Bask in the Crazy: The Mystery of Male Armies

 

Whatever one thinks of Jordan Peterson, the man raises a point that should be headed by all free peoples: Once you stop fighting with words, the only thing left to do is fight with weapons. Upon personal reflection, I decided that my personal style of writing was not conducive to productive dialogue with the left. As a result, I have largely withdrawn from writing altogether. Like The Incredible Hulk, I must contain my rage for the safety of the world.

It turns out, however, that if we do start fighting with weapons, the only reason men will be the ones who do almost all of it is because of their fear of being cheated on while they are at war. Oh no … not now … must maintain self-control … Frank smash!

The team at the University of St Andrews said the rarity of mixed-sex armies from prehistoric times to the present day was ‘puzzling’ because excluding women would effectively halve your fighting force.

Other mysteries plaguing the brains of researchers at the University of St. Andrews include why drinking glasses are not poked full of holes to reduce their weight, and why soldiers have never carried extra weapons and shields with their feet, halving their usable limbs.

But now researchers have a theory – all-male armies formed because of a fear of sexual betrayal by their wives.

If all men did not go off to fight, those remaining behind would be able to mate with others’ partners, the study says.

Like hell, stupidity comes in levels. Most bad ideas are terrible from a single angle of observation. Often one that is not obvious to the person doing the brainstorming. Some ideas fail on multiple core concepts but could appear viable to middling minds blinded by their ideology. I call these Yglesiasisms. Still, other ideas are so profoundly dumb that humanity’s average intelligence moves downward by a fractional amount when they are uttered.

Even under the most generous assumptions, these researchers have gone off the deep end. Assuming the Daily Mail is misrepresenting their query when they state, “from prehistoric time to the present day” and that their research is purely a question of prehistoric times, it is still one of the most extraordinarily moronic questions ever posed by a human being.

I guess the children will just protect each other

One wonders if those assuming that bringing all of the women into battle would be the logical thing to do have ever seen a child. Given Scotland’s birthrates, maybe not. Speaking of birthrates.

The men are going to have to start having babies

A society can survive losing half of its men, as each one can happily do the job of impregnating two women. If a society loses half of its women, it goes into irreversible decline.

Men literally exist so that women don’t have to fight

Staring these researchers in the face, yet going completely unseen, are several immutable biological facts. The most obvious is the existence of two genders in the first place. Such specialty was an evolutionary advantage, or else it wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. Men exist to protect and provide for women and children. Only a university employee could conclude that people doing the thing they evolved to do is puzzling.

No, “all” men did not go to war

For all of history, and by extension some amount of pre-history, the number of individuals who could be sent off to battle was limited by how difficult it was to feed and supply an army. Human warfare came into existence as human populations became large enough that resources had to be fought over. A good rule of thumb is that no ancient peoples could afford to send more than 5%-7% of their population to war. Every person sent to war, and every day they were being not being productive, put them at risk of starvation.

As a rule, people don’t like to starve. There were plenty of men left home to sleep with your wife.

Who will dig the graves for your double-sized army

Until the invention of guns, we fought by stabbing each other with sharp objects. Turns out, if you have more than one person stabbing at you, you are hosed. We dealt with this by fighting in lines. Most casualties didn’t occur while the outcome was uncertain, but once one side’s lines were broken and they turned and ran.

The larger army can easily lose if they are the first to run. If the people next to you are dying because they have literally half of the upper body strength, and 5 inches less reach, your lines break first and you lose.

We know the Sumerians (ca. 4000 BC) organized their armies in lines. This is only 1,500 years after organized warfare appears in the archaeological record. It apparently doesn’t take long after you discover warfare to dispense with useless ideas such as running at the other guys with as many people as possible, your love of Braveheart notwithstanding.

They aren’t saying it, but your female colleagues have ruled you out as potential mates

If it is non-obvious to you why men do the fighting, I’d advise you keep this fact a secret throughout the dating process. Your odds of getting laid increase exponentially. Publishing research that confirms your dearth of masculinity was probably not the direction I would go.

Published in Culture, History, Military
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 57 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    This theory soundslike someone had an early tee time and had to knock something out before hitting the links.

    • #1
  2. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Frank Soto: As a result, I have largely withdrawn from writing altogether. Like The Incredible Hulk, I must contain my rage for the safety of the world.

    Oh, I wish you did not! I so love your work!

    • #2
  3. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Frank Soto: Oh no … not now … must maintain self-control … Frank smash!

    Already rolling on the floor.

    • #3
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Frank Soto: Publishing research that confirms your dearth of masculinity was probably not the direction I would go.

    Lowlanders. They wear tight pants, and choke off their testosterone. There are some Scotsmen who don’t do these things.

    • #4
  5. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Frank Soto: It turns out, however, that if we do start fighting with weapons, the only reason men will be the ones who do almost all of it is because of their fear of being cheated on while they are at war.

    Did you happen to note the use of the archaic “cuckolded” in this 2018 piece?

    • #5
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Someone somewhere might have had a decent grant proposal that got shelved in order to fund this schlock.

    • #6
  7. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    I got drafted.

    • #7
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Frank Soto: It turns out, however, that if we do start fighting with weapons, the only reason men will be the ones who do almost all of it is because of their fear of being cheated on while they are at war.

    Did you happen to note the use of the archaic “cuckolded” in this 2018 piece?

    Don’t make me come over there.

    • #8
  9. toggle Inactive
    toggle
    @toggle

    Now understand why Churchill, when all was done, painted watercolor seascapes.
    While the left was setting its sights on conquest of the land.
    Not much a man can do when the vast left tells us to abandon all hope of being one.
    On the other hand, tides do turn.
    Imperceptibly, maybe, at first.
    Then fast and hard.
    Like earthquakes.
    Nature’s truth does return.
    It has begun.
    As in the past.

    • #9
  10. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    I want to think that studies like this one ate deliberate trolling or massively misrepresented in reporting.

    • #10
  11. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    But now researchers have a theory – all-male armies formed because of a fear of sexual betrayal by their wives.

    I think there might be a little projecting going on here.

    • #11
  12. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Percival (View Comment):
    But now researchers have a theory – all-male armies formed because of a fear of sexual betrayal by their wives.

    This was my thought as well. I mean what idiots approved a grant for this? They find it “puzzling” that back in the mists of time people weren’t as woke as they themselves are? I could have told them that for free. They did it that way because before you people came along, nobody was afraid to notice that men are bigger and stronger than women, you pinheads.

    • #12
  13. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    • #13
  14. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Simply Bravo! Frank

    • #14
  15. Patrick McClure Coolidge
    Patrick McClure
    @Patrickb63

    As I said elsewhere I volunteer to stay home and repopulate the species.

    • #15
  16. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Frank Soto:

    I guess the children will just protect each other

    One wonders if those assuming that bringing all of the women into battle would be the logical thing to do have ever seen a child.

    Can’t they just leave the kids with their undocumented immigrant nanny?  That’s what modern power couples in academia do so… what’s the problem?

    • #16
  17. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    I have a solution: we send the women off to fight the next war.  Not all of them of course, just the feminists.  And we’ll stay back here fulfilling the traditional female role.  Sleeping with their best friends.

    • #17
  18. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    I have a solution: we send the women off to fight the next war. Not all of them of course, just the feminists. And we’ll stay back here fulfilling the traditional female role. Sleeping with your best friend.

    Like Rush says, “Line ’em up, tell ’em they look fat, and unleash ’em on the enemy.”

    • #18
  19. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    I wonder how that worked for the Zulus.  They weren’t allowed to marry until 35.  And I think their armies were all-male.

    • #19
  20. kylez Member
    kylez
    @kylez

    Even the first sentence is stupid. Archaeologists have been puzzled by male armies?

    • #20
  21. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    kylez (View Comment):

    Even the first sentence is stupid. Archaeologists have been puzzled by male armies?

    Aristotle, musing upon the inferiority of women, alleged we have fewer teeth. When I heard this, back in the mists of time (college, probably) I squawked “and did Aristotle not have anyone in his life— his Mom, a sister, a female slave—whom he could persuade to open up her mouth so he could count?” 

    Same when it came to the earnest Georgetown boy who assured me that a man has one fewer rib than a woman. 

    The lack of a basic empirical instinct is a strange and even impressive feature of our species: the power of a theory to obscure even easily ascertainable facts.  A friend of mine assured me, the other day, that a woman can be just as strong as a man. I told her that my daughter spent four and a half months at the police academy working out pretty much constantly. Her boyfriend — a slim man who spent zero time working out during the same period—admitted that it was getting harder to beat her in wrestling matches. But beat her he did.

    For women who work in virtually all-male fields, the notion that a woman and a man can be evenly matched is not just stupid, it’s dangerous. 

    Having said this, I will admit that it can be easy to forget just how much stronger men are. We seldom have cause, in daily life, to notice it. Sometimes I catch a glimpse of my husband and me in the mirror or a store window or something, and am startled by the size difference. If I hold my forearm next to his, mine looks like a twig. I think of myself as being Big and Strong. I’m not. I’m small and weak.  

    • #21
  22. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    I’m a little less than 6′ tall.  My wife is 5’3″.  I never really notice the difference until I see both of us in a mirror.  She’s tiny.

    • #22
  23. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    But now researchers have a theory – all-male armies formed because of a fear of sexual betrayal by their wives.

    This was my thought as well. I mean what idiots approved a grant for this? They find it “puzzling” that back in the mists of time people weren’t as woke as they themselves are? I could have told them that for free. They did it that way because before you people came along, nobody was afraid to notice that men are bigger and stronger than women, you pinheads.

    Remember when a Democrat — William Proxmire — would keep a running account of this academic industrial idiocy?

    Liz Harrington at the Free Beacon is keeping tabs (and the tab) on this SJW industry.

    • #23
  24. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Frank Soto: They aren’t saying it, but your female colleagues have ruled you out as potential mates

    What a great post!  The above statement reminds of a quote by “Mad Dog” Mattis:

    “When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look at him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a *****.”

    • #24
  25. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    I’ve been told by our commander in chief that remaining behind in the sexual battlefield at home is very perilous.  A foxier fox hole I guess.

    • #25
  26. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I’m a little less than 6′ tall. My wife is 5’3″. I never really notice the difference until I see both of us in a mirror. She’s tiny.

    I’m 6’3″ and my wife is 5’5″ and she towers over me.  Especially when I am fixing her brakes, digging her new potato trenches or tiling her new kitchen.

    • #26
  27. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I’m a little less than 6′ tall. My wife is 5’3″. I never really notice the difference until I see both of us in a mirror. She’s tiny.

    I’m 6’3″ and my wife is 5’5″ and she towers over me. Especially when I am fixing her brakes, digging her new potato trenches or tiling her new kitchen.

    My husband becomes a veritable runt when he is down in the crawl-space under the kitchen, re-priming some sort of pump – thing  on Christmas Eve because otherwise there will be no water when I turn the taps. 

     

     

    • #27
  28. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Gotta love the politically correct headline:  “mate” becomes “sex with other people”.

    • #28
  29. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Welcome back to the land of enraged!

    • #29
  30. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I’m a little less than 6′ tall. My wife is 5’3″. I never really notice the difference until I see both of us in a mirror. She’s tiny.

    I’m 6’3″ and my wife is 5’5″ and she towers over me. Especially when I am fixing her brakes, digging her new potato trenches or tiling her new kitchen.

    This friend of mine is 6’6″.  His first wife was 4’10”.  He told me how much fun it was to walk along the beach and see people staring . . .

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.