Men more altruistic in war


12 September 2006

Why men at war will pull together

The men in each group became less self-orientated, and were more altruistic than before, approximately doubling their donations.

“The men actually helped their group by becoming more altruistic towards them,” said Professor van Vugt.

“We’ve labelled it the male warrior effect.”

For the women, there was no difference in their behaviour between when they were playing for the group, or for themselves.


“In situations in which you have inter-group encounters, yes, men start becoming more aggressive than women, but with that comes a lot of co-operation within their group.”

An interesting study that shows what we all knew, that us men are better at self-sacrifice, especially when our ‘tribe’ (whether its a test group or country) is threatened.

Us men in the West are certainly at war at the moment against feminism and Big Government.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:14 PM


At 6:57 PM, nevo said…

War is a criminal act forced upon innocent men by a few sexually frustrated men in power.
Winston Churchill is a fine example. He couldn’t shag his missus even when he wanted to. Preferring to play war games against the Germans, which were another group of sexually frustrated men in power.

Any reasonable man with a normal sex life does not need to relive himself via acts of violence.
Also, this is the reason why sex and sport do not mix if you want to be a winner.



At 10:20 PM, unpleasant bitter git said…

“Winston Churchill is a fine example. He couldn’t shag his missus even when he wanted to. Preferring to play war games against the Germans”

Nevo, do you know nothing of recent history or are you just taking the piss?

Churchill became Prime Minister AFTER WW2 started.


At 2:41 AM, Anonymous said…


War(like all violent contest) is nothing less than a violent(and decisive) paradigm for mediating/resolving status disputes on a population scale.

Please quit talking out your ass if you wish to be taken seriously.

What many sublimated male imbeciles fail to appreciate is that appealing to violence *invariably* favors the interests of discontented males(when pragmatically exercised).

Ever wonder why females have rarely antagonized for war(since the ascendancy of the bureaucratic state)?

Because the largess of matriliny(and more recently, codified polyandry) derives from status quo equilibriums which are easily disturbed during times of war, while males must often in every case resolve their own vigorous agency without state benefaction.

The dichotomy can be observed where(on a scale of means) state machinations are a male hindrance/burden, but a female benefice.

Excerpt from one of my previous posts: ‘Violence has always been the most acute/efficacious energy vector acting upon the substrate of human agency – if you want to effect/alter/change human behavior/condition dynamics, nothing is so expedient as forceful appeal’.

Read my other posts and educate yourself.

Violence is the only way you idiots are getting out of the collective hole you find yourselves in through cowardly indolence.




At 5:23 AM, Anonymous said…

On the topic of violence/war, I dug up this little excerpt(It is chronicled from my earlier days, so please forgive any neophyte prose):

On a requisite scale, the sovereignty of violent/open contest(as selection agent) necessarily selects for behavioral(and phenotypic) vigor/adaptive plasticity(favoring males who are empowered) through it’s visceral determination.

In other words: males who are not easily cowed in a flaccid pretext to forestall violent antagonisms between rivals.

Thus, violence similarly favors vigorous male sex/reproduction strategies(for the victors), while undermining efette strategies(as well as female contra-strategies) which appeal to sublimated treaty under duress of codified censure(by functionary cowards who act in groups, and will expedite the levers of coercion only under an aegis of populist sanction/accord), where the power vacuum ceeded by stultified males(cowards who have long since abrogated all initiative to females for fear of violent intervention by rival males) is inexorably filled by the duplicitous machinations of female interest.

While the fallout of such contest can be acutely effectual(with females abruptly forced to yield their erstwhile conferred sovereignty in mate selection to pragmatic/material consideration), it often hold’s the most terminal consequence for vanquished/displaced males( a violent and brutal end at the hands of usurping rivals) – which is why it is at-risk/besieged males(betas) who were the principal architects in emergent paradigms which have derived intervening social codes to prohibit autonomous/unregulated violence in the mediation of dispute and redressment.

This is also why the (tenuously)prevailing west/euro psych complex is so keen in endorsing spurious correlations(interpreted anthropomorphistically) between female sensory bias(in mate-selection) and univalent male vigor/fitness/quality – it doesn’t want increasingly desperate/disgruntled males(disenfranchised by female license) from entertaining any dissonant notions to the contrary in regards to their celebrated status deficits.



At 1:19 PM, Anonymous said…

Nevo, Churchill was the man that we needed to win the war against the germans. You do know that the same liberals that always thinks problems can be solved by simply talking to muslims are the same we had to put up with in WWII.

Hitler, time to talk…LOL!

People also dont understand that the next wars will not be right or left wing fascism…although we are stearing toward left wing fascism with the way this countrys going(united states of Europe anyone?), but rather it will be Islamic fascism.

The sooner people wake up the better.
But first things first is to stop this EU commie ballshit! 😀


At 8:09 PM, Anonymous said…

This is not a political argument(and will not be resolved through it’s appeal).

Aggressively liberal immigration policy/trends are only a *symptom* of the problem.

Quit fixating on these mere artifacts, and get your heads out of the sand already!

If Euro civ is too stupid, calcified, and delusional to address the nexus of it’s own displacement/ruin(fem license et al, pursuant to the west’s signature utopian mysticism/duplicity of reason), then it isn’t worth preserving.

If this is in fact the case, then I won’t shed a tear(because you’ll be better off with Islam)…



At 2:53 AM, Anonymous said…

nSCOURGE posts make my head hurt.
Can you please use more basic words so I can understand because it seems very interesting, I just wish I could read it.


%d bloggers like this: