Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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 As a result, I have largely withdrawn from writing altogether.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
This theory soundslike someone had an early tee time and had to knock something out before hitting the links.
Oh, I wish you did not! I so love your work!
Already rolling on the floor.
Lowlanders. They wear tight pants, and choke off their testosterone. There are some Scotsmen who don’t do these things.
Did you happen to note the use of the archaic “cuckolded” in this 2018 piece?
Someone somewhere might have had a decent grant proposal that got shelved in order to fund this schlock.
I got drafted.
Don’t make me come over there.
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.
I want to think that studies like this one ate deliberate trolling or massively misrepresented in reporting.
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.
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.
Simply Bravo! Frank
As I said elsewhere I volunteer to stay home and repopulate the species.
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?
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.
Like Rush says, “Line ’em up, tell ’em they look fat, and unleash ’em on the enemy.”
I wonder how that worked for the Zulus. They weren’t allowed to marry until 35. And I think their armies were all-male.
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.
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.
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.
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 *****.”
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.
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.
Gotta love the politically correct headline: “mate” becomes “sex with other people”.
Welcome back to the land of enraged!
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 . . .