German Nationalism and the Lost Roman Legions

Diane, in your article "The Lost Roman Legions" you stated "Over 25,000 men, women, and children were killed." Here you state "They massacred every soldier and destroyed the evidence" indicating that only males were killed. I hope this one was the case.

If women and children were killed, as a male, I can understand killing all the males but why women and children? Many conquering armies did kill all the males in the defeated foe often including infants and children as long as they were male in order to eliminate that tribe or ethnic group, but most did not harm the women and (female) children once the males were gone. I would much rather see the males killed than the women and children if anyone had to be. Of course I admit that if I was in that army, I would fight hard to make sure it they were not the victors and I would be one of the ones being killed by them because I am a male. Even then, I would rather be us males if I knew our women and children would be safe.

Interesting comment that only males should be killed in wars. I have often wondered how women feel about this. Especially in those areas where a victory killed all the males in the society they conquered.

I am not saying anything was wrong with this as I too think women and children should not be harmed not because I am macho or anything like that. Far from it as I am one of the rare men who actually think women are the superior sex and as such women and girls should be protected even at the expense of men.

I do wonder what women think about this. Oh I doubt any of us want anyone to be killed or harmed but if it has to happen, do women approve of protecting their gender at the expense of the males?

"do women approve of protecting their gender at the expense of the males? "

I work in an office with 16 others 10 of them are women and I and the other 5 are males. I showed this to each of them and all of the women and all but one of the males agreed that it should only be males that are killed in wars. I am one who did agreee with this too,. It would be interesting to see a national poll on this aspect. I think most would say it should be male only to protect our women.

"do women approve of protecting their gender at the expense of the males? "

I work in an office with 16 others 10 of them are women and I and the other 5 are males. I showed this to each of them and all of the women and all but one of the males agreed that it should only be males that are killed in wars. I am one who did agreee with this too,. It would be interesting to see a national poll on this aspect. I think most would say it should be male only to protect our women.

I work in an office with 16 people. 10 are women, 6 are men and I asked them this question and almost all of them said it should only be males who are killed in wars and women need to be protected from harm. I am one of the men who strongly agrees with this. All but 3 (2 womenand one man) also agreed that even if it meant more males would die to protect women, it would be worth it to protect the women. (I guess I will have to work harder to help those 3 realize the value of women over us males)

It is interesting that one guest said he would love all 25,000 of those killed in the Roman war to have been males. This did happen with Spartan.

I saw something on Wikipedia that stated:

Xerxes waited four days to attack, hoping the Greeks would disperse. Finally, on the fifth day the Persians attacked. Leonidas and his men repulsed the Persians' frontal attacks for the fifth and sixth days, killing roughly 20,000 of the enemy troops and losing about 2,500 of their own.

This would indicate that in just two days, the Spartans killed over 20 thousand Persians and I would agree with you that I too am glad all 20 thousand were males and that no females were involved. Maybe I am a macho male but I do not think women need to be in wars. It is the job of men to protect women from harm and we can see this throughout the animal world also where males often sacrifice themselves so that the females can survive. One primary example of this is the Redback spider where the male mates when it is 3 months old but it mates only once because the male always dies when mating. The female lives for about 3 years and mates many times, each time she mates, at least one male will die. LOL at least as a human male, we live a lot longer compared to the spider and we can mate many times so there are some good things about being a male.

George

Actually George, if you were a male, it was worse than just 22500 males being killed, the Trojan war lasted 10 and a half years and killed over a million and a half people and if I heard right, they were all male. I do hope it was right as asI agree that everyone killed in any war should be all male but that is easy coming from a woman. Over 100,000 males a year and NO women sounds OK to me

Kathy

"Over 100,000 males a year and NO women sounds OK to me" Kathy, even if it were a million males a year, I still say it would have been better they all be males. World War 2 killed from 50 to 70 million people and many were women and girls. I think none of them should have been women or girls since women are the superior gender and even as a male, I know my sex is far more expendable as a whole. Yes, I think even if it were 70 million, all of them should have been males and at that rate, it would have been about 12 million males a year but still better they all be male than any women or girls.

From the sounds of it, it is never good to be a male in wartime, but than again, it is never there is never a good time to be a male. I am glad I am not one.

" If we look at the animal world, we would see the focus is always on the female."
Perhaps the human male can use a lesson from the animal world such as with the Redback Spider. Mating is always fatal for the male Redback because he knows the female is what is important. While the female mates many times in her live time of over 3 years, at least one male always dies when she does. The male mate once as it is always fatal for him and the male lives for only 3 months as opposed to 3 years for her. The male actually forfeits his life to assure the female survives by jumping in front of her knowing she will kill and eat him.
Now I would not expect men to die after mating with us but there are other ways males can acknowledge that it is they, the male who are the most expendable sex such as with wars.
A New York Times report states:
Civilians have borne the brunt of modern warfare, with 10 civilians dying for every soldier in wars fought since the mid-20th century, compared with 9 soldiers killed for every civilian in World War I, according to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Since some of the civilians would be male, we can assume that not all of the civilian are women and children and remember at least some of the children will be male also but it does appear that the last war where few women were killed was WW1.
Of course the best war is no war but the next best one is one in which no women would be harmed although that is just a nicer way of saying that only males should be killed
Some examples would be that in the Persian wars with Sparta, in ten years over a million and a half people died and they were all males. In the Civil War, 660,000 males died while only 60 women died. Some I know think the women should have been better protected even if more males died and I would agree with this
Throughout the natural world, males always have a higher death rate than do the females and we see this in humans also. Does not this show that the female is the superior sex in the animal world and that in humans, women are the superior gender and males are the inferior one?

" If we look at the animal world, we would see the focus is always on the female."
Perhaps the human male can use a lesson from the animal world such as with the Redback Spider. Mating is always fatal for the male Redback because he knows the female is what is important. While the female mates many times in her live time of over 3 years, at least one male always dies when she does. The male mate once as it is always fatal for him and the male lives for only 3 months as opposed to 3 years for her. The male actually forfeits his life to assure the female survives by jumping in front of her knowing she will kill and eat him.
Now I would not expect men to die after mating with us but there are other ways males can acknowledge that it is they, the male who are the most expendable sex such as with wars.
A New York Times report states:
Civilians have borne the brunt of modern warfare, with 10 civilians dying for every soldier in wars fought since the mid-20th century, compared with 9 soldiers killed for every civilian in World War I, according to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Since some of the civilians would be male, we can assume that not all of the civilian are women and children and remember at least some of the children will be male also but it does appear that the last war where few women were killed was WW1.
Of course the best war is no war but the next best one is one in which no women would be harmed although that is just a nicer way of saying that only males should be killed
Some examples would be that in the Persian wars with Sparta, in ten years over a million and a half people died and they were all males. In the Civil War, 660,000 males died while only 60 women died. Some I know think the women should have been better protected even if more males died and I would agree with this
Throughout the natural world, males always have a higher death rate than do the females and we see this in humans also. Does not this show that the female is the superior sex in the animal world and that in humans, women are the superior gender and males are the inferior one?

From a woman' point of view, I find it odd that so many males would advocate the death of other males this easily but I too would rather they be male than women or kids.

It has been reported that Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of up to 20 million people. At the time, there was very little outcry about this. One reason there was very little outcry is something I just found out today. About 90% of this 20 million were males.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

Of courses we know Hitler killed many women and children but he started out killing only males:

"The Einsatzgruppen [death-squad] officers ... could habituate their men into their new vocation as genocidal executioners through a stepwise escalation of the killing. First, by shooting primarily teenage and adult Jewish males, they would be able to acclimate themselves to mass executions without the shock of killing women, young children, and the infirm.

On July 11, 1942, the following orders went out to the police battalions: "Confidential! By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader ... all male Jews between the ages of 17 and 45 convicted as plunderers are to be shot according to martial law..

They did not have to really be plunderers, all they had to be was to be male. No one asked for evidence they were guilty, they were guilty because they had testicles. Male Jews who appeared to be between the ages of seventeen and forty-five were simply rounded up" and led away for execution

Oddly enough also, it was always other males who ordered that only the males be killed and it was males who killed them.

I wonder how difficult it was for males to kill so many others simply because they had the misfortune to be born with testicles.

I sure would not want those things dangling between my legs.. If I suddenly woke up with them, I would want to cut them off and this so called penis envy is utter nonsense as no woman I know would want one of those things attached to her.

In one blog, someone stated “I guess they know who the superior gender is and it is NOT us MALES”

They are right, it certainly is not the males.

Diane

I noticed some men here have said that they think women are the superior sex. I have seen several other blogs where more and more men are making this statement too. I have even had several men where I work "admit" that they think men are the inferior sex but they said they would not admit it publically. I have seen some women say this too but it seems more men are saying it lately than are women.

Have you noticed this in your circles and if so, why do you think more men are thinking women are superior to the men?

I also notice that most of these men refer to men as males and they never refer to women as females. Is there a reason for this? I have noticed this when they have stated things like only "males" should be killed and never women or girls. They do not refer to women as females. Do you find it odd that so many feel that strongly that only men should be killed in wars?

Lynn

Diane

I noticed some men here have said that they think women are the superior sex. I have seen several other blogs where more and more men are making this statement too. I have even had several men where I work "admit" that they think men are the inferior sex but they said they would not admit it publically. I have seen some women say this too but it seems more men are saying it lately than are women.

Have you noticed this in your circles and if so, why do you think more men are thinking women are superior to the men?

I also notice that most of these men refer to men as males and they never refer to women as females. Is there a reason for this? I have noticed this when they have stated things like only "males" should be killed and never women or girls. They do not refer to women as females. Do you find it odd that so many feel that strongly that only men should be killed in wars?

Lynn

There are other reasons to risk only males in war. We do not use our best when we know it can be harmed. We would not use our family car in a demolition derby, we use a car we can afford to lose so why risk women in war

When we look at the chart below, we will find that males are inferiror in every one of them while girls are superior in all ares at every age. There is some improvement with males as they get older but the improvement is small. This is only one area where it shows the vast superiority of women and girls over males of all ages.

Disability Age 6–12 Age 13–17
Male Female Male Female
Learning disability 67% 33% 66% 34%
Emotional disturbance 80% 20% 77% 23%
Speech impairment 66% 34% 62% 38%
Intellectual and developmental delays 56% 44% 56% 44%
Visual impairment 57% 43% 53% 47%
Hearing impairment 56% 44% 52% 48%
Autism 83% 17% 85% 15%
Multiple disabilities 65% 35% 57% 43%
Deaf/blindness 65% 35% 57% 43%
All disabilities 67% 33% 66% 34%

It appears that most here assert that women are superior

I would love to see a major poll such as Gallup ask this question and it should be asked in several ways from which sex is equal and are they moderately superior to greatly superior and which is the inferior sex.

I would not be surprised of most people did say that women are superior and males are inferior and I would not be a bit surprised of more males stated this than women but since our egos are more fragile than our testicles, it has It be done so that no one would know what someone answered.

It appears that most here assert that women are superior

I would love to see a major poll such as Gallup ask this question and it should be asked in several ways from which sex is equal and are they moderately superior to greatly superior and which is the inferior sex.

I would not be surprised of most people did say that women are superior and males are inferior and I would not be a bit surprised of more males stated this than women but since our egos are more fragile than our testicles, it has It be done so that no one would know what someone answered.

"since our egos are more fragile than our testicles"

I know a male's ego is very fragile but since I do not have them, I would not know how fragile testicles are but from every male I have seen it would seem they are very fragile. Still I have to wonder, how can you ego be more fragile than a pair of busted balls

We can say balls here? Actually, I do not see why we should not be able to use terms like this for the male anatomy. I saw a Fox News segment where a doctor was talking about testicle cancer and he told boys to: "examine your balls" and told them how to do it. He also used the word "nuts" once in this segment. Most movies use these terms often and they use terms for our penis also. Yes I said "our" as I have one too.

Maybe it is because I was brought up with the knowledge that women are not the weak sex, (my father taught me that women are the superior sex ) that I do not mind terms like this or any other term being used for males but I do not like movies that show disrespect for women and girls even by using slang terms for their anatomy.

I use to think women were inferior to males. My husband showed me that women are the superior gender. One of hundreds of reasons is the way males love to kill each other and my husband mentioned wars and that in past wars, the males only killed males. I showed him this article and he said he was glad they were all MALE. In the Civil War, 660 thousand males died but so did 60 women. (My husband said they should have protected the 60 women better even if more males died doing it and I have to agree) In our recent wars, my husband states that far too many women are killed also and we need a treaty to prevent the killing of women and children, or at least girls.

My husband said that if any army willfully kills women or girls, the winning army should kill 25 of the losing army's males for each woman they killed and it should be 50 of their males for each girl under 18 they killed. He said that would stop the willful killing of women and girls and it also would show the worth of the female gender. I can't say I disagree with him even though I know it would reduce the male population but my husband doubts that would bother too many males as males often kill each other anyway and he strongly feels women are much more superior to males anyway so society should protect women even at the cost of males. It certainly would not bother me and I am not one to argue with a male who says there if far too much strong evidence that women are superior to males.

In all fairness to young boys, perhaps they could include boys too by killing 10 adult males for each boy under say 12 that the army killed. That would show that these young boys are worth something too as long as they had not been corrupted by the adult males. I do agree with doubling the number of males killed for young girls but maybe it should be even higher for girls under 12 too, perhaps 75 or 100?

He (my husband) also said that if any male raped a woman or girl they should be stripped along with any other male that helped them or even watched without doing anything, marched through the streets with a rope tied to their balls and then hung by their balls or have a bunch of women crush their nuts and if that happened to enough males, the other males would keep their pricks in their pants. (he used the term balls or nuts and pricks because he said males who rape women do not deserve to have them called a penis or testicles) (we both told our sons in front of our daughters that if they ever raped a girl WE would cut their balls off. My husband told every boy in front of our daughters that if they touched her, my wife will cut your dick and your nuts off if my daughter does not kick your balls so hard you will spit them out first. It was funny to see each of the males grab their crotch when he told them that but to the best of our knowledge, every last one of them kept their pricks in their pants. YES I used terms such as nuts balls and pricks because males who do this do not deserve to have them called a penis and testicles still we all agree with that last comment about not using slang terms for women or girls.

It is too bad that males do like to kill each other so much but at least something like this could get them to stop killing women and children.

Papua New Guinea Women found a way to stop their males from killing each other. they performed infanticide to end tribal war but they only killed the males. Every male that was born for several years were killed and the adult males were too dumb (like most males) to figure out what was going on. I guess they did know that males are the weak sex and they thought all the males were stillborn. (yet none of the girls were)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460166,00.html

Maybe these people are right, if we kill about half the MALE population, it will stop wars or at least it will keep the males from killing women and children.

One of the biggest lies in all history is still being told, that is that males are the superior sex. In reality women are no where near equal to men because women are SUPERRIOR to amost any male.

Since many males make women think they are the inferior sex, I gave my daughters a book by Ashley Montagu He made the statement: "The natural superiority of women is a biological fact, and a socially acknowledged reality." One problem is that it is not a "socially acknowledged reality" enough but it was controversial enough as it bruised too many male egos. (the only thing more fragile then our male egos are our testicles)

Even though I am a male too, I knew it as a child just by looking around at the males and women around me that women are the superior gender. His book "The Natural Superiority of Women" should be taught in every junior high school in the country. Maybe than males would learn to respect women and girls better.

I think this would be a good topic for book clubs also and it was written by a male who had nothing to gain by revealing the truth that WOMEN ARE THE SUPERIOR GENDER!.

I was watching Family Feud recently and one of the questions was "What do little GIRLS do better then little BOYS.


The top answer was: EVERYTHING! I agree with this. There is nothing males can do better than women or girls because women and girls are the superior gender and even Family Feud know girls are superior to boys.

PS I am a male who firmly believes women are far superior to us males.

"Interesting comment that only males should be killed in wars. I have often wondered how women feel about this. Especially in those areas where a victory killed all the males in the society they conquered."

Most of us would feel sorry for the males but we would be glad we were not male but again, almost all women are glad we are not males. As several have said here, we know we women are superior to the males so why would we want to lower ourself to be a male?

I could not agree more that it is the males who are killed and actually and I think society does too. After all, are not wars fought mostly by males and until recently, did they not try to make sure only males were killed in war? If only the males are being killed, there is very little outcry and hardly any from most of the men in our society. I have seen that it has been mostly males who have advocated that only males be killed in wars here on this comment board but I guess that is to be expected as that is the general feeling in society, to keep women safe. We see that when someone takes men and women as hostages, we want them to let the women go.

I know one man asked "do women approve of protecting their gender at the expense of the males"

I would have to say yes we do approve of keeping women save even if males die. I think many others do too. Look at the Titanic. It was women and children first (and girls were given priority over boys) Most of the women were given places in the life boats while most of the males remained on the sinking ship knowing that the males would die. Still few of the males and or women complained about this. They expected the males to die to save the women. It still is expected by both men and women that males will give their life to save women.
In one college class I had on ethics, we were given a survey with some questions on it.
One was that if you came on the scene of an accident and there was a male and a female who had terminal injuries unless they had immediate first aide and you could do it, which would you save, the male or the female given the same set of facts, they appeared to be the same age, and they had the same life threatening injury (In short, everything about them was the same except one was a female, the other a male.
A second question was something like if we were driving down the road and we lost control of the car except for steering and we had to hit one of two groups of people, one with lets say 10 males, the other with 10 females, which group would you hit.

We had to list reasons also.

After it was all tallied, almost everyone said they would save the female in the first event. Most (about 90%) said they would hit the males in the second. In short, it would be the males who would die in both situations. More of the males (95%) in the class said they would save the woman or they would hit the males. About 80% of the women said the same thing (in short, it would be the males they let die)

The professor did say that this would be the best choice as the woman or women could be pregnant thus they could be saving two or more lives and although he was a male himself, he also indicated that women can survive injuries better than males so it was more likely the first aide would be effective but that this could not be reversed when hitting a group of people because hitting the males would still be a better choice because like it or not, males are as a whole, the more expendable gender. What he said after that did shock many of the women because he said women were the superior gender so if you can only save one, save the woman. I have always known this but it was interesting that when the class was asked to show by a raise of hands if they thought women were superior to males, almost all of the women raised their hands and it was surprising to see that half the males admitted women were superior too. Many of them seemed very reluctant to raise their hand but as a few men showed they had the balls to raise their hands, a lot of other males grew a pair of balls and raised theirs too. My husband would say the ones that did not raise their hands are pricks but I do know a lot of women who have bigger balls than a lot of males.

One man said "I too am glad women are the SUPERIOR gender and MALES are the inferior one."

I am glad too and since more people are accepting that women are superior to males, it only makes sense that it would be the males who are eliminated. Besides, males are more expendable than women in any case.

It is nice to see so many males who can admit that women are superior to the males. We see this throughout nature also. For example, the mosquito shows the female is superior too. The male lives for only a week while the female lives twice as long. Another interesting thing is that it is only the female that bites but only the male buzzes. It is almost as if the male buzzes to make sure the female is able to bite because the male distracts the person bitten as they are looking for the mosquito that is buzzing while she bites him. Of course, this means the male is killed most often as the female slips away. Just one more of thousands of examples in nature where the male is expendable and often the males die earlier so that the females can live longer. We also know that males are far more expendable than females in every species including humans.

We can also see so many times in nature that the females can usually outperform the males in many of the things that species does. We certainly can see that women today are outperforming males in almost every area. I think the sooner we human males can accept and acknowledge that women are superior to us males the sooner we can accept women being in control of society and this would make the world a much better place. I am one male who thinks women should be in total control over every area because women are overwhelmingly superior to males.

The Wall Street Journal has an article called "The War on Girls" It points out that since 1970 over 163 million girls have been aborted by parents seeking sons. Why anyone would want to abort someone that would be far superior to a male is beyond me.
It goes on to say "In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that's as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events. There is nothing to be ashamed of because women and not us males are superior.
Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark."
The author states that "such imbalances are portents of Very Bad Things to come. "Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live," she writes. "Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent."
Should it be any surprise? The more MALES we have, the worse society becomes? Maybe The S.C.U.M. Manifesto by Valerie Jean Solanas is right. Maybe the best way to cure our problems is to eliminate at least half of the MALE population! After all, if we have a barrel of apples, we do not throw the good apples out to get rid of the rotten ones and in humans, the rotten apples are far more often the MALES. Yes, sometimes we have to throw out some good ones to get all the bad ones but as long as they have testicles, that is fine with me. At least it will be safe for all women and girls since half of the males will be gone. And some wonder why many of us know that women are the superior sex and males are by far the inferior sex.

One thing we know from this article (War on girls) is that there are fewer wars and much less violence when there are far fewer males then women. Would that not tell us the problem is not because of women but because of those of us who are inferior because we have a PENIS and TESTICLES as well as a MALE brain that goes with them?