A surprise end to the gender wars: men stand together

Summary: Identity politics is fracturing America society along a dozen fault lines. The last and largest phase, the gender wars, might reverse the process. It might drive men to stand together, no matter what their other identities. If so, it might be another revolution.

The Predator (1987)
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carl Weathers in “Predator.”

I never thought it would come to this, but we might face conflict between men and women in America on a scale new to history. The evidence surrounds us.

Feminists have convinced a substantial fraction of women they are under attack, besieged by men. “Believe the victim” is their mantra. By which they mean “believe the accuser, unless its Bill Clinton.” They want kangaroo court justice, as provided by many colleges. They ignore the high rates of false accusations of rape.

On the other hand, films and TV show women hitting men (even boyfriends) for little or no reason. The men can only cower before their grrl-power righteous rage. Romance is shown as women breaking alpha men into betas – or women marrying beta providers whom they treat like doormats. Competent but socially inept beta men are treated with contempt and abuse by women. There is little in the patriarchal literature or films of the bad old days showing men treating women like that.

See the rise of Girls’ Game: romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, money, and independence. This became feasible after the reforming of marriage to allow no-fault no-stigma divorce with community property & child support (details here). She looks in your eyes and vows “until death” while aware she can easily dump you – and gain the independence (autonomy) she has been raised to value so highly. This includes weaponized divorce: routine false claims by wives of domestic abuse.

See women’s unleashed preference for “bad boys” and dislike of “nice guys”. Taylor Swift sings about this for her generation of young women. Nice guys are expected to buy dinners for girls for a decade, until women are ready to settle for betas. Some women carry this to mad extremes. Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz was a pitiful loser, ignored or despised by girls. As a psychopathic killer, now girls flood him with fan mail – offering themselves to him.

Feminists are winning the war on boys. Boys continue to fall behind as schools evolve into hostile environments for them, with continued growth of special programs for girls. Millions of parents drug their boys to make them compliant like pets.

One institution after another is conquered by feminists, reconfigured to suit their needs – often to the disadvantage of men. For example, Feminist revolutionaries have seized control of colleges. Indoctrination, ever-tightening controls on speech and action (including on the intimate and formerly-private behaviors). Modern women say follow the rules while we break them.

She runs Living Proof Ministries and has 375 thousand followers on Twitter.

This is why on Sunday the pews are filled with kids, elderly, and women. I recommend reading Dalrock’s analysis of this tweet from the perspective of a traditional Christian. Also see what’s said on Father’s Day and Feminists conquer the Evangelicals.

Race vs. sex

Identity politics works to fracture American society along every fault line. That works for the factional leaders. It works for our plutocrat leaders, who fear above all things that we recognize our common interests (only together are we strong enough to defeat them).

Few saw that identity politics can unite people. African-American men have historically suffered the most from false accusations of rape. The almost total removal of constraints on women’s ability to make false accusations puts them at risk, again. Perhaps men will see their common interests, and learn to stand together despite their interests.

Ruth Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas
Ruth Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas as Kavanaugh takes the oath of office.

More possible strange alliances

Soyboys rejoice in their low testosterone. Masculinity becomes “toxic.” Parents are told to raise their boys like eunuchs or girls. Suppress their natures, least they grow up to be politically incorrect. As Martin van Creveld reports, we have become a nation of pussycats (see his provocative and well-documented book, Pussycats.

Newspapers overflow with hatred towards men. NYT Style section: “How Do I Deal With My Anger Toward Men?” NYT: “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido” (written by someone who doesn’t read the NYT). In the WaPo Professor Suzanna Walters asks “Why can’t we hate men?” She concludes with this advice: “Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything.”

It is a common story. Revolutions begin as the pursuit of high ideals, like equality and justice. They often degenerate into the lust for power and vengeance. The casualties are high. Then comes the counter-revolution.

But our situation is different. Men vs. women is a conflict between biological poles that are the foundation of society. Most of the other differences that divide us are trivial by comparison. So under pressure, men might turn to the remaining reservoirs in America of masculinity and male pride, and learn from them: men who are African-Americans, Hispanics, migrants, far-Right extremists, military (active duty and vets), police, and Muslim.

Us white middle class betas can learn much from them. Especially Millennials and Generation Z. Mis-educated by their parents (e.g., me) to live a world that burned away a decade or two ago, indoctrinated by their feminist teachers to be conflicted, often drugged throughout their childhood – they can gain the most by exposure to stronger men.

Will this happen? How might this happen? How would it play out, with what consequences? Nobody can do more than guess at the answers. It is a revolution, so tomorrow is unknowable. Expect the unexpected.

I suspect the gender war has gone too far. The resolution won’t be pretty. Perhaps not fair. It might even leave us worse off (in terms of social evolution) than we were in 1970. That is why revolutions are to be avoided. But we are beyond the point at which that wisdom helps.

Why I believe this will happen

Men had few advantages vs. other species. We are not fast, lack armor, have no fantastic senses, lack large claws and teeth, and are weak in most ways. We can fight with other scavengers for scraps, and that probably was our main gig for a long time. Then we became cursorial hunters (aka persistence hunters), the finest on the planet. Our minds and bodies evolved for long distance pursuit, running prey into the group. A cursorial hunter cannot give up, because then all the calories expended are wasted. Never gives up, resolute, determined – these are powerful complements to men in almost every culture around the world, ever.

We learned to hunt in packs, with our social organization the first great force multiplier. Put a group of men together, and they will usually self-organize into a functioning team – following instructions coded into us thousands of generations ago.

And we innovate, creating the tools that made us the top species on the planetary pecking order.

We still have these attributes. The circumstances have changed from when they developed, but they remain at hand for when we need them.


For More Information

Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women & societyabout rapeabout MeToo, and especially these…

  1. Summary – Starting World War G: the gender wars.
  2. A brief guide to the new war of the sexes. Both sides are 100% right.
  3. America’s war of the sexes gets worse. Here’s why.
  4. Origin of the gender wars — Analysis by Allan Bloom.
  5. The war on masculinity is a war on men.
  6. Lightning-like insights reveal truths of the gender war.

Books about the revolution

Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy by Mark Regnerus (professor of sociology at U Texas-Austin).

The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It by Warren Farrell and John Grey. Farrell wrote The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex. Grey wrote Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus.

Also see Martin Van Creveld’s Pussycats: Why the Rest Keeps Beating the West. See my posts about it here.

Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy
Available at Amazon.
The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It
Available at Amazon.

61 thoughts on “A surprise end to the gender wars: men stand together”

  1. I hope men stand together. IMO, men will find that the women will stand with them as well. My opinion is based on the same evolutionary forces that shaped men, by definition shaped women in a bimorphic result. I think the tirades of women against women who voted for Trump shows their moral fear that women are ready to dismiss the feminists’ ideas of the present and the future.

    IMO, this because one of the truths about humans that is not credited for its true value is just how much genetics and evolution shape us. This lack of giving credit is typified by the rejection of the twin forces that shape all, opportunity and capability. From Grrrl power, to “No Child Left Behind” capability is derided and equality is being accepted as equal outcome, despite the facts of our biological do not support such a conclusion. Neither do the works of those who studied humanity for the past 6000 years support such claims.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “men will find that the women will stand with them as well.”

      I strongly agree. This was already too long, and this point is complex to explain.

      To take this speculation one more step: I wonder if the gender wars results from men becoming too weak. Women have no use for weak men, and rightly turned on us. Become strong again, and this conflict might melt away like last winter’s snow. I do not know how this might play out, or what the result would be. All this takes us to the fringes of what my imagination can conceive.

    2. Larry, I think the gender wars were inescapable once reliable birth control and automation came along. But in a way, we already know one of the successful syntheses that can take place that does not deny how humans are biological entities; and that is what is seen in the Scandinavian countries.

      The men that women want to date, and what happens to women who do this too long due to their biological clocks, and what happens with male children in a single mother household should tell us: Humans cannot get away from our generational biological/mating inputs. I think the growth of the number of male children in one parent homes has lead to more of the same. Further, I cannot recall if you said it or it was implied, but data and correlation, about where the men that women want to date come from, is essential to understanding the path we are on, so we can see where we are going, IMO. Without such, it is not just imagination problems, it is a knowledge problem as well.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “I think the gender wars were inescapable once reliable birth control and automation came along.”

        Historians love to debate such things. I believe that history is contingent. But there is no way to answer such questions.

        “The men that women want to date,’

        That’s only sorta true. In many societies thru history, a large fraction of men were locked out the mating game – and there was no “dating.” Life went on. In our society the data shows that Men and Women are each going their own way. This is a small trend so far (e.g., dating, sexual activity and marriage declining), but the gender wars might accelerate them.

        People tend to look at population aggregates for these things, which is daft. Change is occurring among the young. For many young men, porn, sports, computer games, bros, drugs, and booze are adequate substitutes for what they see out there — which is to a large extent tatted up, foul mouth, aggressive, women who dress like guys. This might be the small waves preceding the Tsunami.

        “{The arrival of sexbots} will blow up the world. It will make crack cocaine look like decaffeinated coffee.”
        — Anonymous (source here).

  2. I think the election of Trump is one indication of the zeitgeist a craving for strong male leaders. Its no coincidence that some on the internet call him God Emperor Trump.

    In reference to a central character in WH40 Tabletop game universe. Of a strong king with superhuman powers that enabled humanity to fight back against the horrors of a hostile universe.

    And I think his presence in office has somehow helped people like Lindsay Graham suddenly find their manliness.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      I’ve wondered about that. Trump is a clown, totally unsuited for his office. Yet he has a large following. You may have hit on the source of his appeal: he is a true alpha.

    2. I’M SORRY BUT I HAVE TO DISAGREE. Trump’s election was caused by two huge desires by the Republican rank and file that had not been previous well met by the Republican leadership:

      1. This is the single most important reason by a lot. He was the TOTAL opposite of Hillary Clinton (except for being an old fart), not a professional politician. Not one of the political establishment. Not incredibly impressed with how smart he is (he isn’t that smart and he semi, sort of, acknowledges it, which I find slightly impressive). Officially made his money outside of politics. etc.
      2. He offered extremely simple, basically Republican party platform, solutions to large US government problems
      3. Hillary was, is, and always will be, extremely annoying for about 2/3rds of the US voting population to listen to.

      Trump’s primary weapons while running for office were:
      1. The Republican rank and file KNEW that Trump wasn’t part of the Republican leadership prior to running for the Presidency (the Republican leadership should be very concerned about this fact when they consider their future).
      2. Trump was independently famous with the Republican rank and file before starting his run for the Presidency.
      3. Trump is VERY LOUD and pretty much blew everybody else off the stage by the end of every debate (except perhaps for Clinton, for whom he toned down the volume slightly).
      4. Clinton made vastly more unforced mistakes than Trump did, and oh boy did he capitalized on them! I believe the primary reason she made so many unforced mistakes was that she had never encountered such a simple political animal as Trump and had to try to figure out how to handle him in real time. While all he had to do was listen and shout out her mistakes to the electorate. This would certainly be hard for anybody to handle in real time and Hillary finally found out she wasn’t as politically smart as she thought she was. Bill Clinton might have solved the problem in the same position simply because I’ve never seen a smarter political animal but she didn’t stand a chance.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        I agree with some of this, but you are answering a different question than what was asked. “Why did he win the election?” is a different question than “why do so many people like him?” Or as I phrased it, why does he have “a large following” and what is “the source of his appeal.”

        The election is a choice between two people, two political parties. As I describe it, it is like going to prison. Alone you are just meat, a victim. You see the Puerto Rico gang, the Black Muslims, and the White Nationalist Nazi Bikers. It is not a matter of liking anyone of them.

        I know many people who voted for Trump but were well aware of his failings – and feared Hillary more. In hindsight, they might have been correct. Imagine how the radical Social Justice Warriors of Team Hillary would have responded to the “me too” hysteria. Nightmarish. Good-bye Bill of Rights!

    3. I would agree with info about why men and women were not alienated. Some have problems with Trump’s self-centeredness and self-assuredness and not recognize just what are the biological pinnings for a group of weak males coming together with a “great force multiplier (by) Put(ting) a group of men together, and that will self-organize into a functioning team ( with a leader) – learning instructions that will coded be into us and last thousands of generations.” They do not see his mistakes relevant as long as he keeps producing enough wins. There will be failures; successful humans learn from such and it becomes part of our culture. This is one of the tag along benefits of the social part of such an organization, a functioning team.

      A lot of persons won’t see the group work and self organizing of women that is part of this generational evolutionary success story as part of our human genetic make-up. Or worse, think it can be changed with a few philosophical assertions, and because someone wishes it true.

      One of the items that causes de-motivation and cultural shifts is when the reality and message become at odds from each other for too long. Many reach the point that they can no longer believe it, so no self re-enforcement of belief. I think we are seeing that with the loss of stature among black men and white women in the liberal hierarchy. Most refer to this condition of de-motivation as B*** S***.

      Pluto99 has some reasons why Trump won. A point different from mine.

  3. Jeff Flake is berated and looks down (I am so sorry mommy):

    Senator Jeff Flake is abused and looks weak.


    Lindsey Graham looks confident and strong despite the hysteria:

    Senator Lindsey Graham looks triumphant

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Is that sexual assault taking place in the background of the second photo? Did that old guy first ask permission to kiss that woman? She looks shocked, perhaps screaming.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Thanks! Is the woman Ford?

        What a new world, when photographs are not history.

  4. Maximus,

    You said, “I’ve wondered about that. Trump is a clown, totally unsuited for his office. Yet he has a large following. You may have hit on the source of his appeal: he is a true alpha.”

    Please explain yourself ole’ Maximus … your comments “…clown … totally unsuited” are far too dismissive and uncharacteristic of your usual mindful/thoughtful renderings.

    IMO The man that’s wrapped ’round by and mislabeled “clown (and) unsuited” is far more than meets the eye. As I have been wont to use “comparative” as applied to assessing the value of a couple of political systems fraught with uncertainty and tragedy, I also use “comparative” as applied to the differences between President Trump and his perpetual, evil rivals … the Clintons. Trump trumps the Clintons in my book.

    The Ole’ Buzzard

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Are you kidding? The stream of comments from past and present White House staff in news stories and books paint a consistent picture of a man lost in an office who which he lacks both the temperament and skills to exercise. They are not kidding, as shown by the massive staff turnover (a reliable indicator of an incompetent leader).

      His policy initiatives have been conducted with High School Student Council-level skill. Starting with his blocking of the borders to people from selected nations. Even if it was a well-conceived goal (which it wasn’t), it was conducted as if by graduates of Rodeo Clown School. Ditto his efforts to start a mad trade war.

      His tweets are often bizarre, and destroy his political capital. He makes Carter scheduling the White House tennis courts look like King Arthur.

      His statements often seem like lines from looney-toon cartoons. Such as “Ivanka Trump would be ‘dynamite’ as UN ambassador.” It’s ok for a proud dad to think that. Only a fool would say it.

      His tweets and statements show that he is impulsive, ignorant, and a liar. He is a poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect:

      “A cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability.”

      But then many on the Right thought that Sara Palin would be a great president (if President McCain died in office). As I have said so often, one of our major problems is that both Left and Right have gone bonkers.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      History shows that men act together to regulate women (and vice versa). That’s how we got patriarchy.

  5. Dear Maximus,

    While staying focused on the “comparative” hereafter ….

    What’s out front and on the face of it is believable “bonkers,” but behind it all is a huge measure of “rope a dope” from the President calculated to off balance the Goodfella “bonkers” both left and right and globally. As for tweets and seemingly off the cuff correspondence, keeping one’s opponents on their toes is meaningful in every way. It’s strategy. It’s psyops.

    Funny thing about the trade war, he’s coalescing more neighborly “opt ins” than “opt outs” and winning in a different and unique way.

    As for borders and threats and immigration, threats are more often than not exaggerated. “Iraq and Weapons of mass destruction” for example. However, IMO the border needs to be hardened because “threat” in a variety of its forms is real and immigrants are either legal or illegal. “Undocumented” is a farce. President Trump knows that his hyperbole will motivate! It’s psyops.

    I’ll raise you “bonkers” over phallic symbols on the White House Christmas tree any day. See an excerpt from my friend Gary Aldrich’s Clinton expose “Unlimited Access : An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House” at https://goo.gl/uCTJWR Gary’s C-span interview can be found here https://goo.gl/wkFQSf

    It’s great psyops to suggest that President Trump is thinking about Ivanka as Ambassador. It’s designed to set the rabid leftists growling and frothing at the mouth … looking more and more stupid before the midterms.

    I’m glad you said “many” on the right and not inferred all of us regarding Palin. My borrowed but embraced views on McCain can be found here https://goo.gl/CPkWe6 A McCain … Trump is NOT.

    As for staff turnover, the oval office has been infiltrated by Moles that the President has had to … er … exterminate? It would in fact have been “exterminate” were the Clintons in the mix. For “Clinton Body Count,” see here https://goo.gl/G8cwT1 As to staff turnover, I believe that Rob Porter was a Hatch mole and Peter Carr is a Mueller mole. See “Mr. President … Senator Orrin G. Hatch is NOT your friend!” here https://goo.gl/xt7oFk Not having had a legion of Deep Staters from which to choose for his “court,” I would anticipate a continuing exodus from the President’s circle. And … he’s also a driver … burning out the best of the best. Nikki Haley may be an example of that. I wanna’ hug her.

    Using material from Maximus, I have prefaced it with, “As for the Black Arts … ‘Since when is anything about what it’s about?’ We have already written of the “Black Arts in play along the way … truth flees and flits like fickle illusions through dark clouds of Cognitive Dissonance, Distortion, Psychological Warfare, Propaganda, Perception Management, Mind Manipulation, and Destabilization. They, the masters (Goodfellas) of these Black Arts, with “malice aforethought” and intent have subverted the rule of law and good governance.” See here https://goo.gl/3A8ywx We unabashadley use Ole’ Maximus throughout the posting … hopefully without incurring any liability or too much ire.

    Would we deny our President the traditional tools of his office and trade? Of course not. He’s merely using them his way. It’s called, “disruption and disruptive innovation.” See “Can Innovative Disruption Be A Tool Of The Future? Both In Business And Politics?” here https://goo.gl/KjuESK

    Finally, we both agree, “… Left and Right have gone bonkers.” All-the-while, the President is reshaping the Right and re-birthing the Republican “bonkers” with tactic and strategy extraordinaire … outside the box … disruptive … psyops.

    IMO s/The Ole’ Buzzard

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      This is getting too off-topic. These long diversions kill the thread. Please stick with the topic of the post.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      I mention this because every discussion about how to reform America quickly goes off the rails, as commenters focus on trivia or unrelated subjects. It’s as if we know America is on the wrong path, know that it is our responsibility to do something, don’t want to make the effort and take the risks — and so hate discussions that remind us of these unpleasant facts.

      1. Larry … yes of course! Add to that I’ve not much time left to assist with “reform” and the frustration mounts. I thought I could make a difference as an FBI Agent but soon learned otherwise. Thank you for your patience. Wayne

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “Add to that I’ve not much time left to assist with “reform” and the frustration mounts.”

        Fortunately, the people who built Britain and America had different senses of time and commitment.

        • The Founders didn’t “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” unless it takes too long.
        • Samuel Adams and his fellow activists in 1764 Boston organized the first of the Committees of Correspondence. They formed the nucleus of shadow governments, which later formed the basis of revolutionary governments, and then the USA.
        • In 1787 William Wilberforce began his crusade in Parliament against slavery in the UK. Full victory came in 1833.
        • Benjamin Franklin helped organize America’s first Abolitionist Society at Pennsylvania in 1785. These spread across the nation. Partial victory came in 1865. Full victory came in 1964.
        • The first women’s rights convention was held at Seneca Falls NY in 1848. The first National Women’s Rights Conventions was held in Worcester, MA in October 1850. The 19th Amendment became law in August 1920.
  6. The Man Who Laughs

    I think one reason why things came out the way they did in the Kavanaugh case is that because the man made a fight of it, he ended up looking like an everyman who had been set upon by this huge anonymous smear machine. This wasn’t some faceless group of frat guys, and it wasn’t Haven Monahan (Who has yet to be found.) This was a real man with whom other men could identify. More than that, it was the man’s family. A lot of guys have been thrashed through the false accusation machine, but usually it’s a nobody. This was happening live on TV and it wasn’t happening to some faceless anonymous victim. (Quick. What did the guys on that team at Duke look like? You don’t know, do you? Me neither.)

    Long after the battle of Gettysburg, someone asked George Pickett why the South had lost. He thought about it for a moment and replied “I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” Those Yankees fought like absolute hell, and sometimes nothing else will see a man through.

    Turning briefly to the subject of Trump, people respect a man who fights, which is a big reason why Trump won. What he has done with his victory is a topic for another day. But to win you have to be willing to hit and take a hit. No one thought that Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz could, or would. Whatever you think of Trump, he was the most qualified by character of the Republican contenders. Make of that what you will.

    And if you show a willingness to fight, then other men may choose to fight with you.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor

      The Man,

      Can we discuss the post, please. There have been a billion of these discussions about US politics. They go on and on, without end or point, like College Dorm bs sessions if they had unlimited beer.

      The subject here is how to end the gender wars. Hopefully with some reasonably pleasant solution.

  7. Dear Editors,

    I have recently read a tweet by you suggesting we do away with 2 senators for every state and go with population representation. I must say I am very disappointment. I can’t find the tweet and not sure if there was an article that went along with it.

    I have been reading your blog since I was a young infantry officer in Iraq ~ 2008. Most of your observations are spot on. But here you are wrong. I see a few articles in here about how California is dysfunctional with poverty and income inequality. Then why do you want to give more power to politicians from California?

  8. There are a few falsehoods in your reply. I will chalk it up as wishful thinking at best or naivety at worst.

    1. We are not a democracy. Right now we are de facto plutocracy at best or authoritarian at worst.
    2. Minorities may have reduced representation but not fewer political rights or privileges. Many of which have been pointed out by yourself in your articles. Which means the government is not working for the majority. Which means we are not a democracy.

    Few examples below –
    Affirmative action (Women outnumber men in college)
    De facto child custody rights (hint: Women have custody of children more than men about 92% of the time. My numbers could be off, just going off on memory from sociology class here)
    Wage gap between natives vs non-hispanic immigrants (it may seem I am cherry picking here but once you take out latin american immigrants, the rest of immigrants and subsequent generations earn considerably higher than natives)
    Portrayal of natives in media
    Birth rate between majority and minorities
    I could go on…..

    Diverse societies tend to be dysfunctional or break up anyway unless ruled by strong men. Once minorities get a little bit of political power, guess what they want more of it.
    Eg. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia (Break up)
    Brazil, India (Dysfunctional)

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      You appear unclear about the definition of a democracy.

      “Which means the government is not working for the majority. Which means we are not a democracy.”

      False. All a democracy means is that we elect them. If we act foolishly, that does not mean the system is not democratic.

      Your list of phenomena in America is quite irrelevant. The government in a system of limited government like America’s does not — and should not — control most of those things. Your appear to be thinking of an autocratic system, where your values and desires are implemented by force.

      “Diverse societies tend to be dysfunctional ”

      Absurd. There were few democratic systems until the late 17th century. They were rare until the 20th century. We don’t have enough data to make such confident pronouncements.

      As for non-democratic system, most were “diverse” and some lasted long long times. Such as the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire (esp including its later forms, the Austrian Empire and the A-H Empire).

  9. “We learned to hunt in packs, with our social organization the first great force multiplier. Put a group of men together, and they will usually self-organize into a functioning team – following instructions coded into us thousands of generations ago.”

    I don’t disagree. Men within teams of solidarity of formidable indeed. But they will also form factions and teams that dominate and fight each other for control, resources, women, territory, wealth and power.

    The good news is that all of this feminism and gynocentrism permeating our lives today is a self-correcting problem.
    The bad news is that lot of men are going to die during that correction.

    There isn’t a scenario where women keep their current rights and authority sans commensurate accountability and responsibility over the long run. That’s not possible. We are already 100 years into female suffrage, and just look at the damage wrought. They won’t be able to make endless demands for preferential treatment and resource transferal upon what is effectively an insolvent and non-representative government.

    The destination of western, feminist society is already preordained – namely governmental, economic and societal collapse, a resulting power vacuum, and civil war for re-control.

    The kinds of men who will establish factions, fight, cleanse and re-assert authority and control once more are simply not going to be the deferential feminized softies surrounding us today.

    No. The new boys who take charge are simply not going be in the least bit interested in sharing power and control with their new sex slaves. Well, at least not for a millennia or two.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor

      “The bad news is that lot of men are going to die during that correction.”

      I think that’s unlikely. IMO this isn’t the sort of conflict that is resolved by violence, any more than the feminist revolution that reshaped our society was done by violence.

      “The new boys who take charge are simply not going be in the least bit interested in sharing power and control with their new sex slaves.”

      Perhaps. But such extreme outcomes are rare in history. The usual pattern is, as Hegel (and others) said, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

    2. In short, no. I don’t trust in the benevolence of men. There is absolutely no reason for us to be optimistic about the future in this regard. There’s no evidence in recent history to place such faith in the goodwill of men who under duress and threat are hardwired to form factions that compete with and exterminate one another. I do understand our tendency for wishful thinking and our longing for a more benevolent human response in times of trial. Especially when all of us would need it, and benefit from it, the most. Alas, our human past is replete with examples to the contrary – Mogadishu, Kinshasa, Srebrenica, Sinjar District. We are capable of great good, and great evil too. And God? His arms are folded.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor

        Constrained Locus,

        “I don’t trust in the benevolence of men.”

        To what are you referring? This post discusses men standing together under pressure – hardness in their self-interest. That is the opposite of benevolence.

        “There’s no evidence in recent history to place such faith in the goodwill of men who under duress and threat are hardwired to form factions that compete with and exterminate one another”

        Modern history has been shaped by exactly the opposite of what you describe. Revolutions by people standing together to overthrow colonial masters of local autocrats. Immense social cohesion in war, despite almost unimaginable pressure for societies to fracture. The intelligensia love to predict social fragmentation and destruction. Such as rioting predicted after trials of Blacks (the Rodney King riots were the exception, not the rule).

        “our human past is replete with examples to the contrary”

        Those are exceptions. The civilized nations of the world, West and East, were built by the exact opposite of what you see.

    3. I have to agree with you. I wish I could share Larry’s optimism that men will band together as “men”, but I just have never seen that. And they won’t do it to stand against women. They’re competing against each other for women. I won’t hold my breath for men to walk away from the promise of a woman’s charms for “higher purposes” like men’s interests.

      Men have had about 40 years now to do or say something about feminism’s march and the cold war, shaping up into a “lukewarm” war, between men and women. And “men” have done scant little about it. All but the most powerful, most sexually attractive men are simply either hunkering down with what they have, hoping to preserve it; or walking away from everything.

      Men as a group are not going to stand against “women” as a group. Men don’t organize as men; they organize as tribes around some common interest. That common interest is usually shared culture, racial background, or economic goal. A modern example of a “tribe” is a corporation or a law firm, or a political entity (seen during the breakup of the USSR and subsequent balkanization and civil war).

      Tribes conflict with other tribes to compete for land, money, stuff, and, yes, women. One of the things tribes of men take as “spoils” is the other tribe’s women. Translated to today’s language, the richer men, the more politically powerful men, the higher status men, get the women. It’s not done with guns or spilled blood, but rather with Machiavellian machinations behind the scenes, hostile government takeovers, and accumulation of money, land, and resources. The tribes with the most stuff get the women.

      “Men” break down and organize into tribes. They aren’t going to unite tribes and organize to get women to fall in line. I wish I didn’t agree, but I do agree, that collapse is now inevitable, it cannot be stopped or reversed, and all that can be done now is to prepare for the worst and see who emerges victorious.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor

        The Deti,

        “but I just have never seen that.”

        How do you believe patriarchy was created in every (almost every?) society in human history?

        We are weak believe we are weak. Get a backbone. Tell the men you know to get a backbone.

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor

        A more general note about reform

        I’ve published hundreds of posts about reform. About political reform in America (200+), reform in the gender wars, reform of the US military (most by serving or retired officers). The almost uniform response to Every Single One has been preemptive surrender, plus massive whining about it all being too difficult and how we’re just weak little snowflakes.

        Peasants don’t get to be free. Peasants don’t choose their fate. But being a peasant is a choice.

    4. “How do you believe patriarchy was created in every (almost every?) society in human history?”

      You’re talking about the same thing I’m talking about: Tribal formation. As much as you want to disagree with me, I don’t think you are.

      “We are weak believe we are weak. Get a backbone. Tell the men you know to get a backbone.”

      With all due respect, speak for yourself. Men who form tribes aren’t weak. Men not uniting all the “tribes” is not weakness; and telling others to get a backbone is not strength. This is little more than shaming language, to be honest, and it’s not going to work on most men.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor

        The Deti,

        “This is little more than shaming language, to be honest, and it’s not going to work on most men.”

        Shaming behavior has been one of the major methods of social control from the dawn of history. Mothers told Greek Hoplites “Come home with your shield or on it.” The white feather has been given to evoke shame for cowardliness in Britain since the 18th century. There are other examples beyond count of shame used as a powerful social force.

        Shame is a component of the honor culture that was one pillar of western civ since the beginning. For more about this see James Bowman’s book Honor: A History.

        Shame and honor are two sides a coin which we have lost, one reason for our weakness. For an intro, see “Whatever Happened to Honor?“, Bowman giving The Bradley Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute, 10 June 2002. For a briefer look, here he gives an incisive takedown of a typically vapid column by Robert Fisk about shame.

        “I don’t think you are.”

        Yep, you are. As I said, Every Single Post about reform is met by “we can’t do it.” Which is a self-fulfilling belief.

        For those who are connoisseurs of defeatism, back in 2008 I collected comments to a series about ways we might reform America. Most were from educated and intelligent people, as evident by the sophistication of their arguments for doing nothing but sitting on their butts and whining. Some combined their whines with hopes for The Great Day in the Future When We Will Arise and Smite Our Oppressors (but gave zero interest in doing anything to make that happen. No mention of risking our “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.” See here, here, and here.

        These are the generic responses to any proposals about reforming any aspect of America.

    5. LK

      You’re not hearing me or understanding what I’m saying. At this point we’re just talking past each other so I’m bowing out of this particular discussion. At least I do understand where the points of disagreement are.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor

        The Deti,

        That’s why I provide detailed replies to specific quotes, usually with examples.

        When it comes to discussing reform, it never works. Never ever. Which is why, as you said, “Men have had about 40 years now to do or say something about feminism’s march and the cold war.”

        History is made by people who act, rather than construct reasons not to act. However, there are reservoirs of masculinity and male pride in America from whom we can learn: men who are African-Americans, Hispanics, migrants, far-Right extremists, military (active duty and vets), police, and Muslim. There are probably others.

        As Christians say, “There is always a remnant.”

      2. I’ve lurked far too long.

        “Whoa there ‘Hoss(es)!”

        Y’all are drive’n a “run away” stage trying to make something strategic out of what historically … here-to-for … has been mostly tactical. And … making me crazy with all the word smything and mind bending that has been going on around this “dust up.”

        As you already know but I repeat here for my benefit, “The terms “tactic” and “strategy” are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that govern tactical execution.” Wikipedia

        I’m betting on “Biology” as the winner in the unnecessary strategic tussle between biology, sociology, theology, anthropology and whatever other “ologies” might fit the menu. With eternal optimism as regards the matter, I predict the eventual outcome is going to be back to basic tactics as the pendulum swings away from the he/shes … she/hes and back to “ME TARZAN! YOU JANE!”

        Have faith! “Sunrise, sunset, Sunrise, sunset, Swiftly fly the years, One season following another Laden with happiness and tears.” Sung by me with all faith in the Man upstairs and Biology … no faith in lasting success for the she/hes … he/shes.

        Strategy … “the overall campaign plan” … we leave to the Man upstairs Who may or may not share drivers’ licenses with the intellectual superstars He sometimes tolerates and sometimes does not.

        It’s just a cycle and a “swing.” The tactics are all ours. We’ve owned them since Adam.

        Father to 8, grandfather to 28 plus or minus … I am never quite sure. Death and divorce combined two families. We’ve lots of boys and girls … boys who punch and kick and fart in church at each other just like we did when we were boys. Girls who cuss and slap or kiss and cuddle as the opportunity presents … all as they did in my days of the 1940s and 50s. They (our young’uns) aren’t all that different than we were.

        Biology … Sunrise, Sunset! They and we will be fine. Have faith. This “me too” shall pass!

        s/The Ole’ Buzzard aka Grandfather Sensei

      3. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “I’m betting on “Biology” as the winner in the unnecessary strategic tussle between biology, sociology, theology, anthropology and whatever other “ologies” might fit the menu.”

        That’s a sure losing bet. In the range of time and space that is human history, there is a fantastic array of arrangements for gender roles and mating. In some cases there is a high degree of equality. In some, women do most of the world, In some, aristocratic women’s feet are bound to make them cripples. In some cultures women fought alone side of men, such as the Germanic Tribes and Eritrean insurgents. Some women are property, some have total independence (e.g., Roman widows).

        In many societies a large fraction of males have little or no access to women, who are held by an aristocracy. In some, a large fraction of women never marry (spinsters and nuns).

        The question raised by our system is not that it is unusual, but that its combination of features might prove unpleasant for many — or worse, unstable.

  10. Many good points. Yes this has gone way too far and we see just the emerged part of the iceberg, I suspect. We men allowed it. We bent and Bent and agreed and went along, mostly. Had to have been around in the late 60’s, early 70’s, seeking a mate to realize the differences now.

    Enough. The pushback is now openly evident, discussed and being formulated more earnestly and more widespread. Fascinating to see.

    Yes men are and will increasingly band together. We are by nature really good for each other.

    And many more women will openly join and encourage such pushback. Plus check with your favorite Clinicians, these entitled women are NOT happy with what they have wrought, But they are lost and some can survive on our money, the rest……. well. It will not be pretty or fair going forward.

    Good post.

  11. Kostas Zangogiannis

    “We learned to hunt in packs, with our social organization the first great force multiplier. Put a group of men together, and they will usually self-organize into a functioning team – following instructions coded into us thousands of generations ago.”

    Some anecdotal evidence to that: Years ago, when serving my Military Service in the Greek Army I took part in a military exercise. My squad’s part (4 persons) in this exercise consisted in patrollng a certain beach for the better part of the day, just pacing up and down, from dusk till dawn. This went on for about a week and we all thought this to be the most senseless drill ever devised by human mind. Until, into the 3rd or 4th day something completely unexpected happened, almost magical: we turned into a team, an unspoken hierarchy was established, tasks were automatically delegated with no demurring, you get the idea.

    Though I am neither a military person, nor an outdoors person, and far less a sports person (always hated soccer, basketball and other team sports) I found this to be a deeply satisfying experience. I even told the other guys I would be ready to go to war with them – and was laughed at, but I do believe they felt the same.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Thank you for sharing that story!

      The essaence of a successful society is having the same team organization mechanism work on a larger scale. In functional societies, that works at the clam level. For great nations, that works at the national level.

  12. “But then many on the Right thought that Sara Palin would be a great president (if President McCain died in office). As I have said so often, one of our major problems is that both Left and Right have gone bonkers.”

    Your problem, Mr Kummer, is you do not understand politics. Politics is about policy and substance, not style and appearance. Sarah Palin would have been a great President because she was a patriotic Nationalist who loved America instead of hating it the way Progressive Democrats do. The reason that Trump is a great President is because he loves America and wants to do thinks that help Americans instead of helping the Globalists build their demonic Brave New World Order.

    Immigration is bad because immigrants are not Americans and because they vote 90% Democrat. “Free” trade is bad because it impoverishes America and enriches the banksters and their demon infested winged monkey servants. “Free” trade does not mean free market, it means a market controlled by monopolists and oligopolists.

    I’m surprised you didn’t figure this out.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “Politics is about policy and substance, not style and appearance, not style and appearance.”

      Exactly my point. Palin was unqualified to be President due to her lack of experience, unsuitable temperament, poor judgement, and ignorance. Her ability to make policy was minimal as governor of Alaska (fortunately she resigned), and would have been disastrous in DC.

  13. Well, I finally found a blog topic , thread that I can actually follow intellectually and keep up with. This is all old hat for me, been there, done that. I’m 54 years old and this has been in my face since the beginning, so it seems.

    Used to read the local papers and even when I was a paper boy back in the 1970s I was confused and troubled by the content, the apparent taking of sides, always coming down against men, and never, ever a corresponding contrary opinion. It was as though I was all alone in my search for an explanation for why I was so spectacularly out of touch and what I was thinking was never validated anyplace in the media.

    This lasted until progression to university and beyond, when ironically I landed in prison for 5 years and had only a daily copy of The Wall Street Journal to keep from going crazy. So I made it my do or die pledge to myself to read every single word of the paper every day and challenge myself to be able understand every single word printed in a single day’s paper. Never made it, always words I didn’t know or political rants or legal fine print, etc. This was the late 80s through say 1994. The paper was thick, and Densely written with an elitist clubby feel, distinctly masculine. Reading it was akin to a membership in secrete society or Ivey league school. I felt powerfully informed and inspired.
    Now for the part that ruined my life. The editorial pages were full of this mind warping trumpeting of warnings about this evil cancer we know today as feminism. It blew my mind to discover that I was right all along and there was a freaking conspiracy to keep all men silenced and unaware of the truth.

    My brothers when this awakening came to me I was a 23 year old man who didn’t know Jack about anything and it so traumatized me to discover just how horrible and evil and frankly it was like invasion of the body snatchers, I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs for the authorities to help. And then it just kept getting worse and worse and every day the editorial pages of the journal bravely kept trying to sound the alarm, but nobody cared. All alone, and don’t challenge me on this cause you will be wrong, all alone in the entire world of print media the Journal stood firm in trying to warn us men of the end of world.

    The man who was responsible for this was Robert Bartley, the bravest, most honorable man in my life, who for 30 years was the Editor of the Editorial pages. He retired in late 90s, then died of lung cancer with just a one sentence mention on nightly news. Please honor this great man by doing due diligence.

    So, contaminated with this dreadful mind full of horror stories and knowing what was happening to us in all walks of life I constantly tried to inform my fellow man of the truth. What did I receive in response? Ridicule, hate, jail time from my female parole officers who labeled me misogynistic and psychotic and dangerous to society.
    This was the start of the sex offenders panic, registry, civil commitments, etc. And it has led, in an almost linear progression to me too and Harvey Weinstein and just believe her, etc.

    And when the mass media conspiracy came crashing down with the destruction of print media I rejoiced as a spiritual event, so powerful and poetic. Finally the world was going to find out what the hell was going on.

    For a brief time that happened, and all of this progress resulted from the end of print media. I was so hopeful and excited that I was witnessing what the blog editor is calling for. Just like Apocalypto, this is best called Almost. Close, but no cigar.

    Now we are again seeing the same mass media conspiracy to silence us and label our values as hate speech and banned from the internet. I’m afraid that we shall not live to see what we all dream of, because it is impossible for it to happen in this environment of lies, labeled as hate, misogynistic and sexist and dangerous to feminists. Same old same old.
    But it was actually beginning to look like it might have happened, contrary to the very astute observation that men don’t organize over primal needs, they compete and take. So it really speaks volumes about how bad things are.

    So now what? Actually my brothers the best hope lies in the chance that new technology will enable us to once again unite and overcome the censorship of free speech. Google is killing us, all search excludes our voice and we are just screwed for now.

    But we will prevail, the evidence is already in, the cat is out of the bag and only censorship is preventing us from uniting, against our nature no less, to counter revolution the feminist tyranny. Have this thought always – namely that we can and will be able to undo 100 years of misandry almost over night once the levy breaks.

    My sincerest pride and honor to you all for we are brothers in this noble duty. I’m honored to be with you. John M. Schultz

    1. Schultz,

      A comment of 900 words – the length of a post – would normally be edited to only an excerpt, or deleted. But I’ll make an exception here.

      Also – it was posted as an unreadable single block of text. I added paragraph breaks.

  14. By the way, I love you guys like family but it would probably help if you all tried a little bit more to refrain from showing every body who’s the smartest. It sure isn’t me, that’s for sure but I’m okay with it. It’s not a competition and I learned along time ago that politics is above all else about addition. And never forget how the greatest politician of our time succeeded…keep it simple, stupid.

    1. Schultz,

      “If you all tried a little bit more to refrain from showing every body who’s the smartest.”

      It would if help you replied to quotes. I don’t know to what you are referring.

      “never forget how the greatest politician of our time succeeded…keep it simple, stupid.”

      That is really vague. What president tried to keep things more “simple” than others? Who was the greatest president of our time? Clinton? Bush Sr, the most professional? In his impact on America, Bush Jr easily deserves that title. Trump, for winning and holding office despite the opposition of almost the entire political establishment?

  15. I figured you’d know what that means and who coined the expression. Keep it simple, stupid was coined by Bill Clinton’s campaign, which against all odds succeeded. Yes, Bill Clinton is and was the greatest pure politician ever, when measured by his unmatched political astutness and communication skills, his talent for correctly gauging the electorate and deflecting any and all criticism,. After all, to succeed against feminism will absolutely require these precise skills, leadership that can unite, and yes, imo much can be gained by learning how Bill Clinton did it.

    1. Schultz,

      “‘Keep it simple, stupid’ was coined by Bill Clinton’s campaign”

      The origin of “Keep it Simple stupid” is unknown, but it was used in the 1960 – and was commonplace in the 1970s (see Wikipedia). I don’t believe it is particularly associated with Bill Clinton.

      Re: Bill Clinton

      Time will tell, as historians more clearly evaluate Clinton. My guess (guess) is that they will not agree with you belief about his political skills, and will consider him one of a series of unremarkable presidents between Nixon (the last classically liberal president) and Bush Jr. (details here).

      Perhaps you are thinking of “It’s the economy, stupid.” That is a slogan created by James Carville for Clinton’s 1992 presidential Campaign (see Wikipedia).

  16. But our situation is different. Men vs. women is a conflict between biological poles that are the foundation of society. Most of the other differences that divide us are trivial by comparison. So under pressure, men might turn to the remaining reservoirs in America of masculinity and male pride, and learn from them: men who are African-Americans, Hispanics, migrants, far-Right extremists, military (active duty and vets), police, and Muslim.

    For more on this I cannot recommend Kevin Samuels’ podcast enough. He’s speaking from a red-pilled yet still pro-marriage perspective. Primarily aimed at blacks but his content is still relevant for everyone else, especially Americans. Recent video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOII-d1PHA

      1. That modern women are out of order. That while the demands on men – holding the door, opening the jar of pickles, make six figures, be 6ft tall, etc. – have not changed, but the necessary demands on women – don’t be fat, don’t be covered in sleeve tattoos, no kids with some other man, etc. – have changed. Of course this results in large numbers of unmarriable women (where are all the good men at lol).

        Still I think you should hear it for yourself. He posts short clips of interactions if you don’t have time for the full podcast.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: