Men know how terrible men are.
Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden in a lecture about their book, Sex and War:
“Tom and I call the testosterone molecule the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.”
“As the number of men aged 15-29 decreases, society becomes more diplomatic and peaceful.”
“In 1861, there were 600,000 more women of reproductive age than men in England. Suddenly having an excess of women made a more civilized society [women weren’t burdened with taking care of husbands and children].”
“Probably if you castrate men they would not be violent. That was done systematically in the Turkish sultanate. They used eunuchs as diplomats because those who had been castrated to look after the sultan’s harem were also much more objective and calm in making diplomatic decisions. Men are more excitable…overreacting. Overconfidence is a characteristic of male behavior.”
Here’s an interesting quote from Sex and War:
Violence, aggression, and the other warlike predispositions are apparently found in all human males…there is no evidence that particular ethnic or racial groups have consistently higher or lower levels of innate aggression. Cultural and ethnic groups certainly have shown warlike or peaceful tendencies over time, but one need only look to the peaceful modern Scandinavian descendants of the once feared Vikings to appreciate that the differences are largely due to culture and circumstance, not genes.
So what they’re saying, is that all men are predisposed to being violent, aggressive, warrior, rapists. It is only very rarely that human societies aren’t murderously misogynistic, and the reason for that is because men’s innate drive towards violence has been tempered by culture and circumstances. Men’s drive towards this is only tempered by a GREAT DEAL of managing from women. If women pour all of their gynergy into tempering men’s rapaciousness and violence, they will be lucky to get a ‘patriarchy-lite’ like the Scandinavian countries. But even if they pour all of their energy into reform and just making sure men aren’t terrorists, it only takes ONE very patriarchal culture to destroy their centuries of work in a few years. See what happened to Native American tribes and other ‘patriarchy-lite’ cultures that were visited by Europeans. Also see what happened in Minoan-Crete.
From “China’s Problem? Too many men” by Rob Brooks
Throughout history, a surplus of young men often heralded violence. The American frontier earned its “Wild West” reputation for lawlessness because its towns overflowed with men, yet marriageable women were vanishingly rare. In The Chivalrous Society, historian Georges Duby argued that European expansionism, from the Crusades to colonialism, was fueled by a surplus of ambitious and aggressive young men with otherwise poor reproductive prospects.
The economist Lena Edlund estimates that every one percent increase in the sex ratio results in a six percent increase in the rates of violent and property crime. In addition, the parts of China with the most male-biased sex ratios are experiencing a variety of other maladies, all tied to the presence of too many young men. Gambling, alcohol and drug abuse, kidnapping and trafficking of women are rising steeply in China.
When it comes to men, less is more. Less men equals more freedom for everyone, more clean water, more peace, more joy, etc. Men know this and readily admit it. But they would never recommend decreasing the ratio of males to females. This isn’t because they’re concerned about infanticide and sex-selective abortion–millions of GIRLS have been killed in this way and are missing from the planet, in addition to those who die from neglect, and men really can’t be bothered to do anything about it. Sex selection is easy, inexpensive and non-invasive with sperm sorting and other methods.
The most loving, moral, effective and easiest action that would decrease rape and violence (among many other positive consequences) is this: STOP PRODUCING SO MANY BOYS. But men don’t want fewer males, even though it would make life on earth better for every living creature. This is because deep down in their gut men feel they are better than women. They viscerally feel themselves to be the true and superior form of human, The Human Form. We already know that’s bullshit, but I’m going to destroy that belief in another post (with science!). The Y chromosome adds nothing to human nature except a far greater propensity towards (and love of) violence and rape. If a man is intelligent, kind, peaceful, blah blah blah, it is not BECAUSE of his Y chromosome, but IN SPITE of it. All the things we love about men in our life would not disappear with the disappearance of men. Those things are HUMAN characteristics, and they would be allowed to flourish without men killing, raping, and disabling half the population (far more if you count oppressed men). Yes, the only “human” characteristics that would vanish if men disappeared would be unending wars and constant rape.
There is no cosmic reason for a 1:1 sex ratio. The universe does not need the balance of both sexes to operate–really it just needs females. The equal sex ratio is an accident, a product of meiosis, the easiest way for sexual reproduction to evolve. Everyone and everything would be better off with a drastic decrease in the number of boys born. Sorry, that is just logic. Men are responsible for almost all of the violence humans engage in, and their greed and compulsion to be alpha male is destroying the environment. In fact, the benefits would increase as the sex ratio decreased. The planet would benefit, women and girls would benefit, boys would benefit.
These next quotes are from a discussion about pornography between Gail Dines, author Howard Jacobson, and libfem activist Leslie Cannold. I think they highlight some important issues. First, that men know what they are and will gladly tell us, and second, that women refuse to believe them:
Howard Jacobson: The harm I’m concerned about is whats in a man’s head. Cut open a man’s mind and you will see the harm. But the problem is, cut open any man’s mind and you will see the harm.
Gail Dines: As a feminist I wont argue with that one.
HJ: I’m happy as a man, not a feminist, to acknowledge that a man’s mind is a jungle of horrors.
Leslie Cannold: I don’t accept that.
HJ: It just is…
LC: I find that depressing. I’m sorry that’s just a depressing brand of feminism. We don’t need to fall into these old tired traps about men and women, Mars/Venus, as if men are some different species. Women are the victims, men are the predators. I do not buy it. And in the feminism that I am involved in we need men, we can’t do it without men. What’s so damaging about this discourse is its old, and it’s pitting men and women against each other.
HJ: Well, I think the problem predates pornography; there wouldn’t be pornography unless we wanted it. Now why do we want it? What’s it answering to? It’s answering to something quite strange and frightening in our natures…
GD: I don’t buy that. As a mother of a son I refuse to accept that my boy came out with a homing device for gagonmycock.com. Im sorry, I absolutely refuse to accept that.
We want so badly to believe that men are good because we are forced to create them, and they are part of us. “Not my boy”, women say. There is a complete refusal to acknowledge the consequences of rearing sons on our daughters, other women and the earth. It is imperative that women believe what men tell us about themselves