Please read part one1 of this article before continuing.
By Peter Ryan
Bateman’s Principle, Male Competition And The Intrinsic Value Of Men
Bateman’s principle2 and male competition are sometimes considered to be indicative that men have little or no intrinsic value relative to women and must compete with other men to earn value. Bateman’s principle simply describes that there will be a greater variance in reproductive success among males, as a result of females being the rate limiting factor of reproduction and higher male intrasexual competition. There are a number of problems with the argument. Bateman’s principle and male competition mean that men are less valuable than women and must compete to earn any value.
Firstly this argument ignores the basic requirement to compete- An individual must have the traits to compete successfully and derive some measure of success from competing (that does not necessarily mean being at the very top). These traits have biological value because they lead to evolutionary success. Competition is merely a strategy employed to harness value that already lies within men. A man that truly has no biological value whatsoever, lacks the traits to successfully compete or any traits that lead to evolutionary success. There is a reason why testosterone in men drives status-seeking behaviour and why men are generally more behaviourally active (especially physically) than women on average and boys cannot sit still and be docile like girls in classrooms.
Testosterone drives men to harness the value they possess within themselves through engaging in some type of activity and often that is through some form of rule-based competition. A society without competition is an economically and socially stagnant society on the decline. Modern civilisation simply would not have emerged without competition and the progress it drives. Evolution itself is based on some form of competition, whether it is between two alleles of a gene facing some selection pressure or two individuals. Our species would not exist without competition and women also compete. Feminists may want to think about those realities before they consider labelling male competition, the “patriarchy” (also known as the economy), testosterone and masculinity as toxic, dangerous and bad.
The notion that men must compete to earn value, is analogous to suggesting a Ferrari must be driven to have value or that women must fall pregnant to have value. Some relevant form of value from possessing useful traits that are intrinsic to the individual male, is required for that male to successfully compete in the first place. Competition is not something men do to earn value, it is something men do to harness their intrinsic value and earn resources and status from using it. A talented athlete or business professional competes on the field or in the economy, to make use of their abilities and acquire resources and status in exchange for their efforts. Status and resources are downstream from the intrinsic value within men and are a product of the intrinsic value men possess.
Men generally on average gain more from competition than women do in an evolutionary sense. Males can produce far greater numbers of offspring with far greater numbers of opposite sex partners than females can. Men gain far more from competition than women do, for the simple reason they do not have to gestate for nine months and can consequently reap the mating opportunities arising from successful competition to a much higher degree. Bateman’s principle is not about men being less valuable than women, it is about recognising the inverse relationship between intrasexual competition and the level of reproductive investment. The sex that can reproduce at the lowest cost, gains the most from competition. Bateman’s principle reflects two different forms of value- Value that is harnessed in higher efforts made in reproductive investment and value that is harnessed in higher efforts made in investment in competition. They are inversely related because there is a trade-off between investment in reproduction and engaging in activities related to competition. Females on average invest more in reproduction and males on average invest more in competition (of course there is overlap and these are just average differences).
Whilst there is certainly some empirical support for Bateman’s principle in the scientific community, the research and data is not entirely supportive of it (see this link3 and this link4 for more information), including when it comes to humans5. It is also worth noting that female intrasexual competition does exist and so does male mate choice and paternal investment in children (fatherhood). All three are often underestimated or forgotten entirely in such discussions about intrasexual competition and male and female mating dynamics. Just because female intrasexual competition exhibits lower levels of physical aggression than male intrasexual competition, does not automatically mean that it is then far less intense. Female intrasexual competition exhibits considerably more social and psychological aggression than male intrasexual competition. Women do compete with each other and they can be just as vicious as men in doing so, but they go about it socially and psychologically and thus it can fly right under the radar of society and even researchers.
Male competition is also not entirely under the control of female mate choice either and a considerable degree it is shaped by males themselves (the same is true for female competition). This reality is much to the chagrin of feminists no doubt, control freaks that they are and is most likely the real basis of their problem with the “patriarchy”. It is also worth pointing out that competition is not the only strategy that men employ to harness their value and fulfil their lives. Innovation and creativity are other methods men utilise and they do not always have to involve competition. Some of our greatest inventions have come from men that developed technology completely outside of the scope of the competitive marketplace and often these male inventions create entirely new marketplaces and new arenas for competition.
As with most aspects of human biology, Bateman’s principle and male competition is just one factor among many that drive human behaviour. This explains why the data and research is not entirely supportive of the premise these factors alone explain human mating behaviour. Bateman’s principle and male competition are not the all-encompassing phenomena they are made out to be, by those that want to spin and twist these evolutionary concepts to mean men have less value and must compete for women to earn value. Such sophistry is certainly useful though to our gynocentric society to try to rationalise and justify blatant bigotry, when men dare to question their concept of self-worth and challenge the gynocentric zeitgeist. It is a blue pill that is painted red, to try and get the red pill men plugged back into the matrix while they think they are awake.
Such ideas are present in the manosphere to some degree unfortunately and must be confronted because it is a subversive way to get men to accept gynocentrism as a fact of life that cannot be challenged and keep men boxed in. Even Roosh V6 can see the folly in pedestalising the female, harping on like a simp about “male disposability” as if it is biologically set and fixed like the cosmological constant and the stupidity in reducing the biological value of men and women down solely to reproduction. Even the pickup artist community can see how the mantra about “male disposability” as if men are actually biologically disposable, is a trap that holds men back. There are subversive people who will claim to be red pilled or antifeminist, that will use such gynocentric sophistry to keep men from seeing the whole truth. The truth about the value of men is very dangerous in our gynocentric culture, because gynocentrism requires lies and deception to be constantly reinforced and protected (more on that later).
Rare Eggs And Plentiful Sperm
Associated with the appeal to Bateman’s principle by reproductive reductionists, is the mantra of “plentiful sperm and rare eggs” and that sperm is “cheap” and eggs are “expensive”. Like Bateman’s principle, the research3 does not entirely support this argument. Men must produce millions of sperm for one round of fertilisation. So really a proper comparison of relative reproductive investment in gametes between males and females, is the female investment in one egg versus the male investment in millions of sperm per fertilisation event. Adding to that, is the reality that semen has components that are expensive to produce as the linked article on the research discusses.
However let us assume even with all of that considered, that females still invest more in producing gametes than males. The underlying assumption is that this is indicative of males having lower biological value than females and that males are easily replaceable. These differences in the number and expenditure in gametes between males and females, are the result of differences in reproductive function rather than biological value. Males produce large numbers of individually cheap sperm, because there is a competitive advantage gained in doing so and this is especially the case when considering phenomena like sperm competition7. Females simply cannot gain from doing the same, because they have a much higher reproductive investment in producing offspring thanks to gestation and have a much lower ceiling on their total reproductive output. Consequently females focus on producing fewer and more individually expensive gametes. The differences in reproductive function drives different sexual selection pressures on males and females and this drives the differences we see in the form and number of gametes. The differences in the gametes or anisogamy8, does not reflect differences in biological value.
Reproduction Is Not The Rate Limiting Factor For Existence
This notion men are replaceable because sperm is plentiful, assumes that the only thing males contribute to their offspring and community is sperm and that the biological value of males and females is solely derived from reproduction. I have debunked this ridiculously narrow view at length in my previous writings linked here9, here10 and here11. Try running civilisation or even a primitive tribal community solely off maximising reproduction and ignore the numerous activities related to survival and caring for offspring and your society will perish. As previously discussed, females might be the rate limiting factor of reproduction, but males are the rate limiting factor of survival.
Some argue that societies can get by without any male contribution to community survival. This is may indeed be the case in some specific instances (and not the case in many other instances) where you have abundant resources, relative safety, no real male advantage in provision and protection in the given environment relative to females and male contribution is not required etc. However there is a difference though between barely surviving or just reasonably subsisting, versus the community actually thriving. A community in a particular environment may indeed survive without any help from men, but it certainly will have a far greater chance of thriving, prospering and surviving, if both halves of the population are contributing. There is a massive selective advantage for a society to harness both sexes and not just rely on one sex. The reality is that even in instances where men are not required for community survival, women get pregnant, lactate and care for small infants. This reality does mean that men will invariably be in the unique position of being fully available to support society in ways women are not able to. This fact will apply regardless as to what environment society finds itself in and whether or not any natural male advantage exists to survive in that environment.
Feminists can howl and moan about this biological reality all they like, but until there is artificial uteri I do not see that changing. Even if we take away every natural male advantage we know of (all of their physical strength, spatial ability, mechanical aptitude, mathematical reasoning, willingness to take risks/lower risk aversion etc), males are always going to be in a better position to support society outside of producing children, because they do not get pregnant. We can keep ignoring this reality to our own detriment, but ultimately any society that ignores reality pays the price. I think it also worth noting that there are many environments on this planet that are scarce, hazardous and where societies are heavily dependent on men for their survival and would cease to exist without men, even if men were not required for reproduction. Our own Western societies would fall apart in days without men and possibly descend into anarchy in hours.
The same logic behind arguing society can survive without men provided a minimum amount are retained for reproductive purposes, can be employed to say the same about women. Society can get by with lower numbers of women as well. Society can get by without the female contribution to survival and with the bare minimum number of women required to replace itself (No I am not suggesting getting rid women for the neurotic feminist gotcha brigade that may read this and likewise men should not be gotten rid of either. We are human beings that have a right to exist.). We can theoretically run society off the bare minimum number of males and females required to replace the population and ensure there is sufficient genetic diversity and provision and protection available. In some environments that may require more males than females and in other environments more females than males. That does not mean such numbers would be optimal to sustain the community though, they would just reflect the bare minimum required for continuation of the community.
The actual numbers of males and females that are optimal for allowing a community to sustain itself and thrive, is also going to vary from environment to environment and those numbers will likely vary over time with changing conditions. In many environments and time periods it may be more advantageous to have greater numbers of males around and in other environments the opposite may hold true. However over time and in general, neither sex can be more crucial to the species than the other. As discussed in part one of this article, across evolutionary timescales and overall, males and females contribute equally to evolutionary success and all of the activities required to sustaining their communities that are associated with that (not necessarily in each activity, but in totality). This is because Fishers principle ensures equal investment in males and females and consequently a roughly 1:1 ratio in the population.
Over time any over-reliance on one sex over the other for community reproduction and survival and by extension evolutionary success, will be counterbalanced by sexual selection on the sex that is least required. There will be a sexual selective pressure on the least required sex, to develop traits useful to the continuation of the community and genome. Eventually such a selection pressure would equalise the reliance on the two sexes for continuation of the genome and the community. Of course this is not the only driver of sexual selection on men and women and there are many other factors that can drive sexual selection. However when an over-reliance on one sex to perpetuate the genes emerges, this can and does drive a sexual selective pressure on the least required sex to develop traits of equivalent value to the other sex in terms of perpetuating the community and the genome. Any asymmetry in value (or reliance) between the sexes is temporary and simply is not sustainable in the long term over evolutionary timescales, for the reasons I discussed in the previous part of this article. Depending on one sex more than the other puts the genes, the community and the species at a disadvantage when Fishers principle prevails. There is a clear selective advantage to ensuring both sexes pull their weight when the genome is forced to invest in them equally and that neither sex is overly depended on. It is less costly and less risky.
The mistake that is often made in failing to understand the reality of the consequences of Fisherian dynamics, is conflating biological sameness with biological equivalence in value. The two sexes can be different, but still biologically equal in evolutionary terms. If females really were more biologically valuable than men because of their uterus and men really were biologically disposable, then there would be no manosphere and society would not even resemble what we have today. We may even still be small mammals living in forests producing large litters of offspring.
Such a fundamental aspect of human biology would simply prevent any drive to question gynocentrism from surfacing in men and this bias would lie too deep in our biology for any exception to the rule to emerge. In fact such as an aspect of biology would have halted human evolution long before we developed language and civilisation. It has been the selection of traits outside of the female reproductive role that are related to survival (such as tool making), combined with paternal investment in offspring (something that distinguishes human males from many of their primate counterparts) that has led to the development of modern humans. Every year the manosphere increases in size and so does MGTOW, despite the enormous levels of gynocentric indoctrination in the schools and the censorship. This is not a fluke of nature, this is an awakening that is in its early stages. As with all awakenings in their infancy, they take time to become a mass awakening.
If Only Women Ran The World We Could Live In Huts
There is almost a cult like devotion to the myths that past human society was matriarchal and peaceful, rather than egalitarian and that men conspired to establish the “patriarchy” and it was all downhill from there. Often female fertility and motherhood form the centrepiece of these “theories” of a peaceful prehistoric matriarchal utopia. I am using the term “theory” very loosely because they resemble ideology more than proper scientific theory. Such claims are highly questionable based on the current state of knowledge about prehistory and are over reliant on inferences and assumptions and lacking in solid incontrovertible evidence (Read this book linked here12 critiquing goddess ideology by Nathanson and Young) .
The feminist saturated field of anthropology like so many of the softer sciences in academia, has a major problem with separating ideological agenda from rigorous empiricism and the scientific method. This is only made worse by trying to make sense of a forensic puzzle on what human society tens of thousands of years ago was like and is missing many jigsaw pieces. Sophists thrive in such environments, where they can spin fragmented evidence to justify their ideology and give it an air of legitimacy. Facts and evidence are one thing, inferences made from facts and evidence are not factual. They are at best a hypothesis which is difficult to test in anthropology, or at worst such inferences are just junk science.
But let us assume those that wish to pedestalise the female sex are right on all points about our supposedly and highly questionable matriarchal past. So what? Human prehistory is one of relative stagnation and little progress. We had tens of thousands of years of nomadic existence before civilisation. Modern civilisation has been cultivated by harnessing male potential. In the words of dissident feminist Camille Paglia, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts”13. It has been a patrilineal and patriarchal cultures that have given rise to modern civilisation. There is a reason why the most successful, developed, safe and prosperous societies on Earth have all arisen from cultures that practice monogamy and value fatherhood and men. Once male potential was fully harnessed, the health and life expectancy for the average human being dramatically rose from our hunter-gatherer existence and we went from painting pictures on caves to walking on the moon.
Our current feminist establishment seems to think returning back to primitive tribalism and destroying marriage and attacking men and fathers is progress. The statistics on fatherlessness14 and the boy crisis15 are alarming and those two problems will eventually collapse our once prosperous societies economically and socially. My own prediction is that the Fempocalypse16 will begin in about 20 years and I anticipate society to begin unravelling in fundamental ways by 2040. The initial slow decline before the great collapse has already begun and it takes time for civilisation to decline to critical levels hence the timespan I provided. Society cannot last in it’s present form by marginalising the male half of the population that is mostly responsible for running, maintaining, building and sustaining it financially, economically and otherwise.
What remains of fallen Western society may be able to live in a third world environment (Think Venezuela in 2019 only much much worse), with extreme poverty and deprivation where men are marginalised. However it will be the societies that value men that will invariably end up surpassing the remnants of our society and running the global economy, colonising the solar system and eventually travelling to the stars. Perhaps they will record the fall of the West in their history books, as we do the fall of Rome. To put it in terms reproductive reductionists can understand, cultures that value men will give rise to societies that will replace those that do not. Putting men down to lift women up destroys the fertility rate of a society and destroys the conditions required to support large scale civilisations. Once you throw men under the bus, advanced civilisation will go with them.
Male Self-Worth And The Big Lie
“I am not the first to suggest, and I am sure I shall not be the last, that the male’s drive in work and achievement may actually be the consequence of his recognition of his biological inferiority with respect to the female’s creative capacity to conceive and create human beings. One of the ways in which the male may compensate for this biological inferiority is by work and achievement.” -Page 53, from “The Natural Superiority Of Women”17 by anthropologist Ashley Montagu.
The simple truth that men have intrinsic value has been deliberately quashed and any recognition of men’s humanity has been silenced, so that our predatory gynocentric system can exploit men. Men are regularly demonised and any attempt to discuss men having unique strengths and value, is a social taboo in society. Misandry is normalised to the point that even cutting off a man’s penis is a source of laughter for people18. Exposing men to an environment that encourages them to think of themselves as inherently valuable as human beings, is toxic to this gynocentric society. The climate of misandry and denigration of men and masculinity must be maintained, because gynocentric elements of our society rely upon it to exploit men. Men that know their worth are dangerous to the exploitative gynocentric institutions and culture in our society and men must therefore be convinced by the gynocentric culture to believe they are disposable.
Men and boys are consistently bombarded in our gynocentric culture with the messages that imply what is quoted above by Ashley Montagu (I would have to actually write a book to cover how much is wrong in that Montagu’s book). Notice there is no recognition of the male creative capacity to create life in that quote and that women have no capacity to create life without men. Notice there is no recognition of the role of fatherhood in nurturing life, or the role men play in society in making sure everyone stays alive and the creative process that entails in building and running civilisation. Notice there is no recognition that perhaps men might actually be driven to work and achieve to pursue interests they find personally fulfilling and to look after others they care for. There is no recognition that the male athlete, researcher or business professional, might be putting in the hours to fulfil personal goals and ambitions, or that the male soldier might be protecting his country for his family.
Such messages like what is reflected in Ashley Montagu’s quote, attempt to warp men’s sense of themselves and instil in their minds the ridiculous assertion that men do these things to compensate for some supposed inferiority, because they can’t get pregnant. The bottom line is there is no recognition in that quote by Montagu, that men have their own intrinsic value and have the right to decide for themselves who they are and what they do with their own lives, irrespective of whether women approve of it. That lack of recognition of the intrinsic value of men, is the fundamental basis of gynocentrism.
The exploitation of men requires that you dehumanise men and rob them of their own sense of self-worth. A man that is raised from birth to believe he has no intrinsic self-worth and must acquire his sense of self-worth as a human doing and by performing like a workhorse for the wishes of this gynocentric society and winning its approval, is a useful slave. He is the best slave because his very identity is based on being a slave and he can easily be controlled through social approval and disapproval by women and the gynocentric culture. He knows no other way to live and has no desire to. In our gynocentric system, the male slave strives to win the approval of a gynocentric social system that has no regard for his well-being beyond what is good for women and it increasingly has no regard for his well-being at all and tells him he is obsolete19. The gynocentric society tells men to frame deferring to women and serving women like they are their superiors, as “taking responsibility” and being a “man” and “manning up”. In reality it is highly irresponsible and turns men into slaves.
As I discussed in a previous article20, our gynocentric system feeds off male chivalry and cannot exist without it. When I refer to chivalry I am not just talking about buying dinner and opening doors for women without reciprocity, I am talking about something much broader that is illustrated in this video example21. Male chivalry in the gynocentric realm, is the practice of men sacrificing their own well-being and the well-being of other men for a woman or women, partially or entirely because they are women and with no commensurate benefit given in exchange from women. Male chivalry is alive and well in this society. Despite reports to the contrary, there is no shortage of men willing to throw themselves and other men under the bus for women. That is especially the case in the realm of politics, the law and the mainstream media.
Male chivalry is based on convincing men of the big lie- That men are less valuable than women and must earn the approval of women and this gynocentric culture to have self-worth and by serving female well-being. Men are swamped in this lie and indoctrinated in it from birth. The glorification of the female uterus, pregnancy and motherhood and the denigration of the importance of fatherhood and men in general, are the central axioms that this lie is based upon if you probe its foundations. If you ask people to qualify their gynocentric belief’s, they ultimately end up relying on women giving birth and being the rate limiting factor of reproduction as their excuse and rationalisation. Men must protect women, prioritise female well-being and sacrifice themselves, because women give birth etcetera, etcetera, rinse and repeat. That is the one-track thinking of gynocentrism- To not consider the multitude of other factors required to sustain society and to not recognise that reproducing children is merely one requirement that must be met and is not automatically the most pressing factor.
The male suicide rate, fatherlessness, the gynocentric corruption of our institutions and the decline of relationships, all can be traced to men being culturally indoctrinated into thinking that deference to women as if they are men’s betters and chivalrous subservience to women, is being a man and being respectful. A man demonstrates the responsibility to set and enforce personal boundaries and values with women and not just with other men. A man treats women as his equal, not his superior or inferior. A man expects responsibility from women and has the strength to hold women accountable. He does not just hold men accountable and then put his hands up when he encounters women behaving irresponsibly, inappropriately, wrongly, violently and dangerously. A man does what is right and speaks the truth, even when women do not approve of it. A man respects himself and knows his own intrinsic self-worth and value as a human being.
Manning up is not about slaving up to women, but that is precisely what it is in this gynocentric culture. Being a man is having the strength to stand by what you believe and value and it is about standing up for yourself. Kowtowing to gynocentrism and calling that responsibility, is a mask to hide weakness and immaturity around women. It is not a strength or adult behaviour. It is the gynocentric white knights from traditionalism and feminism, that need to grow up out of their fairy tale and stop being man children living in fairy tale fantasy world.
I could easily go further with more and more arguments, debunking each and every facet of reproductive reductionists and why men are equally biologically valuable to women, but at some stage people need to start thinking. For some people what I have written thus far would seem obvious, but worryingly when I look at this gynocentric culture and even some pockets of the manosphere, I see a gynocentric stupor. It is truly amazing the scale of people that can be fooled by appealing to women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction to justify gynocentrism. If you have one man and ten women blah blah, rare eggs and plentiful sperm blah blah and the eyes glaze over and people nod without questioning what they are being told. People will adamantly defend the most ridiculous and absurd arguments about why gynocentrism is a biologically immutable facet of human nature and how it all comes down to the golden uterus and rare eggs and plentiful sperm. In the end it is emotion, bigotry and entitlement driving such thinking. There is not much actual thinking going on, except what is required to rationalise their pre-existing bigoted beliefs or perpetuate their own learned helplessness and fatalistic worldview.
It is time for men to think, to get off their knees and seriously consider their own intrinsic value to themselves and society. That is the first step to winning the war against gynocentrism and ensuring our society and species has a future. Later on in my articles on gynocentrism, I will discuss the nature of male value further in relation to our gynocentric culture.
2 thoughts on “Gynocentrism and the value of men (part two)”
Haha! It never fails that the gynocentrists absolutely deny the dynamics of inter-sex relations. Of course feminists digresses, they must banish the “illusions of virility” to stoke a luster for their deformed personas, abandon all founded anthropological developments to pathetic rationalizations of domination-over-humanity. But in every pseudo-scientific exposition gynocentrists clumsily lob is a squirming vermin wanting to project their own sense of loss-of-self onto everyone else.
Pingback: Gynocentrism And The Undeserved Deification Of Women – TheAntiGynocentrist