

Behold! One of the gamma/delta’s I referred to in the above post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2011 at 21:48

Firepower
“ANSWER THIS: why the hell are males such wimpy failures today compared to neo-lithic men – even the berry-picking kind?

You have no answer.”

This guy does.
http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2009/11/alpha-beta-gamma-omega-dynamic.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2011 at 22:09

keyster September 24, 2011 at 11:24
“We’ve gifted women with a detachable penis they wear during the day, and remove when they get home from the office.”

How long before that penis becomes permanently attached?
And how long before we lose ours altogether?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2011 at 22:16

Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 24, 2011 at 11:52
“keyster September 24, 2011 at 11:24
” Because they’ve been conditioned (and rewarded) for being weak or more feminine, and chastised and ridiculed for being strong or more masculine.”

Yep….look how many men here ridicule me based on no evidence at all. Indeed DESPITE the vast array of evidence I have presented to the public.
Being a REAL MAN is HATED ON by OTHER MEN because they are shown up to be such whimps.
Men do NOT like to be exposed as whimps by comparisons to other men who make them look so.”

So why are liberal men profeminist? Is it just sucking up to female? Or is their also something else deeper at work?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2011 at 23:01

Rocco September 24, 2011 at 13:31
“Your professors don’t know how women did or didn’t hunt, that info is long gone. But there is alot of pressure on them to say women did hunt by the women studies department.”

I have an anthropology text (cir early 90′s) that say’s that prehistoric man did more scavenging than hunting on the pretense that it was much easier.

Heh.
An all you can eat buffet of dead wildebeasts, gazelles, etc.
Hungry lions and hyenas like flies at a picnic.

All just to downplay that mean old male chauvinist man as hunter thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Opus September 25, 2011 at 02:40

That men are inherently violent i.e. seek their own survival is surely unquestionable – and it is that which has allowed women to survive. That violence however is not directed (unless they are deliberately goaded beyond endurance, towards females or offspring). Men have an inherent reluctance to use violence against women – why should they -, but I have noticed (and I speak personally) also a reluctance to be verbally forceful against women. Arguing with a woman is as unfruitful and demeaning as physically fighting with one. Perhaps that is why men are always apologising and why they never defend themselves against a woman’s fists. It is a way of reminding a woman that she is physically insignificant, and that her verbal assaults cut no ice – I wonder, however, whether women realise this and that it is a form of patronising them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
American September 25, 2011 at 04:47

What will be the inevitable outcome from this American law enforcement / gender-feminist … “false Empowerment dynamic”??
By American law enforcement engaging in “Protocol perversions and semantics games” that are serving to manufacture empowerment rhetoric for the gender-feminist community, they are “Empowering” this self selected victim group, to a degree of “Empowerment” that is based of lies, perversions, and manufactured statistics. This can’t be a dynamic that will stand the test of time, and it can’t be healthy for society to falsely empower a group based on lies, perversions and manufactured misinformation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Rocco September 25, 2011 at 06:40

Many people are fond of using evolutionary biology. They seem to use it to mean what they want to mean, objectivity is sparse in evo psych arguments imo.

To my understanding, when observing our nearest living relative, the chimp, in the wild violence is rare. Most violence is ritualized violence involves fights for territory (a stream for instance) with things like throwing rocks etc.

Are men capable of violence, all humans are, even little children, even vegitarians (try cutting in line at whole foods).

I don’t think statements like: Men are inherently violent” is honestly true because it implies in contradistinction to women and children, which we are not.

When looking at humans we see ritualistic displays of violence by nations, gangs, terrorist groups. By individuals in relationships we see the same pattern.

We also see abuse. When an animal is tamed they are domesticated. Even a domesticated pet will bite if provoked.

We see one set of humans go on a campaign to provoke the other human and then, if he responds with violence label him as a danger and say he should not see his children, he could snap.

Is this the violence you here say is inherent in men. Or are you saying men are inherently violent because some criminals are? Or that we are inherently violent because when our leaders call we are subservient, pick up the guns they give us and point them at the people shooting at us?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) September 25, 2011 at 06:52
Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 25, 2011 at 07:27

Rocco September 24, 2011 at 13:37

My comment….lets see if the woman allows it.

“That is, until I heard last night that some adult women actually do punish their men by withholding sex. ”

Jessica. LOTS of women withhold sex from their husbands for ALL SORTS of FAKE reasons. As a man who was married for 18 years and was with my wife for the 5 years before that I can testify this is seen as NORMAL by woman now.

Its about time women started denouncing the disgusting behavior of OTHER WOMEN. Its about time women started denouncing women who commit the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse.

Here is 250 out of 250 women of the international womens club of dublin CONDONING AND HIDING A CRIMINAL. My ex.

Women of YOUR generation are going to have NO CREDIBILITY because men like me are telling the lad of your generation that you STAY SILENT in the face of crimes.

It is working. We are, slowly and surely, destroying the credibility of ALL western women with the lads. You will NEVER get that credibility back once lost.

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/80/threadid/337/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) September 25, 2011 at 11:08

BANG ON TOPIC….

Nice to see the drug cartels in mexico are treating women as “equal” and not showing them any favours just because they are women.

How’s “equality” working out for this woman, eh?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041628/Woman-decapitated-postings-drug-crime-social-networking-site.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
Rebel September 25, 2011 at 13:57

@Rocco September 24, 2011 at 11:53
@ Rebel

You smart ass, are you stumping for MRA backing for Libyian Oil like “Moral Oil” from Canada?

MRA: Fathers right are fathers duties, powered by Liberation Oil from New Libya.

The Saudi prince asked Canada to stop, they take this stuff seriously.”

After pondering carefully, I still don’t understand the message here.

Maybe there’s something I’m missing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 25, 2011 at 15:44

BANG ON TOPIC…

I got this link from Dan Abshear….so I wandered over there and got a bit provocative saying it was nice to see the women on the receiving end of police brutality since they have been so want to dish it out to men for so many years.

Of course the women then said things like they wished I would die and that I “deserved” the police brutality that was dished out to me on the basis of a lying wife.

You men here might like to go over and point out as I did that the VAST majority of police brutality in the western world is done on the DEMAND of women.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/violent-pictures-from-occupy-wall-street-protests?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=buzzfeed

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
American September 25, 2011 at 19:09

There seems to be 2 different usages of the term “hysterical”.
The most common usage is hysterical = Funny.
The other usage is diarrhea of the mouth that stems from an inflamed hystera.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 25, 2011 at 20:56

Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) September 25, 2011 at 15:44
“I got this link from Dan Abshear….so I wandered over there and got a bit provocative saying it was nice to see the women on the receiving end of police brutality since they have been so want to dish it out to men for so many years.”

On the subject of these Wall Street protests.
It should be very clear that these are liberals trying to get the rich to pay for their entitlement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWoWZO3nqOY
Check out 2:00 on this video.
“A job is a right! Capitalism doesn’t work.”
Or at 1:08
“They say “cut back” we say fight back!”

Looks like the liberals are starting to bite the elite hand that feeds eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Attila September 25, 2011 at 21:17

I think women are more violent EXCEPT they know that they are physically weaker – SO they
substitute by VERBALIZING their displeasure- by and large- and by trying to outwit their opponent VERBALLY. Men tend to know how quickly verbal and physical violence can spin out of control- and therefore try to defuse it with humor or by just ignoring it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Chevy Chase September 25, 2011 at 23:10

Actually David I think you’ll find modern anthropoligists have taken analogies from existing hunter-gather tribes such as the Australian Aborigines and the Hadza people where you will find that the division of labor is still fairly flexible. You will find the females in those tribles also hunting – granted they aint hunting mammoths. There is also evidence to suggest that the whole of the tribe would participate in the herding and hunting of large game animals, such as the woolly mammoth – that this was necessary for the survival of the tribe – all hands on deck. Men, women, children, anybody old enough or able bodied enough to participate, would. There is evidence that the folks of these tribes had enormously superior running abilities compared to us today. I guess this can still be seen in the bushmen of the Kalahari.

Recent research by anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona shows that the division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and was invented relatively recently in human pre-history. It is widely acknowledged that the implementation of agricultural and farming communities brought about the end of shared labor because there was far more work to be done, far less leisure time, and it became necessary to divide the work. Probably because pregnancies and childbirth were alot more successful in a non nomadic environment.

I for one wouldn’t mind going back to a time when labor was shared equally between men and women and there was a great deal amount of leisure time to, umm, pursue other interests if you get my drift. I wouldn’t mind bending a hirsuit lady over a rock when the need arose!!!!! :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jack September 25, 2011 at 23:43

Women do not understand the dual nature of violence.

For most women, the point of violence is PAST her point of self-control. Therefore, women equate most violence with loss of self-control and reactionary lashing out.

This helps explain why women have trouble seeing a difference between a violent criminal and the policeman’s physical take-down, struggle, and sometimes brutal handcuffing of said criminal.

Women see only a monolithic portrait of violence.

Men, however, find it more easy to see the difference between the appropriate, calibrated, and deliberate use of violence by the police officer and the untamed, feral violence of the criminal.

This is because for “real men” the point of violence is reached before the point of loss-of-control.

It is only the immature, feral man that cannot control his impulses and whose violent acts are indicative of no self control.

This ability to see the taxonomy of violence is why men understand police work, the military, and other applications of Righteous Violence ™ better than many women.

Note:

Supplicating manginas like michael moore and bill maher are ruled by their estrogen circuits, whereas women who effectively function as cops and soldiers understand the correct use of violence.

This is a NAWALT topic of course, but the truth is that the vast majority of women have difficulty understanding the proper application of violence – and even when their head KNOWS that a criminal needed a strong take-down, their fear of powerful men makes them averse to displays of violence.

Note 2: This is due to the fact that women focus on power to the same degree that men focus on sex. This is why so much of womens’ entertainment is like “power porn”. From Cinderella to Sex and the City, fiction for women is never about sex, it is about power.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 69 September 26, 2011 at 18:17

@PAN >>look how many men here ridicule me based on no evidence at all.

No, we have plenty of evidence. You tell us over and over that you can overturn governments with stupid pieces of paper based on the Magna Carta.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
GS Jockey September 27, 2011 at 15:02

@ doclove: “Any veteran even an officer paper pushing Air Force veteran who never went to war…”

Hey doc, your rhetoric above isn’t appropriate, and you can make your point (which was otherwise valid) without it.

Besides, it’s not a correct viewpoint anymore, if it ever was. I happen to be an “Air Force paper-pusher” and I’ve deployed to Afghanistan once and Iraq twice. Why? Because the US Army in their infinite wisdom cut nearly all their engineer forces about 15 years ago, leaving themselves unable to bed themselves down and thereby leaving USAF and Navy engineers to pick up your slack. In 2004, my team of 61 USAF engineers was attached to 1CD Engineer Brigade, convoying practically daily, and our Army brothers were glad to have us there, taking care of business. How do I know this? Because the CG General Chiarelli told me so personally. And I’m just combat support–never mind any discussion about aircraft combat power in the fight or combat controllers, TACP, pararescue, EOD or other blue-suit trigger-pullers in the fight shoulder to shoulder with Soldiers and Marines every single day.

To call Air Force veterans “paper pushers” who “never went to war” is an ignorant and divisive statement. It’s true that the majority of Airmen are not out there kicking in doors, but then again most soldiers are not doing that either because that’s not their job. Thanks for listening to this viewpoint, and thank you for your service. Your job (I presume infantry) is difficult and it is not one that I would want to have. That’s why I appreciate the part that ALL services play in the joint fight–we can’t succeed if everyone doesn’t do their job.

GS Jockey

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
stickers on facebook October 15, 2013 at 18:46

Right away I am ready to do my breakfast, afterward having my breakfast coming yet again to read
other news.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sanora October 23, 2013 at 20:01

No matter if some one searches for his vital thing, thus he/she needs to be
available that in detail, thus that thing is maintained over
here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: