Males Evolved to Be ‘Aggressive To Outsiders’, Says Psychology Study

Daily Mail (London), January 23, 2012

From football thugs clashing on the terraces to soldiers killing each other on the front line, most conflict can be blamed on the male sex drive, a study suggests.

The review of psychological research concludes that men evolved to be aggressive towards ‘outsiders’, a tendency at the root of inter-tribal violence.

It emerged through natural selection as a result of competition for mates, territory and status, and is seen in conflicts between nations as well as clashes involving rival gangs, football fans or religious groups, say the researchers.

In contrast, they add, women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully. They are said to have been programmed by natural selection to ‘tend and befriend’ to protect their children.

Professor Mark van Vugt, of Oxford University’s Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, said: ‘A solution to conflict . . . remains elusive.

‘One reason might be the difficulty we have in changing our mindset, which has evolved over thousands of years.’

The findings, which support the ‘male warrior hypothesis’, are published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

The psychologists claim that in all cultures and throughout history, men have sought to get their way by initiating violence.

They prefer group-based hierarchies and are identified more strongly with their own groups than women.

At a basic level, such ‘tribal’ aggression helped men in a group to obtain more females, increasing their chances of reproduction.

‘We see similar behaviour in chimpanzees,’ said Prof van Vugt. ‘For example, the males continuously monitor the borders of their territory.

‘If a female from another group comes along, she may be persuaded to emigrate to his group. When a male strays too far, however, he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed.’

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    This is a very good article and very true. Women nurture and men  protect territory and resources. When the balance is disrupted and the majority of one gender takes on the priorities of the other gender  havoc ensues.

    If anyone wants to say that women make men take on different priorities I would have to say that is not true. Any woman that has been around REAL MEN knows that no amount of social pressure will force an alpha male to do something that he really doesn’t want to do (putting a gun to his head might work, but even that is doubtful).

    • Anonymous

      Yet “real men” are an endangered species.  Something must be going on….

      And it’s that women, just like all other “historically disadvantaged groups” in this country, use the state to get “equality,” but of course only on their own terms.

      • Anonymous

        I know it is easy to blame it all on dem evil women that wanted the vote and all…but I think there is more to it.  I think part of the problem may be many men are not really bonding with other men but spend their time with women, have mostly female friends, etc…

        When I moved to the redneck south a couple of years ago I was surprised to discover I was actually surrounded by manly men!  I attribute it to a strong male bonding culture, many of the men out here are veterans which helps, but most also engage in a lot of male oriented activities like hunting, fishing, etc… The sons go with the fathers and as a result the males emulate other strong males. It isn’t a sexist thing, women aren’t banned from those activities it’s just most women don’t enjoy sitting in a deer stand for 6 hours at a time in 35 degree weather.

        • Anonymous

          Young men grow up without strong male role models, yes this is true.  But why? Which half of the whole is more likely to initiate divorce?

          And I’d like to see a list of accomplishments of women’s suffrage that have raised up the White race.  As far as I can tell it’s a series of punitive actions and nose-thumbing at men, beginning with the Volsted Act and culminating in the election of Obama.  Thousands of years of Western tradition on this front existed for a reason.

          You probably see different things in the rural South than I do in Libtardastan, King County, WA.  But you point out the effect without being honest about the cause.  Women have undermined the family, not men.  It’s the duty of women to select a proper mate, as women are the gatekeepers of sex and stewards of future generations.  This is why female IQs are clustered much more closely to the mean with few outliers on either end of the bell curve.  It’s more essential for the survival of the species that they not be retarded, because they are responsible for the progeny. 

          Women have abdicated this responsiblity.

          • Anonymous

            I know women are not perfect; heck in many ways I epitomize the classic problems associated with independent white women, not so much in words as in choice of lifestyle.

            Regardless I will say this, the way to fix the problems that exist between white men and white women is definitely not to blame everything on the other.  Compare it to a marriage, if there are problems in the marriage and you want to work it out you don’t start off by telling the other person that it is ALL THEIR FAULT and they are solely to blame for  EVERY SINGLE problem and once they agree on that the two of you can work together to improve the things. Even if you really believe that is true you don’t say it, you still tell the other person you will do your part to improve things.

            Now of course I do realize some men in the White Nationalist movement would prefer plan b which is similar to the gender policies enforced in Saudi Arabia, if women can’t vote, drive, work, or travel without a man’s permission then they will pretty much have to do whatever the menfolk want. Yes, some men think that would be the ideal situation but I just don’t think that is feasible anytime soon in the Western world.

          • Anonymous

            I like these topics when they can be discussed in a civilized and respectful manner so I am typing another rant.  I will also say these topics make me a bit nervous because it can very often become very ugly. Women are a distinct minority on WN sites and if  the evils of feminism become a frequent and ugly topic it is not uncommon for many of the female posters to be put off by it because these topics are not citing feminist doctrine, they are typically referring to most all white women. 

            Please note there will ALWAYS be a few female posters that fuel the fire to a great extent by adamantly agreeing that women are all evil feminists (except of course them personally),  and agreeing with everything the men say (which may be related to the queen bee syndrome mentioned above) however that doesn’t make it okay and often it will hurt the feelings of more moderate WN women. White men don’t want to be told the problems whites are facing are all solely their fault so please don’t marginalize white women by telling us it is all our fault.

            Having said that there have been a number of other social changes that I believe are effecting the stability of white families that are not related to equal rights. One factor is the modern isolation of small nuclear family units. Another factor is the modern expectation regarding marriage (which may primarily be the fault of women). The modern belief that your spouse is supposed to be your best friend, romantic partner, constant companion, and if you are happily married you should want to share most all activities and spend every moment with them — I believe that puts a lot of pressure on modern marriages.

            In this area the extended social networks and gender specific activities probably help keep the marriages alive, plus there is a lot of religious guilt and that helps too.  When the marriages maybe are not that perfect anymore it is socially acceptable for both partners to start doing a lot more of their own thing.

            I will also say you can not base the breakup of marriages solely on the spouse that files the divorce paperwork. In addition I do not see a ton of young white men desperately looking to settle down with a wife and kids, many of them are quite content with their video games and various toys. Now of course many of them will SAY they like the “idea” of a marriage and family but they don’t dare get married “because all women are gold diggers that might divorce them and take their toys away”.  Many of those guys seem pretty darn content with their single lifestyles and their video games, and in addition hating women generally doesn’t make them all that attractive to the opposite sex.

          • Anonymous

            You aren’t interested in discussing this topic.  You are demanding that men accept 50 percent of the blame.
            It’s women who have changed in the past 50 years.  Men largely have not, except where that change was driven by the change in our women.  It’s women who demand men “share responsibility” in the home yet are nowhere to be found when the oil needs changing, roof needs fixing, lawn needs mowing.
            You keep tap dancing around this and insisting that even though women initiate most divorce, it must be because of something men are doing.  Why would young men who grew up in broken homes want to go through the same thing again?
            Your argument seems to be that we need to gloss over the fact that most of our women have betrayed us in order to keep from hurting their feelings.  That we need to water down our message to become more inclusive.  What you have done as a self-proclaimed “independent white woman” is brought the rhetoric of the left to the race realist movement.  The liberals demand the exact same thing of the Republican party, that they distill their message so as to avoid hurting fragile feelings and “become more inclusive.”
            You turn against women who would agree with my opinions as some sort of female turncoat traitors.  Would you go so far as to call them “Uncle Toms”?
            You make the same excuses for White female failure as Blacks make for theirs.  This is unacceptable.  Nowhere in any of my posts will you find the phrase “it’s all women’s fault.”  You will find undeniable indictments listing specific avenues where our women have failed us, and you are unable to admit this is true.  Instead you deflect and obfuscate, pointing to the bad behavior of others to justify or water down the failures of our women.
            Your posts on this topic have made my entire point.  And your “Uncle Toms,” the exceptional ladies who post here and broaden my horizons every day but refuse to circle the wagons around the female gender because they know I’m right, they are self-confident enough to understand I’m not talking about them and haven’t felt the need to chime in and demand I declare them exempt, as you seem to be doing.
            The identity of “woman” is more important to you than the identity of “White.” 

          • Anonymous

            You aren’t interested in discussing this topic.  You are demanding that men accept 50 percent of the blame.

            Ahhh…so the topic is “the problem with women” and any discussions that stray to marriage, social environment etc…. are off topic. Okay then. You are right, I am not interested in discussing the “problem with women”.

            I will end with this note — you say it is all because of equal rights. Okay then. Please explain why ancient Greece and Rome experienced the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS when women had NO RIGHTS? Please explain why the marriage rates dropped and the birth rate plummeted among middle and upper class Romans? The Emperor Augustus actually passed laws to penalize unmarried or childless adults by stating they would only get a fraction of their inheritance if they did not marry and produce offspring.  Ancient Greece had the same problem among their upper classes, the couples were choosing to have tiny families if they had any children at all (and no it wasn’t because the men were all gay).

            The same thing that is happening today was happening back then. We know it had nothing to do with women’s rights, so suggesting there may be other factors at play seems perfectly reasonable to me. However apparently this is NOT about reasonable discussion, this is about blaming women.

            And BTW the women that jump in to fuel the flames on these discussions are NOT traitors, they are simply trying to fan the flames even if it gets so ugly it drives women posters away. They know if one woman speaks up and agrees with the men then the men feel justified in getting even harsher and uglier in their accusations. Take a look at StormFront, that site is infamous for the extreme bashing of women, a whole lot of women have joined that site and have ended up either leaving, or getting banned because they just can’t handle the hostile attitudes. Now some folks may think it is a GOOD thing to drive away WN females that can’t take the heat, I don’t think it is a good thing and I don’t think it is doing the cause a darn bit of good. If you want to change hearts and minds you don’t start by attacking and belittling people that might join the cause.

          • Anonymous

            “I will end with this note — you say it is all because of equal rights.
            Okay then. Please explain why ancient Greece and Rome experienced the
            EXACT SAME PROBLEMS when women had NO RIGHTS? Please explain why the
            marriage rates dropped, the divorce rates were high, and the birth rate
            plummeted among middle and upper class Romans? The Emperor Augustus
            actually passed laws to penalize unmarried or childless adults by
            stating they would only get a fraction of their inheritance if they did
            not marry and produce offspring.  Ancient Greece had the same problem
            among their upper classes, the couples were choosing to have tiny
            families if they had any children at all (and no it wasn’t because the
            men were all gay). Ancient Greek writers complained that the women
            didn’t want to raise children, but prefered to nurture pets, and their
            husbands really didn’t want to bother with kids either.

            The same
            thing that is happening today was happening back then. We know it had
            nothing to do with women’s rights, so suggesting there may be other
            factors at play seems perfectly reasonable to me.”

            You are making some analogies that are based on incomplete or selective information.  The periods of small families occurred after wars and during economic downturns.  Other causes are disease pandemics.   In Rome diseases took heavy tolls and lead poisoning resulted in many women being infertile, children born with birth defects and retardation, etc.   Re- Disease in History

            The only usable bit from those social histories that are comparable is that generally in affluent societies, women have less children.  But that is a very tenuous piece for comparing.  As women have gained more jobs in modern times they have less interest in families and become more narcissistic.  But this does not ultimately lead to happiness, as many women have and are finding out.  They like the advantages over men that feminism has given them and like you seem to, ascribe to a gender centric political philosophy without understanding its full social impact, but many more show declining health trends, and increasingly messy social lives and personal life results.

            It amazes me that you are in the South and like how the men are but haven’t understood that it is the women who make the difference.

        • Anonymous

          You aren’t interested in discussing this topic.  You are demanding that men accept 50 percent of the blame.

          It’s women who have changed in the past 50 years.  Men largely have not, except where that change was driven by the change in our women.  It’s women who demand men “share responsibility” in the home yet are nowhere to be found when the oil needs changing, roof needs fixing, lawn needs mowing.

          You keep tap dancing around this and insisting that even though women initiate most divorce, it must be because of something men are doing.  Why would young men who grew up in broken homes want to go through the same thing again?

          Your argument seems to be that we need to gloss over the fact that most of our women have betrayed us in order to keep from hurting their feelings.  That we need to water down our message to become more inclusive.  What you have done as a self-proclaimed “independent white woman” is brought the rhetoric of the left to the race realist movement.  The liberals demand the exact same thing of the Republican party, that they distill their message so as to avoid hurting fragile feelings and “become more inclusive.”

          You turn against women who would agree with my opinions as some sort of female turncoat traitors.  Would you go so far as to call them “Uncle Toms”?

          You make the same excuses for White female failure as Blacks make for theirs.  This is unacceptable.  Nowhere in any of my posts will you find the phrase “it’s all women’s fault.”  You will find undeniable indictments listing specific avenues where our women have failed us, and you are unable to admit this is true.  Instead you deflect and obfuscate, pointing to the bad behavior of others to justify or water down the failures of our women.

          Your posts on this topic have made my entire point.  And your “Uncle Toms,” the exceptional ladies who post here and broaden my horizons every day but refuse to circle the wagons around the female gender because they know I’m right, they are self-confident enough to understand I’m not talking about them and haven’t felt the need to chime in and demand I declare them exempt, as you seem to be doing.

          The identity of “woman” is more important to you than the identity of “White.” 

        • Anonymous

          Interesting post Sonya.  I think you must be younger.  Truly, you can take it back to the vote because it is that “give and inch, take a mile” thing. 

          The reason the young men are like they are is most likely because they were raised in homes with no father, or a neutered one, neutered by the PC feminist nonsense they’ve had to swallow in already female strong areas OUTSIDE of the South, where being a Lady has somewhat of a cultural tradition behind it.   You might find the book “The War on Boys” interesting.

          You probably don’t remember when NOW officially claimed that fathers weren’t necessary and then that having white children was bad because white men were the evil creatures of the world and it was up to women to make sure they were bred out of the human race.

          I really feel bad for young guys these days.  I always noticed that most women who bought into the general feminist ideas would seek to dominate the men in their relationships and then found they couldn’t respect the men they attracted.  I have always lived in the Western states and I never had one of them last long with me.  It took most of my life to find a woman who suited me.  She turned out to be the daughter from an old Southern family.  She hasn’t got any use for Feminism.  I have no doubt that she will stand by me, whatever comes.

          Now that is what I call a REAL WOMAN.

        • Anonymous

          “If you can’t win with your pathetic arguments you choose to start the
          personal insults. “Look in the mirror” and “you must be young”.

          There is something not right with you. End of conversation.”

          What you have been doing on these pages is NOT intellectual, but argumentative only.  You offer no solid arguments, no reference, only your circular arguments pinned to your need to see yourself winning the argument.  Your uninformed, but stubborn style tends to identify you are young.  As for looking in the mirror, you may not like the phrase, but you are here posting in arguments with several men on a site dominated by men, and you insist on your idea that men are the problem/reason why you can’t find a “real man.”  I have offered you materials to review, history and expert opinions BY WOMEN on the subject.  Rather than take a look at yourself and the possibility that maybe YOU are the result of decades of feminist propaganda and indoctrination, you resort to the retreat with accusations of insult, not aware of your insult to men in general and your ongoing tone of know-it-all feminism. 

          I don’t think you are going to get too many or ANY who agree with you here.  You seem to only be posting to convince men of your brand of feminist interpretation.  Most of the long time male posters here are older, know the game, and understand that feminism has been the major enemy of white America.

        • Anonymous

          “White men want to be appreciated and respected, well news flash White
          women do to! Especially on WN sites! White women do not want to be told
          all of the problems are our fault and that we are basically bad people.”

          You claim not to be young, yet you do not reflect any knowledge of someone who has lived 50 – 60 years in America or you lived in some sort of cage, accepting the meals you received from Feminism, but never cognizant of where your benefits and advantages were coming from.  You are telling men here that respecting you means accepting your take on how things ought to be.  You react as a woman defending her sexual identity from a political standpoint.  Just once I would like to see you or any other woman posting on this site admit and declare that feminism has hurt American society badly in the past 40 years.  The history is unmistakable.  The Feminist rants and political work against males as a groups is there and unarguable.  I have offered you relevant material and you only make vague allegories with Roman history.  (I’ve read the Decline and Fall, have you?)  For example, Rome’s policy of making conquered people slaves was NOT because they didn’t want to work as some say today Americans don’t, it was because they were a slave holding society as ALL cultures were then.  The Roman Empire grew by making alliances with conquered peoples and making them “citizens.”  It is called by historians, Romanization, and it worked for hundreds of years and is responsible for European cities like Lyon, Paris, and London among others that spread and retained civilization to today.  I referred you to a book called “Disease in History” a great deal of the fall of the Roman empire and reliance for example on non-Roman troops was due to a long period of malaria in and around Rome.  Also involved was the new and huge threat caused by Atilla the Hun that forced German tribes into the Empire’s borders and into fragile alliances with Rome.  Read and learn real knowledge, don’t cherry pick for use in very vague generalizations that don’t work in fact.   Rather than attempting to make vague points using sloppy allegories to ancient history, why don’t you address our own social history and specifically the history of the Feminist Movement.

          I’ve noticed you complain about young men before, so I made it an issue and went to great pains to illustrate the notion that you may have this frustration because of how you attract men and what you expect from them, not recognizing that men have the right to take their time and develop as attempt to cope with the set of circumstances they find themselves in regarding the limits and social pressures they experience today, which are very different from what women experience.  I referred to a book on how boys are drugged, pressured, denied, and often destroyed by the result of feminist socialization trends in schools and society.  “The War Against Boys” shows that there are some honest, intelligent women out there who recognize the huge injustice being done to young men in this country for a long time. 

          As for being respected and insulted, when you write things like “news flash” don’t you recognize the condescension of such a phrase?  You are sensitive to what others say, but do not apply such sensitivity to the way you “speak” to us.  I don’t thing you, like many people recognize how Marxism has wormed its way into the art of pseudo-intellectualism.  Many have learned the habit of thinking that if they can counter an idea with another one that appears to be an argument, that the argument has been countered through making it appear “equal” to another point.  That is not real intellectual process but an exercise in negation via the insertion of the notion that one may destroy an argument through a false algebraic formula that cancels and therefore equalizes.  This is not intellectual, critical thinking, and not a practice of objectivity.

          I don’t know what your age is, but your demanding style doesn’t show intellectual maturity.  In the quote I from you that I used above you say that not only do you demand some sort of “equal respect” from men – by your definitions – you say you especially want it on WN sites!  See, you are marching in, engaging in arguments where you won’t acknowledge one point made, but insist on your own point of view every time, demanding, demanding, even MORE respect.  Respect is earned, and as the minority in this case, you have to prove your worthiness, not wrest a seat the same way Feminists did when they demolished various men’s clubs in the early 1970s while forming their own exclusive ones.  You don’t seem to remember the systematic campaign Feminism went on back then, attacking everything and every bastion of maleness they could, declaring by the end of the 70s that fatherhood was not important, and later that white men were the universal enemy, and white women ought to birth only non-white children.  When you invoke demands of men, not just me, but all men here, to respect you because you represent women, you are invoking the legacy of this anti-male undercurrent that is now well set into larger society.  Don’t you know that white males are the ONLY group in this country that it is legal to discriminate against and that are discriminated against daily?  If you truly wish to be supportive of REAL MEN, why don’t you show it by renouncing Feminism publicly here on Amren posts OFTEN, and showing some understanding and comprehension of white men’s issues?  I think you would find us a lot more “respectful.”

          Imagine me or any man walking into a meeting of NOW or the Women’s National Caucus and demanding a voice and also respect, MORE than they accord one another!  What you are demanding is a superior consideration.  Amren and other sites may represent some sort of Men’s caucus, but it doesn’t close its doors or forums  off to women or even non-whites, as women’s groups have and we don’t typically spend our time vilifying women.  We are simply well read men with longer and more and different  life experiences than many women, especially younger women or women who have existed in a very small bubble.  When you can admit and show some of us that you can change according to some of the observations you have made, connect the dots, as I have said, then some of us might respect you intellectually. 

          I am sure that most men here want more women on board.  But we want REAL
          WOMEN, those who understand what it means to be a lady, accepting of a
          man’s protection and supportive of a man in that role.  I understand
          that you are likely a subject of Feminist indoctrinations, perhaps even
          without being fully aware of it, but come on, make an effort.  Don’t
          spend hundreds of words in justifying yourself, and then end the conversation because you can’t handle actually addressing the issues and unable to take what you dish out.  I was very patient with you.

          However old you are, you are obviously single and with limited life experience.  Don’t blame men because they avoid the likes of you.  I alwaysavoided loud mouthed, opinionated women all my life.  In my professional practice, I watched women change over the years in general.  They all had some things in common; they invoked feminist ideas in their mercenary approach to men in general, and once in a relationship, they carried on as if they had something to prove to me.

          The poser DOM I think, said it best.  The main problem you are dealing with is that you are seeing yourself more as a woman that a white person.  I really hope that over time, you will think things over and do some more researching and thinking on these issues.  If you are older, than the only way you can help is by being supportive of white men, race realism, and whites as a group.  Barging in and demanding respect because you are a woman defeats you and makes you useless to the notion of white survival in general.

        • Anonymous

          “White men want to be appreciated and respected, well news flash White
          women do to! Especially on WN sites! White women do not want to be told
          all of the problems are our fault and that we are basically bad people.”

          You claim not to be young, yet you do not reflect any knowledge of someone who has lived 50 – 60 years in America or you lived in some sort of cage, accepting the meals you received from Feminism, but never cognizant of where your benefits and advantages were coming from.  You are telling men here that respecting you means accepting your take on how things ought to be.  You react as a woman defending her sexual identity from a political standpoint.  Just once I would like to see you or any other woman posting on this site admit and declare that feminism has hurt American society badly in the past 40 years.  The history is unmistakable.  The Feminist rants and political work against males as a groups is there and unarguable.  I have offered you relevant material and you only make vague allegories with Roman history.  (I’ve read the Decline and Fall, have you?)  For example, Rome’s policy of making conquered people slaves was NOT because they didn’t want to work as some say today Americans don’t, it was because they were a slave holding society as ALL cultures were then.  The Roman Empire grew by making alliances with conquered peoples and making them “citizens.”  It is called by historians, Romanization, and it worked for hundreds of years and is responsible for European cities like Lyon, Paris, and London among others that spread and retained civilization to today.  I referred you to a book called “Disease in History” a great deal of the fall of the Roman empire and reliance for example on non-Roman troops was due to a long period of malaria in and around Rome.  Also involved was the new and huge threat caused by Atilla the Hun that forced German tribes into the Empire’s borders and into fragile alliances with Rome.  Read and learn real knowledge, don’t cherry pick for use in very vague generalizations that don’t work in fact.   Rather than attempting to make vague points using sloppy allegories to ancient history, why don’t you address our own social history and specifically the history of the Feminist Movement.

          I’ve noticed you complain about young men before, so I made it an issue and went to great pains to illustrate the notion that you may have this frustration because of how you attract men and what you expect from them, not recognizing that men have the right to take their time and develop as attempt to cope with the set of circumstances they find themselves in regarding the limits and social pressures they experience today, which are very different from what women experience.  I referred to a book on how boys are drugged, pressured, denied, and often destroyed by the result of feminist socialization trends in schools and society.  “The War Against Boys” shows that there are some honest, intelligent women out there who recognize the huge injustice being done to young men in this country for a long time. 

          As for being respected and insulted, when you write things like “news flash” don’t you recognize the condescension of such a phrase?  You are sensitive to what others say, but do not apply such sensitivity to the way you “speak” to us.  I don’t thing you, like many people recognize how Marxism has wormed its way into the art of pseudo-intellectualism.  Many have learned the habit of thinking that if they can counter an idea with another one that appears to be an argument, that the argument has been countered through making it appear “equal” to another point.  That is not real intellectual process but an exercise in negation via the insertion of the notion that one may destroy an argument through a false algebraic formula that cancels and therefore equalizes.  This is not intellectual, critical thinking, and not a practice of objectivity.

          I don’t know what your age is, but your demanding style doesn’t show intellectual maturity.  In the quote I from you that I used above you say that not only do you demand some sort of “equal respect” from men – by your definitions – you say you especially want it on WN sites!  See, you are marching in, engaging in arguments where you won’t acknowledge one point made, but insist on your own point of view every time, demanding, demanding, even MORE respect.  Respect is earned, and as the minority in this case, you have to prove your worthiness, not wrest a seat the same way Feminists did when they demolished various men’s clubs in the early 1970s while forming their own exclusive ones.  You don’t seem to remember the systematic campaign Feminism went on back then, attacking everything and every bastion of maleness they could, declaring by the end of the 70s that fatherhood was not important, and later that white men were the universal enemy, and white women ought to birth only non-white children.  When you invoke demands of men, not just me, but all men here, to respect you because you represent women, you are invoking the legacy of this anti-male undercurrent that is now well set into larger society.  Don’t you know that white males are the ONLY group in this country that it is legal to discriminate against and that are discriminated against daily?  If you truly wish to be supportive of REAL MEN, why don’t you show it by renouncing Feminism publicly here on Amren posts OFTEN, and showing some understanding and comprehension of white men’s issues?  I think you would find us a lot more “respectful.”

          Imagine me or any man walking into a meeting of NOW or the Women’s National Caucus and demanding a voice and also respect, MORE than they accord one another!  What you are demanding is a superior consideration.  Amren and other sites may represent some sort of Men’s caucus, but it doesn’t close its doors or forums  off to women or even non-whites, as women’s groups have and we don’t typically spend our time vilifying women.  We are simply well read men with longer and more and different  life experiences than many women, especially younger women or women who have existed in a very small bubble.  When you can admit and show some of us that you can change according to some of the observations you have made, connect the dots, as I have said, then some of us might respect you intellectually. 

          I am sure that most men here want more women on board.  But we want REAL
          WOMEN, those who understand what it means to be a lady, accepting of a
          man’s protection and supportive of a man in that role.  I understand
          that you are likely a subject of Feminist indoctrinations, perhaps even
          without being fully aware of it, but come on, make an effort.  Don’t
          spend hundreds of words in justifying yourself, and then end the conversation because you can’t handle actually addressing the issues and unable to take what you dish out.  I was very patient with you.

          However old you are, you are obviously single and with limited life experience.  Don’t blame men because they avoid the likes of you.  I alwaysavoided loud mouthed, opinionated women all my life.  In my professional practice, I watched women change over the years in general.  They all had some things in common; they invoked feminist ideas in their mercenary approach to men in general, and once in a relationship, they carried on as if they had something to prove to me.

          The poser DOM I think, said it best.  The main problem you are dealing with is that you are seeing yourself more as a woman that a white person.  I really hope that over time, you will think things over and do some more researching and thinking on these issues.  If you are older, than the only way you can help is by being supportive of white men, race realism, and whites as a group.  Barging in and demanding respect because you are a woman defeats you and makes you useless to the notion of white survival in general.

        • Anonymous

          “I know it is easy to blame it all on dem evil women that wanted the vote
          and all…but I think there is more to it.  I think part of the problem
          may be many men are not really bonding with other men but spend their
          time with women, have a majority of female friends, etc… As a result I
          think many start to emulate women because they subconsciously think
          women will like them more if they are similar.”

          I must take the time to point out the total imbecility of this statement.  You appear to be noticing gay men’s society, not hetero.  Is it possible you never noticed such men were homosexuals?  But in the case of metro-sexual men or the typical unmotivated young man of today;  It was Feminism that declared that fathers weren’t important and Feminism that encouraged women to become single mothers.  It was Feminism that led to laws that discouraged men from marrying and getting involved with women.  It was Feminism that taught the androgynous approach to education of children.  It was Feminism that got laws passed to favor everyone but white males in all aspects of life in America.   It was Feminism that still allows for the bashing of men, especially white men, in the entertainment industry.  The notion that metro-sexuals are emulating women might be true, but they are more the result of an upbringing by women with no men around, a result of Feminist policy and practice.   That’s the same strain of Feminism that agitated for the vote.  No one who understands our social history or even the practice of rational logic could make the statement you do here.

           If you look at the military, the elite combat groups that are STILL all male, men bond there.  Men bond on professional athletic teams, men bond wherever they are left alone to do it.  I was the leader of a men’s group for seven years and it was interference from women that destroyed it.  One name they used against us was “The Treehouse Club.”  Many of hte men in my group ended up in mixed sex groups, drawn in by women they were involved with.  It was monumental task to get anything accomplished without women constantly snipping at us.  We could not find a legal way to do helpful work with boys because the law would not allow us to focus on boys alone.  Don’t try to tell me your little expert’s opinion!

          The outdoor sporting world is largely a male dominated area and rural culture still espouses men who center their lives around fishing, hunting, and related sports like shooting.  In fact, I GREW UP in that culture.  My view is that too many of those men use it today as an escape from reality.  To wit,  one of my cousins who is totally immersed in this culture is currently raising a black grandchild that his daughter provided when she went off to New York on a sports trip and had unprotected sex with some black man.  He justifies it to himself, calls me a racist for trying to point out the failures involved, and continues to immerse himself in his world of hunting and fishing, not noticing how the PC culture has crept into his life and destroyed his white progeny.  He was equal to an absent father through his neglect of his daughter.  He covers it all up by taking on some PC attitude and claiming self-righteousness. 

          Any dots beginning to connect there, Sonja?

    • Anonymous

      “I will also say you can not base the breakup of marriages solely on the
      spouse that files the divorce paperwork. In addition I do not see a ton
      of young white men desperately looking to settle down with a wife and
      kids, many of them are quite content with their video games and various
      toys. Now of course many of them will SAY they like the “idea” of a
      marriage and family but they don’t dare get married “because all women
      are gold diggers that might divorce them and take their toys away”. 
      Many of those guys seem pretty darn content with their single lifestyles
      and their video games, and in addition hating women generally doesn’t
      make them all that attractive to the opposite sex. ”

      You don’t see young guys looking to settle down because all they’ve seen all their lives are women running everything around them and their only escape has been the cyber world.  You just don’t see what has happened.  Again – read The War Against Boys.  It’s written by a woman.

      A young white man today is last in line for any job, any position, he’s the constant object of derision and put down.  It’s gone so far that black kids feel like they can beat up on one anytime they feel like it and get away with it, and they do.   All his instincts have been crushed by their PC teachers and indoctrinations, a likely overly bossy mother, no father, absent, or weak one,  so they end up lost in cyber space.  This seems to be one of your pet peeves, because I’ve seen you write on it before.  Why don’t you make it a project of a white female race realist wannabe to straighten some of these guys out?  But the way you are working at blaming them and not changing yourself makes me think that you’re pretty stuck with the situation yourself.

      • Anonymous

        But the way you are working at blaming them and not changing yourself makes me think that you’re pretty stuck with the situation yourself.

        There is one BIG difference! Sure I can’t argue that my lifestyle is similar to those males (though I don’t play video games) but the fundamental difference is I will clearly own up to the fact that I live this way because I like it. I don’t choose to do it and then say it is really because men are bad people.

        I am not criticizing their lifestyle, I am criticizing the fact that they WANT to live that way but then justify it by claiming they have to live that way because women are all just so darn evil.

        • Anonymous

          You’re working real hard at refusing to connect the dots.  I think you are just like them in that I havent’ met any young guys who do video games who say they are doing it because they can’t get dates.  Just as you cannot connect the dots from feminism and the political reality they created for young men, they do not overtly see what they are doing as having been forced by circumstance.  (Although some might realize it).  Just as you feel you have chosen the way you live (however that is!), your lack of knowledge of the history of the Feminist movement and your posts suggest that you are not working with full information and are rather an indoctrinated individual. 

          You’re young, but you seem static in your position.  Anyone especially a young person, that is that set on their position isn’t likely to experience much personal growth in their lifetime.

          I have watched plenty of boys and young men progress from game playing nerds to young men going somewhere.  Where I live the young women often get pregnant and look for guys to support them, using their built in baby machine as a means for a career.  Smart guys avoid such traps.  I have a female friend who has sometimes worked to make sure her son, a young man who used to fit your description, didn’t get hijacked early in life by such a female and there were several trying it.  So perhaps you are being impatient.  Guys playing computer games often learn skills that lead them into careers that work out.  The one I’m talking about here went on to work on computers for the U.S. Air Force.  He is nearing 25 and is just beginning to think about maybe dating.  Maybe you are just too insistent that guys act on your assumed schedule?  I used to just walk away from women who espoused Feminist attitude the way you do here.  I can assure you that THAT doesn’t turn guys on.  Perhaps you are so focused on the computer game syndrome because it is the easiest way for guys to avoid the plethora of modern “femme fatales?”  How often do you look at  yourself in “the mirror?”

          • Anonymous

            Did you read my response below when I responded to your “young” question? I am not sure if you are trying to be rude or what. I guess I am giving you too much credit, the “look in the mirror” statement proves you can’t argue the points on an intellectual level so you are going to be ugly and personally insulting.

             Well okay then. End of conversation.

  • David Owens

    I am vastly amused by the notion that women are somehow less aggressive than men. That their aggression is more likely to be social and verbal rather than physical does not make it any less dangerous. Many a kingdom and empire has been ruled from the harem rather than the throne room, and any woman can tell you of the vicious manner in which women often maneuver for social advantage and power. The fact that a woman cannot throw a battle ax or wield a sword as readily as a man does not mean they cannot be just as ruthlessly aggressive as men.

    • Queen Bee Syndrome.  Women who are on top want to keep other women as far down the ladder as possible.  Women who are down on the ladder want to keep another woman from climbing too high, a la crabs in the bucket.  Notice that in Obama vs Hillary, when Obama got credible, how many elected women politicians endorsed Obama.  The only kind of women who endorsed HRC were ideological feminists who wanted a woman qua woman in the White House.

    • Anonymous

      There is no doubt women can be extremely vicious. In relation to the problems that White people face I tend to think the nurturing aspects gone wild (along with the failure to maintain territory) is an offshoot of rampant female traits.

      Many women are very sympathetic and feel the need to nurture needy creatures; babies, stray dogs and cats, etc  When an entire society takes on those traits and priorities it can morph into “saving” needy violent blacks, needy poor illegal Mexicans, needy starving Somali’s, etc… 

      I really wish the trait had morphed into just saving companion animals instead of saving every pathetic third worlder that claims they need help.

    • Periapsis

      The idea that women are less aggressive and capable of violence, brutality and sadism than men has been provern dead wrong by my Russian and Ukrainain ancestors in WW-II. Many of the deadliest snipers in history were women, many Russian and Ukrainian women were also fighter aces. Until the fall of the Soviet Union, among the Navy Spetznatz or “Special Purpose” units half of them were women. A German fighter pilot was once shot down and captured by the Russians, upon which he demanded to meet the pilot who shot him down. To his shock stood in front of him a young, petite Russian woman barely 23 years old who described in detail the battle that lead to his capture. My ancient Celtic ancestorss not only had queen Boudica but gladiatrixes among them.  Then there’s the Amazons, whose bloodlines now exist among the Mongol people today, and the fact that among many North American tribes women were even more brutal in combat than the men were. Women can be even more brutal than men are, they are also capable of sadism and torture that few men can fathom. Just look at the likes of Elizabeth Bathory. The idea that women cannot be aggressive and brutal even is pure fantasy, and in the future white women may have to become that way to defend themselves and their families from harm.

      • Anonymous

        You’ve got a heavy load of mythologizing going on there!   IN WW1 a Russian all woman battalion was finally allowed and fled the trenches after the first charge.  The best snipers in WW2 Soviet Army were men.  In the actual history Visally Zichev slapped the woman the film had him in love with for getting another sniper shot when she panicked.   Look up the top snipers in history online – no women.  It is well known that by the time Soviets were on the offensive in the air with fighters there were practically no German fighter-flyers on the Eastern Front the ones that were there were young and inexperienced.  They were bomber fighters doing ground work.  I know American Western history very well and there is not ONE account of female Indian warriors let alone their being more vicious than men.  They often stripped and mutilated the dead, but did not fight.  They were also often horribly harsh and often killed white female captives, but again not as warriors.  Queen Boudica stood up to the Romans, but did not defeat them – was actually treated very harshly.  For every woman you can list as historically brutal, 100 men or more can be named, they existed in nameless hundreds of thousands like the Mongols that killed off entire populations in Central Asia in a single campaign of slaughter.  No woman ever led or participated a Crusade  or battle where the warriors waded in blood to their knees.

        Historical research and military testing as found that women do well in defensive combat, but do far worse as offensive troops.  The situation on the Eastern Front in WW2 was exceptional, but even so, Soviet women did not enter into Germany and rape German women, or men.

    • Anonymous

      It is a different sort of aggression, political type, personal type, that will ultimately yield to physical power.

      “Ultima Ratio Regenum”

    • Anonymous

      It is a different sort of aggression, political type, personal type, that will ultimately yield to physical power.

      “Ultima Ratio Regenum”

  • Then why did Michele Bachmann have the best immigration record and the most “xenophobic” immigration rhetoric of all the Republican candidates?  It’s not true all the time.

    I have noticed the same sort of behavior in dogs.  If a household has several dogs of mixed genders, and the dogs aren’t allowed to sleep in the bedrooms with people, the females will sleep near bedroom doors, and the males will sleep near portals to the outside world.  As if the female dog knows it has to protect people, and the male knows it has to protect property.  If you let all the dogs out at once, the first thing that most males will do is make a run around the perimeter of the yard, at or near the fences, the females tend to stay a bit back.

    • David Owens

      Interesting observation. If you will look at children on a school playground, you will see something of the same behavior. The girls will tend to cluster towards the center, while the boys will tend to form a circle around the girls. It is rather hard to explain this as a cultural artifact rather than as an instinct. 

      • Spot on.  I remember from elementary school, in a standard sized school yard or playground, that during recess, the girls were relatively close to the doors of the building in a bubble that extended from there to the center of the yard, playing hopscotch, jump rope or some “playing house” game, while the boys with lots of friends played some sort of sport at one of the edges of the yard, and the loner boys trolled the perimeter.

        • Oh dear. I used to be one of the weirdos then since I also wandered about the perimeter. 🙂

        • Anonymous

          I wandered the perimeter too.  I looked out to the mountains.  Later in life I climbed the highest one I used to look at from that playground; Pyramid Peak in the Desolation Wilderness of El Dorado County, CA.  10,000 ft.

          But yeah, I was a bit of a loner.   But I was really outgoing in the mid part of my life.  I’m back to being pretty much a loner with a few friends, (and a good wife) now.

  • Anonymous

    ‘We see similar behaviour in chimpanzees,’ said Prof van Vugt. ‘For example, the males continuously monitor the borders of their territory.

    ‘If a female from another group comes along, she may be persuaded to emigrate to his group. When a male strays too far, however, he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed.’

    ========

    One of my vivid memories of long-time New York Times science reporter’s superb BEFORE THE DAWN: Recovering The Lost History of Our Ancestors (2006) is his extensive discussion of chimp behavior and what it may tells us about early human societies.  One example:

    “Because of the richness of human culture, it is hard to define the genetic underpinings of human social behavior.  It is much easier to see a set of social behaviors, presumably genetically defined, among our primate cousins.  Chimpanzees have been studied in the wild for some 45 years . . . Only in recent years, as the fruit of much arduous research, has sthe big picture come together.  Biologists can now explain many deep features of chimp society and how its components work.  The dynamics of chimp society bear directly on the better-consealed game plan of human societies.

    “Though Goodall at first believed the chimpanzees at Gombe lived in one big happy group, it later became clear . . . that the opposite is the case.  Chimps are divided into communities of up to 120 members, which occupy and aggressively defend specific territories.” p141

    • Anonymous

      I too read Before the Dawn and recommend it to everyone.  There is a great deal of DNA study information in it as well.

  • Anonymous

    This article points out why a top political priority needs to be breaking the link between women and minorities (and gays) in the Diversity Coalition.  Their political interests have little in common, except wanting white males’ jobs and the convenience of claiming that they’re all the victims of a white male power structure.

    A political alliance of women, blacks, and Hispanics wins.  Separating them into disparate interests based on their differences can address their particular needs without ruining the country as a whole.

    • Anonymous

      White women turning against white men, who gave them unprecedented privileges and opportunities, was the greatest perfidy in human history.  We are and will continue to pay for it.

      • Affirmative action would’ve never gained a foothold if feminists hadn’t signed off on it. 51% of the population, yet still a minority?

      • Anonymous

        You are only too correct.  I love our women, and I feel hurt every time I see or hear one of them voicing their hateful screed at those who are their right brothers, fathers, and sons.

        Suffrage was a mistake.  It is painfully clear that as women gain more and more political power that societies’ collapse gains momentum.  Some think it’s great because they have the jobs their husbands once might have had to raise their family on, but as I used to say back in 1970s, “Show me a woman with a man’s job and I’ll show you a man with no family.”

        Eventually, and sooner than later, this entire system will collapse.  Men will fight it out and a new beginning may be.  That is if, the total catastrophe leaves any human life at all. 

  • This seems like a pile of sh*t to me.

    Yes, many tribes/cultures/nations/whatever have high rates of male violence. But there are plenty of cultures that seem to have transcended much of that. Notice that the most violent places on the planet are in Africa and Latin America. And I don’t just mean government-initiated violence (ie North Korea.) I mean citizen-against-citizen violence.

    And if females are so peaceful in order to “protect their children,” why the heck are they more likely than men to abuse their children?

    Lethal males are more capable of PROTECTING their offspring from harmful animals and humans. That is why women are attracted to dangerous, alpha males.

    Females may sometimes be the target of male violence or aggressiveness (although not usually), but they are also the most likely to profit from it when the males are successfully violent or aggressive (more food, territory, wealth, etc.)

    • Anonymous

      I agree with all of your points except this one: And if females are so peaceful in order to “protect their children,” why the heck are they more likely than men to abuse their children?

      Saying women are more likely to abuse their kids is like saying white men are more likely  to be serial killers or child molesters when compared to colored men.

      Compared to black males, white males are LESS likely to be pedophiles or serial killers. Same applies to women vs. men and child abuse.  When one bases the rates of child abuse on the PERCENTAGE of female vs  male caregivers then women are LESS likely to abuse children.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe today, but I wonder about it in the past.  I have done a lot of social research, partially in my own family but by incidence, into many family histories of the pre-WW2 into the 19th century period in America.  There were many cases of sadistic mothers, in particular step mothers.  Step mothers were quite common back then because of the high mortality rates in childbirth.  It seems that many women who married the widowers were happy for the security that the marriage brought them, but not the children they had to care for. 

        I found stories on many a case of harhness, I mean torture of children by step mothers.  The singer Peggy Lee was one.  Her step mother used to scald her hands in hot water.  I knew of a boy who was sat on a red hot stove by a step mother, and on and on…. not just a few isolated cases.  Also, orphanages were often dumping homes for unwanted children and were too often run by questionable people.

        As for today (post WW2), I notice that more women are violent towards their own children in the past 20 years then the past 10 years than say, in the 1960s, or 70s.  I see that as in a general social decline due to the general increase of narcissism.

      • Took at statistics on child abuse and neglect. What you learn may surprise you. More children are neglected and abused at the hands of their mothers that their fathers, and they are more likely too be abused in a household with their mom and her boyfriend than in a household either their father and his girlfriend.

        • The rate of infanticide in households with the child’s mother and her b/f not the child’s father is 60 times higher (last I heard) than in natural mom/natural dad or natural dad/step mom situations.  It’s the lion taking over the pride thing. 

  • Anonymous

    Moreover, in my personal experience, it is invariably the more effeminate and effete males among us who are drawn to lefty/multiculturalist twaddle like a moth to a flame!  I believe they are onto something with this article. Unfortunately for them, this flies in the face all of virtually all the feel-good, cultural-marxist baloney they so enthusisatically embrace! 

  • Anonymous

    Women rarely take a stand against multi-culti lefties, etc. because they are much more non-confrontational and less political. They’re all about “getting along” and more concerned about “being nice” – exactly the kind of audience the Left needs.

  • Anonymous

    Throughout much of recorded history women were considered to be the legitimate spoils of victorious warriors. One can see this in ancient Greek literature about the Trojan war, and to a lesser extent in the Old Testament.
     
    Because similar behavior has been found in paleolithic humans and Chimpanzees, we can be confident that this has influenced human evolution. Men who were victorious in war increased their access to women, and had more children who survived and reproduced. Men who lost in war, and men who avoided war did not.
     
    For women war was a lose – lose situation. If their side lost their husbands and male relatives were killed and they were carried off. If their side won they had to share their husbands with captive women.
     
    As women become more active in politics, and as more are elected to political positions, military budgets are reduced, and governments become more nurturing. 

  • ciccio

     Every animal species marks and defends its territory, when it is old and weak either one of its younger members stages a coup or a stronger male from outside moves in and takes over. The minute an animal, in that I include man, stops defending and marking their territory it is up for grabs.

  • Great post.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think the work place plays into it that much for most men. Sure there are some professions that should probably remain all male in some respects, I would say fireman should be able to keep their all male firehouses for example.

    Having said that I work with a lot of male department heads in a medium sized company and they can get into a lot of disruptive territorial disputes among each other which can be detrimental to business. If one male department head comes up with a list that they want from the other it will often cause friction, I have been asked to be the middleman.  I approach the other and I don’t give them the list of demands,  I ask them for their guidance on how to fix certain problems and suddenly the man comes up with the same  list of action items on his own and he is happy to help!  So funny how that works, huh? It is all about dominance and territory and the feminine influence can be a benefit.

    I don’t think the problem is in the workplace for most men. Here men are manly even though many do work around women all day, they bond with men socially and they seem to do just fine. I really think the social groups are the key and I honestly think military service helps a whole lot too. The military is probably one of the best places imaginable to have male bonding and male traits accentuated.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    I wouldn’t like to pontificate in an already half-dead thread/comment line -only add a few side observations & ideas.

    1. this pop- social Darwinism has some insight, but it’s far from being something very perceptive & explanatory

    2. as for males, accent is on physicality & muscularity. It’s a dated & shallow concept. Leading males in most of recorded history excelled in a combination of character & intellect, not necessarily in anything Arno ex-Gubernator is a cartoon of. Even in ancient times, Homer praised more Ulysses as the true hero, more than childlike Achilles. In real life, Caesar was indomitable warrior-statesman, but not a muscular “hero”- I think he never fought a duel or anything similar. In recent centuries- Robespierre, Napoleon, Gladstone, Marx, Henry Ford, Lenin, Hitler, … were, in their various ways, figures of male dominance with virtually nothing “macho” or “primitively muscular” about them.   
    Does anyone seriously think that John Wayne or Babe Ruth were more “manly” than T.Alva Edison or  Richard Feynman ? Don’t overestimate entertainers.

    3. “alpha male”. This term has two meanings: dominant male (see above) & sexually promiscuous, generally self-confident man. The second meaning is tied with  a combination of athleticism & financial power. Well- hardly. The most “successful” womanizers in past two centuries have been artists, some of them rather effeminate in behavior (Franz Liszt, Chopin, Richard Wagner, Picasso, Victor Hugo, Jean Paul Sartre, Norman Mailer, ..). In short- muscles & money are secondary; character, creativity & mind are of primary importance. And this has nothing to do with being “dominant”- Newton was dominant in his field, and in the “greater world”- actually, he created modern science-oriented civilization, but sexually was anything but alpha. Maybe omega.

    4. women. The vast majority are not actually interested in politics or the “wider world” (except for those who have partly male brain, like Rosa Luxembourg, Margaret Thatcher or Indira Ghandi). Women tend to be with the victors, not with the oppressed. In the US, White men were the chief abolitionists & civil rights activists, with very few women fellow-travelers. Only in past 20-30 yrs they mix with Blacks more prominently, because media manipulation has created illusion that Black males are- if not victors- at least “strong” and “manly”. This illusion dismantled, Black-White miscegenation would plummeted.

  • Anonymous

    Dom wrote: I read amren for more then six months and I never seen male female arguing over this topic but the first time I’ve seen comments about this you responded overemotional.

    Yes I did react emotionally and there is a history behind that. I have posted on Amren for at least 3 years. In the past I have seen the anti-female topic come up a few times, a couple of years ago I actually wrote to Amren and mentioned that it was becoming hostile and asked if they could moderate that, a nice woman by the name of Stephanie wrote back and things were fine again.  I have also posted on a couple of other WN oriented sites and the hostility against women was so bad I had to leave.

    When Amren went live (new instant posting format) I thought that would be great but I also thought “Oh no, it could also turn ugly and become hostile toward female posters” and since I have liked (and contributed) to this site for a few years now I really didn’t want to see that happen. I don’t want to be marginalized or made to feel I can’t post here comfortably and since that is the case on so many WN oriented sites I am hyper sensitive about it happening here. BTW I am not a feminist, I don’t need to be, I have all my rights and I am able to do everything I want so in that regard I am a very happy camper. However I don’t want my gender to be insulted or belittled, I don’t want to read posts that say women are too stupid to vote, or women should be forced to breed, or women are the reason for all the problems that White people face today etc… (and those types of statements are NOT uncommon on WN sites).

    I will say I do think most of the regular Amren posters seem to be a bit more mature and a lot more educated than average, but the misogynist element definitely still exists and even if it is only 10% of the men it can ruin it for most of the women if it goes unchecked.

    I would like to read your explanation of Roman and Greek attitudes to wards marriage and children. I think it’s la bella vita. Decadence.

    Yes, it could be that, but it is a bit of a cliche that comes with a lot of classic judgment. I think there could be more to it, perhaps the “decadence” of those individuals really meant they lacked the social programming and had the intelligence and financial ability to simply do what they wanted without care.

    Is that degeneracy? Maybe so.

    One reason question the root cause is due to the fact that human females are unique from most all other animals in one peculiar way; they do not show outward signs or even realize when they are ovulating. 

    One theory put forth was that when human brains developed and intellect started taking over the human females started avoiding sex when they knew they would conceive (for obvious reasons). As a result natural selection bred the trait out. Now of course the “popular” theory is that hidden ovulation was necessary to keep human males around for child rearing and support;  I tend to think that theory is a bunch of hooey.  None of the other primates have resorted to that, and many many other species are extremely monogamous even though female ovulation in those species is extremely obvious only once a year.

    My point is maybe the traits we are seeing as “decadence” go much deeper.

  • Anonymous

    I think men can have both tendencies.  It is just that the tough minded part has to be there, and in some men, it isn’t, or not enough.  Those are the ones that soft religions were created for and to produce.

  • Anonymous

    I would.  Blacks have been using sex as the main attack on white society since they have been in contact.  If you read Eldridge Cleaver’s book, Soul on Ice, the attitude and PRACTICE is well explained;

    Wiki:

      “In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges
    committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in
    the ghetto “for practice”, and then embarked on the rape of white women.
    Cleaver refers to the serial rape of white women as “an insurrectionary act.”

    Cleaver was the radical who started The Black Panther Party.  He armed and sent out black rapists to every corner of the nation.  I had a girl friend who had lived in Florida in around 1970.  She said it was common for black men to sneak into opened windows and rape teenaged girls in their beds.  Further, all the pressure on white women to date and bear their children is a kind of rape in that it is not the actual choice of the woman, but the result of social training that makes her think that she is making the choice.  Add to that the phenomena that I saw often at my high school;  black guys would hit heavy on white girls and if they weren’t thrilled, they were accused of being “prejudice.”  The amount of date rapes must be in the millions.  Most of the women end up being two-timmed, dumped after having one or two of their babies,  and often physically as well as psychologically abused.

    But we can go back to the Antebellum South for similar examples as in the Nat Turner rebellion.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know if that’s true.  One of the books endorsers, E.O. Watson was dismissed from his chair because of realistic comments he made on race in Britain.  Also, in the U.S. we don’t get arrested or fined for racist remarks that ‘encourage hate.”

  • Anonymous

    Sonya;

    After reading your reply to Dom below, I feel I must post again.  You MUST be young.  You cannot otherwise feel it is so terrible to read posts on sites like this that blame women for many things or even all the problems.  You would be a hypocrite otherwise.

    So you complained to Amren of too many anti-female comments?  Can you imagine how a man might be and was and still is greeted when he says anything about being constantly run down in the media?  They have no qualms at laughing at those “angry white men” who are still blamed for everything wrong in this country and the world.

    Don’t you know that men got hammered ruthlessly from 1969 on for a couple solid decades?  Don’t you notice men still being put down in the media as idiots, goofs, dumb fools, drooling sex hounds, and criminals (especially white men)?  I turn off the tv every time I see another woman cop save a white male cop from getting beat up by kick a bigger and stronger man’s a$$.

    But in the 70s, NOW went on a rampage; every men’s club was attacked, sued, every place that was a male domain had to allow women in, even locker-rooms with naked athletes walking around!  Men were constantly hounded for being “macho” and laws got passed that gave women the right in many states to just claim she was hit and the guy is hauled away to jail.  Men get battered psychologically by sexual images, battered by sexual performance demands, battered by divorce (where women still often get custody and men have to support children they aren’t allowed to father (I’ve done guardian ad litem training, I know something about that).

    It appears to me that you are missing a lot of history of the feminist movement and modern social history in general.  It’s no sin, you can read up.  For a good one on Feminism read Tammy Bruce’s, “The New Thought Police.”  Tammy Bruce used to be the president of the LA chapter of NOW.

    In time, you may come to understand why many men feel bitterly betrayed by their women.  But we want more of you here.  However, you’ve got to know that being a race realist is not popular with Feminists and it will be difficult to be one here because its aims are anathematic to the construct of white race realism and survival.

  • Anonymous

    Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight wrote: So you complained to Amren of too many anti-female comments?  Can you imagine how a man might be and was and still is greeted when he says anything about being constantly run down in the media?  They have no qualms at laughing at those “angry white men” who are still blamed for everything wrong in this country and the world.
     
    If men don’t like it when it happens to them can you see how women might not like it and be hurt by it when it happens to us on WN sites?  You know how hurtful it is when the media bashes you constantly, but you think women are being unreasonable when we say it is hurtful when the same thing happens to us?  I love White men, White men are responsible for virtually every great achievement and invention! White men are treated very badly in the media and we all know that! 
     
    White men want to be appreciated and respected, well news flash White women do to! Especially on WN sites! White women do not want to be told all of the problems are our fault and that we are basically bad people. Saying that white women can only be respected and appreciated if we AGREE with all of the ugly statements that are made about us is really really not fair and deep down any reasonable person would realize that.
     
    And no I am not “younger”. It is rather ironic that I discovered “manly men” at this point in my life. After having enjoyed an active single lifestyle for many years I reached a point in life where that wasn’t a priority anymore; that enabled me to move to a small town in the country which had always been somewhat of a dream. Imagine my surprise when I was suddenly surrounded by charming very manly men for the first time ever! Course I am sure if I actually lived with them I would see a less charming side, but that’s okay because I don’t see that side.