MGTOW: on the origin of gynocentrism

A debate has recently emerged in the MGTOW community about whether runaway gynocentrism is biologically determined or a menace of cultural origin, or determined jointly by biology + culture. The following videos outline the debate:

Turd Flinging Monkey: Is Gynocentrism Biological?

RBK: discussing Karen Straughan’s biological determinism model of gynocentrism.

lawshorizon: Gynocentrism: Learned or Biological

Lorenzo: Response to Turd Flinging Monkey’s “Is Gynocentrism Biological?”

Turd Flinging Monkey: Gynocentric Definitions

Colttaine: Runaway Gynocentrism TFM Response
Vid 

Colttaine and Stardusk: Gynocentrism, Biological Determinism, Evo-Psych and RBK

Turd Flinging Monkey: Gynocentric Definitions 2: Define Harder! (A Response to Stardusk and Coltaine)

Paul Elam: Chasing the dragon: a biopsychosocial approach to understanding gynocentrism

The unfolding discussion on the roots of runaway gynocentrism has serious ramifications for how MGTOW conceptualize and responded to it. If for instance one MGTOW adopts the biological determinist view, he may conclude that abandoning the world is the only viable option. Alternatively, the MGTOW who holds that gynocentrism is an extreme cultural exaggeration of human potential may choose to confront it head-on in the knowledge that it is not an inevitable fate for men to suffer. The debate continues….

5 thoughts on “MGTOW: on the origin of gynocentrism

  1. caprizchka

    Not only do I believe that gynocentrism is not inevitable, I don’t believe that gynocentrism necessarily helps women and harms men. There’s a spectrum, obviously, and a place in the universe for us all. However, preserved written history promotes gynocentrism, and degrades its opposite. However human history is limited by the limits of human beings to report it, burn it, or suppress it, albeit eventually even the best pyramid scheme implodes.

    Reply
    1. Gustavo Suhett Helmer

      It’s biological, but it doesn’t have to be all bad.
      We all have some biological tendencies that if left on their own devices it can harm us or others.
      Like liking sugar too much.
      We cannot get rid of gynosympathy, all we can do is make sure it won’t be a problem.

      Reply
      1. caprizchka

        It would be nice if it wasn’t so easy to manipulate people with it, however I think that autocracy isn’t going to be going away any time soon and autocracy benefits from it.

  2. gynocentrism Post author

    As compelling as biological determinism is for those who promote it, there’s always two forces acting to create gynocentrism: the cultural and the biological, working together.

    I don’t think anyone can deny the existence of cultural gynocentrism – it’s all around us in laws, institutions, customs and behaviors. Biological gynocentrism is also a fact (cultural gynocentrism wouldn’t exist without it) and it works as a co-creator and compliment of the cultural.

    A no brainer.

    Where the exaggeration by evopsych enthusiasts lies is in attributing too singular a force to biology, which is biological determinism and reductivism. That fantasy of a ‘biology only,’ of biology as root cause, ignores culture’s role as an exaggerator (eg. a superstimulus) which acts on biological expression to create extreme gynocentric behaviors.

    The fact is that culture can and has shaped human evolution and the human genome, eg. see:
    The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter

    Determinist interpretations of gynocentrism are fictions with too much apriori gravity attributed to the biological side. For instance I just heard part of a video by colttaine in which he proposes one of his favorite formulas [quote] “biology precedes culture and ideology”.

    Note his comment doesn’t give equal weight to environment + biology as co-determinants of human behavior, with both acting in a reciprocal feedback system. Biology is stated as prior in time “This precedes that”. It’s stated as if a biological entity – say a human infant – exists in a biological void, and is not born into a preexisting environment that holds a lot of power to shape genetic expression. Humans are not thermite, as cute as the thermite theory is.

    Fortunately most in the manosphere – MGTOW, PUAs, MHRAs etc avoid that error of logic.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s