Various people have pointed out to me that I made a mistake in speaking about the White Flag rather than White Feather campaign. So sorry, I actually knew it was a feather. Senior moment!
You live in a world built atop the blood and bones of million upon millions of boys and men and are among the most privileged human beings to ever walk the face of the planet. And yet you resent it.
Thank you, Roslyn. Good point. But I think we are allowed to be ageist about ourselves, aren't we? Such mistakes do seem to be happening a little more often to me these days!
I think it is best avoided on all counts. What we believe is what we become. These are stressful times and have been for two years and I know much younger people doing a lot more forgetting. And they have not been Jabbed so cannot blame that. :)
Outstanding article, Bettina. The blatant cultural, moral and political hypocrisy of feminism laid bare for all to see. It's so hard to understand how feminism, in its current form, can be so widely embraced by such large swathes of the planet's women; women who are lovers, wives, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers of the gender they despise.
What ever happened to the intrinsic feminine traits of nurturing, love and care? Perhaps the feminine woman is the greatest myth of all.
If sending men to their deaths in the battles of war can't moot the deeply inculcated feminist resentment, disregard, and hatred towards men, nothing can.
What do U mean that nurture and love are feminine traits ? Men are heartless monsters?Not all men are big and strong and perfectly fit . There are men who want to just be with their families and loved ones . The entire article is about how it’s wrong to force me to die , and you re here trying to say that it’s fine men are being killed forcefully, it’s only that women hate men that’s the problem ! SERIOUSLY! men are worst enemies of MRA
How you reached the conclusion that my comment was about justifying why men should die in battle, I’ll never know. Quite frankly, I think you are missing the point of the entire article.
I think Bettina’s primary premise is the gross hypocrisy of the ever vocal feminist movement who, when the chips are down, fall silent and are more than willing for men to do the heavy lifting; men who do so without complaint and with a sense of duty. Men whose lives are inherently devalued as expendable beings relative to women.
There is also the perennial narrative of women as victims, yet it is impossible for feminists to ever perceive men in the same light, even when they are thrust into extreme scenarios such as battle.
The article is also about the inequality of martial law, which made it legally incumbent on men of fighting age to defend the nation. They didn’t have a choice. Women did. Some women stayed to fight, but just a few, and entirely of their own volition.
The synthetic cocoon of western societies makes it very easy for feminist to play out the charades of gender equality without ever being stress tested by the realities of extreme conflict and war, or functioning in low tech societies that are wracked with poverty and hunger, as experienced in so many parts of the globe.
If feminists were genuine about their ideology of equality, they would step up and demand that they fight shoulder to shoulder with men to defend the nation. It didn’t happen. Not even the slightest notion.
My point was that the silence of women in a contemporary feminist context has, for all intents and purposes, thrown the men to the dogs of war. Where are the intrinsic characteristics of the caring feminist women - which we are reminded of ad nauseam - in that?
True equality in the 21st century would spread the risk of battle across the genders, and in equal proportion.
Feminists could have made this war a case study in genuine equality. They chose not to.
As usual, feminism is about selective equality, cherry picking the hierarchical and desirable roles men play in society, for themselves.
All due respect, that’s not how a society functions. As usual, it is the men that just get on with making society function even during the darkest hours of history, and doing the most undesirable tasks imaginable. That’s not an anti-feminist remark, it’s just reality.
While much weaponry today is 'push button' final victory in a hot war is through boots on the ground. The hard slog of infantry fighting. It is grueling, heartlessly cruel, live or die stuff. If you are an infantryman you want to know that if you are wounded, if half your face is blown away, if your legs are destroyed by a mine, grenade or blast of heavy machine gun fire, that some one, in their full kit will run to you, grab you, throw you onto their back, and carry you out of harms way at a fast trot to aid. I can't think of many women strong enough to do that.
Doesn’t matter what u think !. Many women are capable of doing that . Yeah ofc size 0 girls, who starve themselves, like your partner might not but an average gym going lady can ! I seriously don’t understand men itself ban women from entering army with such statements and then say they re not treated as dispensable . It’s a great thing 17% of Ukrainian army is female as women s right to join army is very recent and in such short span of time , so many women joining the army despite rebukes they might face from family and friends is a huge thing
Most women would pass out when faced with a panzer....war is not the thing for most women...& also women are less expendable than men so not a good idea to send too many women in battlegrounds.
Then why r u even here ? Reading this article? Most women ? Who r u to decide mahn ? Women have served in armies and fought 4 their country since centuries. Because’ of such kind of stereotypes they had to face more trouble and dress up as men and go . Women are adults , they can protect themselves. No need for dumb stereotypical guys to do that . Uk what ! this whole men s rights is shit . U guys don’t even want women in army or in any position of power ! U just want to throw in some stupid points in your favour and lock up women at home . So I m just gonna quit from this evil site ! Best of luck getting kicked by feminists cause they ain’t gonna stop nor stoop to stereotypes or men brimming with inferiority complex
There is not a single identified military culture of any significance that has routinely deployed women on an equal basis with men for close-contact warfare. The Israelis concluded that it was not feasible and so did the Russians. As a “last resort” option for nations facing an existential threat, maybe... but anything else is mythology.
Modern ground combat relies on Fire and Manoeuvre.... the “Fire” part requiring that carrying of weapons and large quantities of *heavy* ammunition, and “Manoeuvre “ requires carrying maximum loads (plus body-armour, water, rations and communications equipment) as quickly as possible over rugged terrain. Modern infantrymen carry loads as great as any fighting-men in history. It is anything but “push-button warfare”.
If you carry less capable weapons and protective equipment, you lose and your people die.
If you carry less ammunition and run out first, you lose and your people die.
If you are too slow to reach advantageous terrain before the enemy, or react too slowly to your enemy’s movements, you lose and your people die
Fantastic Bettina and spot on. There's so much I could say about this but one of the things that struck me some time ago, which you've touched on briefly, is the curious way the media categorises massacres. First of all you've got your familiar everyday regulation massacre which consists of simply rounding up all the men in the village and killing them . This type of massacre is generally not worth reporting. My guess is because it's just so commonplace. Those boys were routinely massacred in Nigeria and nobody got up in the UK Parliament and said a thing. All that changed when the victims were girls. Going up the scale is the familiar X number of people were killed including women and children. The fact that it included women and children lifted it up the scale of newsworthiness. Then you've got the familiar X number of people were killed the majority of which were women and children. The odd thing about this is the majority of people killed could also be men and children. For example, let's say 21 people were killed which consisted of 10 men, 4 women and 7 children. In this case the majority of people killed would be the women and children 4 + 7 = 11. But the majority of people killed would also be the men and children 10 + 7 = 17. Oddly enough it doesn't stop there, because you've then got the familiar X number of people killed including women, children and elderly men. In this case you only matter as a man if you pass an arbitrary age (i.e. you are no longer virile). A similar odd thing happens to the transition of boys who are categorised as children (i.e. de facto female) in massacres until they pass some arbitrary line somewhere in their teens to becoming not worth mentioning until they reach maturity. I'm convinced the Boko Haram action against the girls in Nigeria was provoked because their regulation atrocities against boys weren't getting enough publicity. Ironically, in my view, the way media cover massacres actually encourages atrocities against women and girls because the deranged people who carry out these atrocities know something about the current grotesquely anti-male Western culture.
I think I read that somewhere... that Boko Haram made a deliberate decision to target women after noticing the world didn't care what they did to boys.
I also think we should be cautious about some of the propaganda that has been disseminated to drum up support. As Tucker Carlson recently pointed out both sides are playing the propaganda game. Apparently, according to Carlson, one of the most shared pictures wasn't what it claimed to be - it was a woman with an airgun that was photographed in the USA and not in Ukraine. It turns out the Russians did not attack the nuclear reactors after all but administrative buildings nearby.
Leaked intelligence claims that BH made a deliberate decision to target girls to inflict as much terror and maximise propaganda as the massacring of boys had prompted no reaction from the west... and they still kept on "recruiting" boys as child fighters and killing other boys
This is all true but in reality men do not WANT our wives, gfs, sisters etc on the front line or at risk. However it would only be simple decency for society to nurture and encourage the men who will again risk their lives to save everyone. Maybe some men will say "hang it i cant get promoted if i am not a member of some small pressure group (or a woman), i will only be dumped on the scrap heap when my wife has no further use for me, why would i give my life to protect this lot"?
But why should women want their sons, brothers, fathers on the front line or at risk, either. I just don't understand why men are expected to take such risks and women have the choice whether they want to be heroes or opt out.
that is how it is & we can't go against it cuz it's induced by nature & not any social construct...Men are stronger & more capable of fighting than women in general.
Also women are less expendable than men due to obvious biological reasons..
So imo restricting 'able bodied' men & appealing them to defend the country while vulnerable women fled to safety was the RIGHT thing to do...competent women have been given free choice whether to fight o flee & i totally respect all the women who chose to fight.
My only problem is with modern mainstream feminism yelling 'equality' & this was a good outlet to expose the feminist hypocrisy...haha
So my objective is to smash toxic(not genuine) feminism & NOT opposing the rightful decision Ukrainian govt took to restrict competent men.
This approaches one of my favorite topics. In the last few paragraphs of an essay from earlier this year, especially the last one before references I wax a bit about all parts of society supporting men's courage and their numerical reduction. https://elliott333.substack.com/p/on-locusts-and-war?s=w
Interesting article, Elliott. As it is quite esoteric, it may be worth condensing the key points into a contextually relevant paragraph or two for the readers of Bettina's blog.
You already mentioned the reason. It's evolved psychological differences of both genders...keep in mind that many men at least partly want to seek a "proof" which makes less sense in today's environment, but must have had strong mate value evolutionary, and old men on both sides sure wouldn't mind the reduced competition for food and women.
Ok but i HOPE you are not even contemplating suggesting that older men deliberately send off younger men to die just so they can have less competition for women. What evidence of this do you have?
First of all it's an idea, why is HOPE relevant here - are you going to police my thoughts? lol But in any case yes you got it. As they say hope in one hand and .... Lets not confuse stated reasons from evolved psychology. We are not going to get double blind placebo controlled studies on this. However informing my thesis is something like 95% of wars or skirmishes ever waged - the leaders are often not combatants and are considerably older than the boys on the front lines. You might also recognize that sociopathy is to some degree an emergent and selected trait of CEOs and generals, so why would that be? Also consider when a tribe or culture becomes authoritarian then the emotions and expectations around honor increase dramatically. In our current easier time we are quite disconnected from who we would be under persistent caloric deprivation, parasite stress and out-group violence.
It's a good question :-) It means raising the sticky question of who makes the best warrior doesn't it? When it was hand to hand combat there is no doubt. There is also the FACT that children (any age) are more biologically attached to their mothers (men can try be we cannot suckle our young :-) ) So seeing them in the front line would be more traumatic than seeing their fathers there. It's a theory .... Then there is evolution isn't there? The sexes have evolved according to their success in their particular functions. Men can become more nurturing and women can become more warlike (outside the home). But it will not happen overnight.
Who said that ! It’s pure stereotype . So many kids love their dads way more . I mean just because she birthed them doesn’t mean she has to be the better parent! Seriously! I’ve seen cruel mothers who hate their children . The children hate them too and the only relief in these kids lives might be their dad who they are forced to see being killed TO BE A MAN .u know what men don’t want TO BE A MAN , they just wanna be human beings!! WITH EMOTIONS !
This essay is brilliant, partly because it says plainly what should be--but seldom is--self-evident. That's how double standards work; the hypocritical illusion disappears with the application of careful observation and common sense. You've already mentioned the profound moral problem of placing more value on female lives than on male ones, so I'll add a few comments on some equally ignored considerations: (1) demographic ones; (2) practical ones; and (3) cultural ones.
The morally primitive idea that female lives are "worth" more than male lives (never mind egalitarian rhetoric to the contrary) could make demographic sense only in societies that practice polygyny, which means that men take many wives. After a war that kills most men, each male survivor can marry many women. And each wife bears as many children as possible to replenish the population. That's not the case in monogamous societies. After World War I, for instance, millions of Western women simply remained unmarried and childless.
After World War II and more recent wars, some women have remained unmarried but nonetheless had children (partly due to the celebration of and political power of single mothers). But that hasn't worked out very well, because millions of fatherless children have left us with monumental problems. Social scientists have documented these extensively. The fact is that children need both mothers and fathers (who are not interchangeable, because they have very different functions within the family).
In short, no Western country is going to adopt polygyny. And no society at all is going to flourish if it trivializes fathers as luxuries at best (assistant mothers) or denounces them as liabilities at worst.
As for the ability of women to function effectively in modern warfare, it's true that most women are bigger and stronger than most men (although some women are bigger and stronger than some men). But not all soldiers carry bodies around, not even in combat. Most tasks can be done effectively by either men or women--especially as guerillas.
Maybe, as one commentator points out, feminism has not yet taken hold in Ukraine. But ideological hypocrisy in other countries is not the only problem. Something in Western culture has clearly changed a great deal since World War II.
Although many children were evacuated from London to the countryside (or overseas), most people--both men and women--remained in London and other cities throughout the war. Posters noted, accurately, that "London can take it." Edward R. Murrow interviewed Londoners during the blitz, and no one whined or complained or demanded pity in the midst of fiery ruins on a colossal scale. They got on with their work as well as they could (as did the women in many other countries, including Germany). Moreover, the tone of confidence and restraint was set for British women by the queen herself. No wonder that her daughter, now queen, has exemplified the value of duty ever since.
What else (aside from the rise of feminism) has changed since then? I suggest a resurgence of romanticism (the supremacy of feeling, not thinking, which fosters the journalistic reliance on gross sentimentality) and hedonism (pleasure, or at least freedom from pain or anxiety) as an end in itself) along with the notion of "safetyism" (being safe at all costs, protected from even "micro-aggressions," let alone bombs). In a word, self-indulgence.
The sight of teary-eyed young women fleeing en masse from Ukraine, abandoning their men to repel the invaders on their own, is neither edifying nor "natural." It does require an explanation. Thank you, Bettina, for reminding everyone of that.
"The sight of teary-eyed young women fleeing en masse from Ukraine, abandoning their men to repel the invaders on their own, is neither edifying nor "natural." It does require an explanation."
No, it is "natural" & it has biological reasoning to it.
Men are stronger & more capable of fighting than women in general.
Also women are less expendable than men due to obvious biological reasons..
So imo restricting 'able bodied' men & appealing them to defend the country while vulnerable women fled to safety was the RIGHT thing to do...competent women have been given free choice whether to fight or flee & i totally respect all the women who chose to fight.
The only problem is modern mainstream feminism yelling 'equality' & this was a good outlet to expose the feminist hypocrisy...haha
So my objective is to smash toxic(not genuine) feminism & NOT opposing the rightful decision Ukrainian govt took to restrict competent men.
"We are men...our veins are pumping loads of testosterone & it's carved in our blood to protect our women & children..."
All so true. 'Women and children' first still seems to be the motto. So obvious that everyone suffers, everyone bears the pain and loss, including men.
Great swathes of dead men still can't prevent western women from crying victim throughout (countless) international women's day events. Their hatred and greed knows no bounds.
The hypocrisy of the left wing toxic feminist movement is blatantly obvious in a women’s responsibilities versus men’s responsibilities during wartime.
I say let the single adult toxic feminists show us how “equal” the genders are and
stay there beside the men in the Ukraine with their guns and putting their female bodies - in the line of hostile enemy gun fire & explosives & death & Injury.
Let the single adult toxic feminists stay beside the fathers and single men and help them get the job of defending their country done -
while the feminist sympathising single men and fathers get onto the safety of buses and trains and run away from facing any physical danger… or doing the hard work of war.
In any situation under examination.
I Hypothetically swap what the male gender are Doing for what the female gender are doing -
one can then more clearly see feminist hypocrisy and toxic feminism’s double standards “clear as day”
Great article. As a former military professional I always found the cultural hypocrisy comical. Thanks for being one of very few voices pointing such things out.
Just another example of what "seemed like a good idea at the time" was allowed to go unchecked and unquestioned - probably due to some vague feeling of guilt - until, like Frankenstein, it developed a destructive life of its own.
ie while there may have been merit in advocating for female "equality", to enable it to morph unchecked into an institutionalised female victimhood ideology has created a "monster". And paved the way for every other "victim" group under the sun to guilt-trip the majority into acceptance of their particular ideology, whether rational or otherwise.
It's the same as how a fringe (and scientifically refuted from day 1) theory about "the greenhouse effect" has evolved into an ideology that has now dominated and "monstered" all discourse concerning energy production and consumption on the planet. An ideology that paradoxically is likely to, if not send us all back to the stone age, at least force the world back to mediaeval levels of income inequality and poverty.
Thank you, Bettina, for speaking clearly, cogently and, above all, truthfully about this issue. We in the West are deeply hypocritical about gender, as you regularly point out - especially, I am afraid, those of us who claim most loudly to be pursuing equality - the feminists. Issues like this expose the fact that feminists want only the benefits of the male role and none of the responsibilities.
Various people have pointed out to me that I made a mistake in speaking about the White Flag rather than White Feather campaign. So sorry, I actually knew it was a feather. Senior moment!
There was the White Ribbon campaign too this was designed to shame men in the same way as the White Feather did.
It was part of the violence against women campaign a Federal govt. waste of money
The double standard was obvious , there was no campaign to address violence against men
The misandry we see today makes a mere shadow of the misogyny which has existed through history.
You live in a world built atop the blood and bones of million upon millions of boys and men and are among the most privileged human beings to ever walk the face of the planet. And yet you resent it.
I am not sure why or how my comment took you there but you have seriously misinterpreted.
Go back and look at your own words.
The misandry we see today makes a mere shadow of the misogyny which has existed through history.
Which means, hatred of males, misandry, as we see it today makes hatred of females, misogyny, in the past a mere shadow.
To clarify it even further, discrimination toward men today is vastly worse than discrimination toward women in the past.
I repeat, you have seriously misinterpreted.
Referring to senior moments is another form of discrimination. Everyone makes mistakes regardless of age. We do not need Ageism or Sexism.
Thank you, Roslyn. Good point. But I think we are allowed to be ageist about ourselves, aren't we? Such mistakes do seem to be happening a little more often to me these days!
I think it is best avoided on all counts. What we believe is what we become. These are stressful times and have been for two years and I know much younger people doing a lot more forgetting. And they have not been Jabbed so cannot blame that. :)
Outstanding article, Bettina. The blatant cultural, moral and political hypocrisy of feminism laid bare for all to see. It's so hard to understand how feminism, in its current form, can be so widely embraced by such large swathes of the planet's women; women who are lovers, wives, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers of the gender they despise.
What ever happened to the intrinsic feminine traits of nurturing, love and care? Perhaps the feminine woman is the greatest myth of all.
If sending men to their deaths in the battles of war can't moot the deeply inculcated feminist resentment, disregard, and hatred towards men, nothing can.
What do U mean that nurture and love are feminine traits ? Men are heartless monsters?Not all men are big and strong and perfectly fit . There are men who want to just be with their families and loved ones . The entire article is about how it’s wrong to force me to die , and you re here trying to say that it’s fine men are being killed forcefully, it’s only that women hate men that’s the problem ! SERIOUSLY! men are worst enemies of MRA
How you reached the conclusion that my comment was about justifying why men should die in battle, I’ll never know. Quite frankly, I think you are missing the point of the entire article.
I think Bettina’s primary premise is the gross hypocrisy of the ever vocal feminist movement who, when the chips are down, fall silent and are more than willing for men to do the heavy lifting; men who do so without complaint and with a sense of duty. Men whose lives are inherently devalued as expendable beings relative to women.
There is also the perennial narrative of women as victims, yet it is impossible for feminists to ever perceive men in the same light, even when they are thrust into extreme scenarios such as battle.
The article is also about the inequality of martial law, which made it legally incumbent on men of fighting age to defend the nation. They didn’t have a choice. Women did. Some women stayed to fight, but just a few, and entirely of their own volition.
The synthetic cocoon of western societies makes it very easy for feminist to play out the charades of gender equality without ever being stress tested by the realities of extreme conflict and war, or functioning in low tech societies that are wracked with poverty and hunger, as experienced in so many parts of the globe.
If feminists were genuine about their ideology of equality, they would step up and demand that they fight shoulder to shoulder with men to defend the nation. It didn’t happen. Not even the slightest notion.
My point was that the silence of women in a contemporary feminist context has, for all intents and purposes, thrown the men to the dogs of war. Where are the intrinsic characteristics of the caring feminist women - which we are reminded of ad nauseam - in that?
True equality in the 21st century would spread the risk of battle across the genders, and in equal proportion.
Feminists could have made this war a case study in genuine equality. They chose not to.
As usual, feminism is about selective equality, cherry picking the hierarchical and desirable roles men play in society, for themselves.
All due respect, that’s not how a society functions. As usual, it is the men that just get on with making society function even during the darkest hours of history, and doing the most undesirable tasks imaginable. That’s not an anti-feminist remark, it’s just reality.
Wonderful article, thank you.
While much weaponry today is 'push button' final victory in a hot war is through boots on the ground. The hard slog of infantry fighting. It is grueling, heartlessly cruel, live or die stuff. If you are an infantryman you want to know that if you are wounded, if half your face is blown away, if your legs are destroyed by a mine, grenade or blast of heavy machine gun fire, that some one, in their full kit will run to you, grab you, throw you onto their back, and carry you out of harms way at a fast trot to aid. I can't think of many women strong enough to do that.
Doesn’t matter what u think !. Many women are capable of doing that . Yeah ofc size 0 girls, who starve themselves, like your partner might not but an average gym going lady can ! I seriously don’t understand men itself ban women from entering army with such statements and then say they re not treated as dispensable . It’s a great thing 17% of Ukrainian army is female as women s right to join army is very recent and in such short span of time , so many women joining the army despite rebukes they might face from family and friends is a huge thing
Most women would pass out when faced with a panzer....war is not the thing for most women...& also women are less expendable than men so not a good idea to send too many women in battlegrounds.
Then why r u even here ? Reading this article? Most women ? Who r u to decide mahn ? Women have served in armies and fought 4 their country since centuries. Because’ of such kind of stereotypes they had to face more trouble and dress up as men and go . Women are adults , they can protect themselves. No need for dumb stereotypical guys to do that . Uk what ! this whole men s rights is shit . U guys don’t even want women in army or in any position of power ! U just want to throw in some stupid points in your favour and lock up women at home . So I m just gonna quit from this evil site ! Best of luck getting kicked by feminists cause they ain’t gonna stop nor stoop to stereotypes or men brimming with inferiority complex
Typical of the ill-informed, abusive contributions from our critics to this debate.
Typical of people who go by the name 'annonymus'.
There is not a single identified military culture of any significance that has routinely deployed women on an equal basis with men for close-contact warfare. The Israelis concluded that it was not feasible and so did the Russians. As a “last resort” option for nations facing an existential threat, maybe... but anything else is mythology.
Modern ground combat relies on Fire and Manoeuvre.... the “Fire” part requiring that carrying of weapons and large quantities of *heavy* ammunition, and “Manoeuvre “ requires carrying maximum loads (plus body-armour, water, rations and communications equipment) as quickly as possible over rugged terrain. Modern infantrymen carry loads as great as any fighting-men in history. It is anything but “push-button warfare”.
If you carry less capable weapons and protective equipment, you lose and your people die.
If you carry less ammunition and run out first, you lose and your people die.
If you are too slow to reach advantageous terrain before the enemy, or react too slowly to your enemy’s movements, you lose and your people die
Fantastic Bettina and spot on. There's so much I could say about this but one of the things that struck me some time ago, which you've touched on briefly, is the curious way the media categorises massacres. First of all you've got your familiar everyday regulation massacre which consists of simply rounding up all the men in the village and killing them . This type of massacre is generally not worth reporting. My guess is because it's just so commonplace. Those boys were routinely massacred in Nigeria and nobody got up in the UK Parliament and said a thing. All that changed when the victims were girls. Going up the scale is the familiar X number of people were killed including women and children. The fact that it included women and children lifted it up the scale of newsworthiness. Then you've got the familiar X number of people were killed the majority of which were women and children. The odd thing about this is the majority of people killed could also be men and children. For example, let's say 21 people were killed which consisted of 10 men, 4 women and 7 children. In this case the majority of people killed would be the women and children 4 + 7 = 11. But the majority of people killed would also be the men and children 10 + 7 = 17. Oddly enough it doesn't stop there, because you've then got the familiar X number of people killed including women, children and elderly men. In this case you only matter as a man if you pass an arbitrary age (i.e. you are no longer virile). A similar odd thing happens to the transition of boys who are categorised as children (i.e. de facto female) in massacres until they pass some arbitrary line somewhere in their teens to becoming not worth mentioning until they reach maturity. I'm convinced the Boko Haram action against the girls in Nigeria was provoked because their regulation atrocities against boys weren't getting enough publicity. Ironically, in my view, the way media cover massacres actually encourages atrocities against women and girls because the deranged people who carry out these atrocities know something about the current grotesquely anti-male Western culture.
I think I read that somewhere... that Boko Haram made a deliberate decision to target women after noticing the world didn't care what they did to boys.
I also think we should be cautious about some of the propaganda that has been disseminated to drum up support. As Tucker Carlson recently pointed out both sides are playing the propaganda game. Apparently, according to Carlson, one of the most shared pictures wasn't what it claimed to be - it was a woman with an airgun that was photographed in the USA and not in Ukraine. It turns out the Russians did not attack the nuclear reactors after all but administrative buildings nearby.
Yes, there were claims a former Miss Ukraine was joining the fighting but that turned out to be a fake story. Hard to know what is real.
As is so often observed, and stated, in the wake of virtually every military conflict - 'The first casualty of war is truth'.
Leaked intelligence claims that BH made a deliberate decision to target girls to inflict as much terror and maximise propaganda as the massacring of boys had prompted no reaction from the west... and they still kept on "recruiting" boys as child fighters and killing other boys
This is all true but in reality men do not WANT our wives, gfs, sisters etc on the front line or at risk. However it would only be simple decency for society to nurture and encourage the men who will again risk their lives to save everyone. Maybe some men will say "hang it i cant get promoted if i am not a member of some small pressure group (or a woman), i will only be dumped on the scrap heap when my wife has no further use for me, why would i give my life to protect this lot"?
But why should women want their sons, brothers, fathers on the front line or at risk, either. I just don't understand why men are expected to take such risks and women have the choice whether they want to be heroes or opt out.
that is how it is & we can't go against it cuz it's induced by nature & not any social construct...Men are stronger & more capable of fighting than women in general.
Also women are less expendable than men due to obvious biological reasons..
So imo restricting 'able bodied' men & appealing them to defend the country while vulnerable women fled to safety was the RIGHT thing to do...competent women have been given free choice whether to fight o flee & i totally respect all the women who chose to fight.
My only problem is with modern mainstream feminism yelling 'equality' & this was a good outlet to expose the feminist hypocrisy...haha
So my objective is to smash toxic(not genuine) feminism & NOT opposing the rightful decision Ukrainian govt took to restrict competent men.
Men & women aren't equal but complementary.
This approaches one of my favorite topics. In the last few paragraphs of an essay from earlier this year, especially the last one before references I wax a bit about all parts of society supporting men's courage and their numerical reduction. https://elliott333.substack.com/p/on-locusts-and-war?s=w
Interesting article, Elliott. As it is quite esoteric, it may be worth condensing the key points into a contextually relevant paragraph or two for the readers of Bettina's blog.
Much thanks for the feedback Peter! I'll see if I can crank it out this weekend.
Clearly no gender quota has been set.
You already mentioned the reason. It's evolved psychological differences of both genders...keep in mind that many men at least partly want to seek a "proof" which makes less sense in today's environment, but must have had strong mate value evolutionary, and old men on both sides sure wouldn't mind the reduced competition for food and women.
Ok but i HOPE you are not even contemplating suggesting that older men deliberately send off younger men to die just so they can have less competition for women. What evidence of this do you have?
First of all it's an idea, why is HOPE relevant here - are you going to police my thoughts? lol But in any case yes you got it. As they say hope in one hand and .... Lets not confuse stated reasons from evolved psychology. We are not going to get double blind placebo controlled studies on this. However informing my thesis is something like 95% of wars or skirmishes ever waged - the leaders are often not combatants and are considerably older than the boys on the front lines. You might also recognize that sociopathy is to some degree an emergent and selected trait of CEOs and generals, so why would that be? Also consider when a tribe or culture becomes authoritarian then the emotions and expectations around honor increase dramatically. In our current easier time we are quite disconnected from who we would be under persistent caloric deprivation, parasite stress and out-group violence.
No evidence. I will not reply further.
It's a good question :-) It means raising the sticky question of who makes the best warrior doesn't it? When it was hand to hand combat there is no doubt. There is also the FACT that children (any age) are more biologically attached to their mothers (men can try be we cannot suckle our young :-) ) So seeing them in the front line would be more traumatic than seeing their fathers there. It's a theory .... Then there is evolution isn't there? The sexes have evolved according to their success in their particular functions. Men can become more nurturing and women can become more warlike (outside the home). But it will not happen overnight.
Who said that ! It’s pure stereotype . So many kids love their dads way more . I mean just because she birthed them doesn’t mean she has to be the better parent! Seriously! I’ve seen cruel mothers who hate their children . The children hate them too and the only relief in these kids lives might be their dad who they are forced to see being killed TO BE A MAN .u know what men don’t want TO BE A MAN , they just wanna be human beings!! WITH EMOTIONS !
it's not about loving dads...it's about dad's duty to protect kids & mum
Who r u to decide ! What dads duty is ? What mom s duty is ? A stereotypical , misogynist , I guess ! Standing against mens and women s rights !
Oh! Bettina, Few but you would step so bravely into the unknown, but seemingly hostile debate between the sexes.
This essay is brilliant, partly because it says plainly what should be--but seldom is--self-evident. That's how double standards work; the hypocritical illusion disappears with the application of careful observation and common sense. You've already mentioned the profound moral problem of placing more value on female lives than on male ones, so I'll add a few comments on some equally ignored considerations: (1) demographic ones; (2) practical ones; and (3) cultural ones.
The morally primitive idea that female lives are "worth" more than male lives (never mind egalitarian rhetoric to the contrary) could make demographic sense only in societies that practice polygyny, which means that men take many wives. After a war that kills most men, each male survivor can marry many women. And each wife bears as many children as possible to replenish the population. That's not the case in monogamous societies. After World War I, for instance, millions of Western women simply remained unmarried and childless.
After World War II and more recent wars, some women have remained unmarried but nonetheless had children (partly due to the celebration of and political power of single mothers). But that hasn't worked out very well, because millions of fatherless children have left us with monumental problems. Social scientists have documented these extensively. The fact is that children need both mothers and fathers (who are not interchangeable, because they have very different functions within the family).
In short, no Western country is going to adopt polygyny. And no society at all is going to flourish if it trivializes fathers as luxuries at best (assistant mothers) or denounces them as liabilities at worst.
As for the ability of women to function effectively in modern warfare, it's true that most women are bigger and stronger than most men (although some women are bigger and stronger than some men). But not all soldiers carry bodies around, not even in combat. Most tasks can be done effectively by either men or women--especially as guerillas.
Maybe, as one commentator points out, feminism has not yet taken hold in Ukraine. But ideological hypocrisy in other countries is not the only problem. Something in Western culture has clearly changed a great deal since World War II.
Although many children were evacuated from London to the countryside (or overseas), most people--both men and women--remained in London and other cities throughout the war. Posters noted, accurately, that "London can take it." Edward R. Murrow interviewed Londoners during the blitz, and no one whined or complained or demanded pity in the midst of fiery ruins on a colossal scale. They got on with their work as well as they could (as did the women in many other countries, including Germany). Moreover, the tone of confidence and restraint was set for British women by the queen herself. No wonder that her daughter, now queen, has exemplified the value of duty ever since.
What else (aside from the rise of feminism) has changed since then? I suggest a resurgence of romanticism (the supremacy of feeling, not thinking, which fosters the journalistic reliance on gross sentimentality) and hedonism (pleasure, or at least freedom from pain or anxiety) as an end in itself) along with the notion of "safetyism" (being safe at all costs, protected from even "micro-aggressions," let alone bombs). In a word, self-indulgence.
The sight of teary-eyed young women fleeing en masse from Ukraine, abandoning their men to repel the invaders on their own, is neither edifying nor "natural." It does require an explanation. Thank you, Bettina, for reminding everyone of that.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do appreciate this type of intelligent discussion.
"The sight of teary-eyed young women fleeing en masse from Ukraine, abandoning their men to repel the invaders on their own, is neither edifying nor "natural." It does require an explanation."
No, it is "natural" & it has biological reasoning to it.
Men are stronger & more capable of fighting than women in general.
Also women are less expendable than men due to obvious biological reasons..
So imo restricting 'able bodied' men & appealing them to defend the country while vulnerable women fled to safety was the RIGHT thing to do...competent women have been given free choice whether to fight or flee & i totally respect all the women who chose to fight.
The only problem is modern mainstream feminism yelling 'equality' & this was a good outlet to expose the feminist hypocrisy...haha
So my objective is to smash toxic(not genuine) feminism & NOT opposing the rightful decision Ukrainian govt took to restrict competent men.
"We are men...our veins are pumping loads of testosterone & it's carved in our blood to protect our women & children..."
that's how I feel as a strong man in this world.
Men & women aren't equal but complementary.
All so true. 'Women and children' first still seems to be the motto. So obvious that everyone suffers, everyone bears the pain and loss, including men.
Because today's media is incapable of "intelligent commentary," much less "intelligent reporting." Good points, btw.
Great swathes of dead men still can't prevent western women from crying victim throughout (countless) international women's day events. Their hatred and greed knows no bounds.
As was true with Covid, where many more men ended up dying yet still the feminists presented women as more impacted.
Which leads back to your article. Men don't count.
Ah Bettina, you're like Queensland. Beautiful one day, perfect the next (I'm from NSW)
Now, that is a compliment! Perfect apart from the politics!
https://avoiceformen.com/featured/no-feminists-in-a-foxhole/
I wrote a short article echoing these sentiments for AVFM Bettina. Thanks for always telling the truth.
Exactly Bettina
You hit the nail on the head
The hypocrisy of the left wing toxic feminist movement is blatantly obvious in a women’s responsibilities versus men’s responsibilities during wartime.
I say let the single adult toxic feminists show us how “equal” the genders are and
stay there beside the men in the Ukraine with their guns and putting their female bodies - in the line of hostile enemy gun fire & explosives & death & Injury.
Let the single adult toxic feminists stay beside the fathers and single men and help them get the job of defending their country done -
while the feminist sympathising single men and fathers get onto the safety of buses and trains and run away from facing any physical danger… or doing the hard work of war.
In any situation under examination.
I Hypothetically swap what the male gender are Doing for what the female gender are doing -
one can then more clearly see feminist hypocrisy and toxic feminism’s double standards “clear as day”
Best regards,
Darren Bennetts
Tools@westnet.com.au
M: 0400102567
Great article. As a former military professional I always found the cultural hypocrisy comical. Thanks for being one of very few voices pointing such things out.
Just another example of what "seemed like a good idea at the time" was allowed to go unchecked and unquestioned - probably due to some vague feeling of guilt - until, like Frankenstein, it developed a destructive life of its own.
ie while there may have been merit in advocating for female "equality", to enable it to morph unchecked into an institutionalised female victimhood ideology has created a "monster". And paved the way for every other "victim" group under the sun to guilt-trip the majority into acceptance of their particular ideology, whether rational or otherwise.
It's the same as how a fringe (and scientifically refuted from day 1) theory about "the greenhouse effect" has evolved into an ideology that has now dominated and "monstered" all discourse concerning energy production and consumption on the planet. An ideology that paradoxically is likely to, if not send us all back to the stone age, at least force the world back to mediaeval levels of income inequality and poverty.
Thank you, Bettina, for speaking clearly, cogently and, above all, truthfully about this issue. We in the West are deeply hypocritical about gender, as you regularly point out - especially, I am afraid, those of us who claim most loudly to be pursuing equality - the feminists. Issues like this expose the fact that feminists want only the benefits of the male role and none of the responsibilities.