Gynoholic / Gynoholism

The term Gynoholic, coined in jest, although carrying serious import, refers to all men and women who have become addicted to the narrative of gynocentrism and to the myriad behaviors and activities associated with same.

The following 12 steps, spoken by ‘Frank’ serves as a path away from gynocentrism:


Perhaps if all alcoholics followed the Gynoholic 12 steps, they wouldn’t drink alcohol anymore either? As an old friend of mine once quipped about his relationship with gynocentric women, “If they had pledged their love like mine, I would have never needed wine.”

Gynocentrism and the value of men (part two)

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 here9here10 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 and the community 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. Any asymmetry 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. In the third part of this article, I will discuss the nature of male value further and what society can do to allow men to harness that value.





Gynocentrism and the value of men (part one)


By Peter Ryan

As I discussed in my article on Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus1, there is a prevailing assertion in the wider gynocentric culture that women are superior to men. The central tenet of this belief system is that because women give birth and are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, they are more biologically valuable than men. The relative biological value of life, and the value of life in general, of males and females, is reduced down to their relative investment in reproduction.

Successfully reproducing offspring is erroneously regarded as having the same outcome as successfully continuing the lineage over generations. At a glance it is easy to see how such an error can be made. It is a fact that any organism must reproduce to pass on its genes. However it is also a fact that any organism must first survive and develop to reproduce. It is also a fact that after reproduction, some degree of parental investment is required for offspring to survive and for reproduction to not become a dead-end.

The problem with stating that ‘women are more biologically valuable to the species than men because they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction’ is that it omits the vast multitude of activities and traits outside of reproduction that contribute to genes successfully passing from one generation to the next. It ignores the reality that biology is comprised of systems. The reproductive role of women is essential (and so is the male reproductive function) to genome propagation, but it is not the only essential role or activity required to get a genome from generation A to generation B or C or D.  A number of these other essential activities disproportionately rely on men, such as provision and protection for community survival.

Communities that lose women lose their capacity to reproduce, but communities that lose men lose their capacity to survive. Women might be the rate limiting factor of reproduction, but men are the rate limiting factor of survival. Reproduction cannot occur or lead anywhere without surviving to reproduce and ensuring sufficient numbers of offspring survive. These are the realities that time and time again are ignored and never addressed by those that suggest women are more valuable than men based on the sex difference in reproductive investment. Is it a fact that women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction? Yes. Is it a fact that this is a core driver of biological sex differences? Yes. Does that play a role in driving gynocentrism? Indirectly yes, as it does with most social dynamics between the sexes.

These facts do not then automatically mean the female sex is biologically more valuable (or more valuable in general) than men, or that men are biologically disposable. For those who think I am wrong and remain convinced women are more valuable, and that men are biologically disposable because of differences in reproductive investment, or stick to the fallacious ‘two tribes’ analogy, please read my two part article on Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus linked here1 and here2.

This article will be focusing on further examining the value of males and females in biological and evolutionary terms and without the gynocentric rose-tinted glasses on. It will also be focused on rectifying common misconceptions floating around in society about the related science which have been promoted by our gynocentric mainstream media and academia to convey a narrative of female superiority.

Certain man haters and female supremacists in the scientific community, and media, make claims like “maleness is a birth defect”3 . Maleness is not a defect. Only the mentally and morally defective would hold such beliefs. Unfortunately for society, such hateful man hating bigots hold senior positions at our universities, in our mainstream media and other institutions. These beliefs cannot be ignored because they reflect the beliefs of too many individuals holding positions of influence and authority in society. This will contribute to undermining the future prosperity and very survival of our society, as civilisation heavily relies on men being in a position to ensure its own existence. I am writing these articles to set the record straight for generations of boys and young men that are being told they are inferior and defective, from every corner of our institutions.

Male Development And Body Size Reflects Male Value

Firstly when evaluating the value of males, we should consider the basic biological characteristics of males. If males were less valuable to the species than females and biologically disposable, then their biology would reflect that. If men were truly biologically disposable, they would resemble the tiny male Anglerfish4 that fuses into the female and becomes an appendage (the linked educational video is an amusing literal illustration of this), or a male worker bee or an ant, or a tiny male spider. Men would be much smaller than women and have a much shorter and less energy demanding developmental period, as they would need to be easily and quickly replaced to be disposable. Their low value would not warrant their biology and life history5 profile, investing time and energy in a large body size or a long developmental period. Human males are larger than females, take longer to develop and consume more energy during development (Teenage males consume whole fridges). Human male biology runs against the narrative men are biologically disposable and less valuable than women. In particular species where there are males that appear to be “disposable”, males develop quickly and have small body sizes.

Fishers Principle

If we are measuring the biological value of the two sexes, then we have to consider the evolutionary forces that shape biology. Biology exists in its current form because of selection for certain traits and genes that increase the number of copies of the genome or genes. The number of copies of the genome (or genes) that exist after a certain number of generations, is a measure of evolutionary success and thus biological value. Value also has to be considered in relation to the entities that invest in that value.

When it comes to the biological value of males and females, we are measuring the number of copies of the genome (or the number of copies of individual genes of the genome) that male and female progeny contribute to their parents, whom invest in producing the male and female offspring. The overall biological value of males and females to their parents is exactly equal. This is because the total number of copies of a genome produced after a set number of generations for parents of males and parents of females, is exactly equal. That is a mathematical certainty by virtue of the fact that every copy of every genome requires one male and one female to produce it. After ten, one hundred, or one thousand generations, parents of males and parents of females leave exactly the same total number of copies of their genome.

This is why the sex ratio at birth is almost 1:1 and there are roughly equal numbers of males and females in the population. The total parental expenditure in producing males and females will be equal, when the total number of copies of the parent’s genome that male and female offspring generate is equal. Parental expenditure is not just the reproduction of males and females, but also all the parental investment incurred in raising offspring. The reason the sex ratio is slightly biased in favour of males at birth, is because of the higher male infant mortality, which leads to a higher production of male offspring to equalise total parental expenditure in males and females. What I have described is Fishers principle6. It is also what evolutionary biologists Dr. Brett Weinstein and Dr. Heather Heying were referring to in this video7, when they were discussing why neither sex is “better” in an evolutionary sense. Biology does not have a favourite between males and females, because they produce exactly the same number of copies of the genome.

If the rate of reproduction is all that matters, then why produce a surplus number of males and why not produce an entirely female population? Fishers principle partly explains why that cannot happen. If parental expenditure in a population for male offspring is reduced and increased for female offspring, then any parent that invests in male offspring will be at an evolutionary advantage. This is because the total number of copies of the genome from investing in male offspring remains exactly equal to the total for investing in female offspring, as one male and one female are required to produce every copy. This means that the lower investment in males produces the same level of evolutionary success as the higher investment in females. Consequently parents that invest in males have a winning strategy, as they get more return from their parental investment in males, or more bang for their buck. Parents that develop a genetic bias to investing in males over females, will thus be at an advantage. As a result, investment in males will rise until the advantage from doing so disappears once parental expenditure is equalised.

The dynamics of Fishers Principle I have just described, is called an evolutionary stable strategy8. When Fishers principle persists in a species and applies, any deviation from equal parental expenditure in male and female offspring either cannot emerge or eventually disappears. This is because it is inefficient to invest more in one sex, when the total evolutionary success of each sex remains the same. People only need to ask the question why half the population is male, to recognise the tunnel vision of people that assert women are more valuable to the species (or vice versa). If that were the case then our biology would reflect that. Instead of having equal total parental investment in males and females, it would be unequal. It is important to note that whilst Fishers principle is very frequently observed, it is not universal to all life. Evolution and adaptation can bypass Fishers principle and drive an uneven investment in male and female offspring. There are species with very uneven sex ratios, or that reproduce asexually.

Fishers principle restricts a species to equally investing in males and females. If evolutionary success is more dependent on females than on males, then sexual reproduction that leads to an equal investment in males and females becomes costly and risky. A greater dependence on one sex in terms of risk, is analogous to putting all your eggs in one basket. It is also costly because you are wasting half of your resources on a sex whose contribution to evolutionary success relative to females, is lower in proportion to the share of parental investment expended on them. Consequently where evolutionary success is more dependent on females than on males and Fisher dynamics are present, there is a selective pressure to either:

A. Develop a method of reproduction that does not rely on males (such as a form of asexual reproduction), so as to overcome Fishers principle and produce entirely females.

B. Develop males that do equally contribute to evolutionary success.

In our lineage and many others where Fishers principle has prevailed, we have gone down pathway B. The constraints of Fishers principle and females being the rate limiting factor of reproduction, generates a sexual selective pressure on males that is proportional in magnitude to the greater reproductive investment of females. This pressure drives the development of traits in males, that are equivalent in biological value to the value of female reproductive investment and the biological value of women. Despite what feminists claim, men do have innate strengths relative to women. Males have a biological value to the species that is equivalent to that of females, it is just a different form of value. These traits do not make men superior to women, just as having a uterus does not make women more valuable than men.

We have had the current Y chromosome derived male in our lineage for over 160 million years9. That is a long time to invest half your genome in a supposedly “disposable” male reproductive vehicle! Dinosaurs walked the Earth and the two supercontinents Laurasia and Gondwanaland had only recently started to break up, when Y chromosome derived males in our lineage first emerged. Males were around even before then in other forms of life for hundreds of millions of years, prior to the Y chromosome form of sex determination emerging.

If men were truly biologically disposable and the rate of reproduction was all the mattered, then at some point in the last 160 million years males would have been removed from the lineage. To illustrate this point, let us assume for the moment that reproductive reductionists are right and that women are biologically more valuable than men because they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Over 160 million years there would have been a selective pressure to drive the biology of our ancestors to remove males from our lineage and develop alternative methods of reproduction that rely entirely on females. This is because there would have been a cost incurred from failing to adapt along these lines and a big advantage to avoiding the cost of producing “disposable” males that had little value. Populations that produced asexually would have developed at first by accident and then quickly out-reproduced their counterparts and dominated the future gene pool. Eventually males would have disappeared from the lineage. After more than 160 million years this has failed to occur.

Humans demonstrate equal parental investment in male and female offspring and so have our ancestors over many tens of millions of years. Many species have come and gone, continents have moved and the Dinosaurs have roamed the Earth over the timescale we are talking about. Even in evolutionary terms, there has been plenty of time to develop different reproductive strategies that could have overcome Fishers principle and lead to an entirely female population. Asexual reproduction such as parthenogenesis, which is observed in the natural world, could have emerged in this time frame in our lineage. Why didn’t it? If reproduction matters so much, then why not adopt a far more rapid method of reproduction and have a population entirely of females? The answer is simply that reproduction is not the sole determinant of biological value. That is why our species sexually reproduces to begin with and has males. It is because biological value is not solely determined by the rate of reproduction, that we have males in equal number to females.

Debunking The Nonsense ‘Men And The Y Chromosome Are Disappearing’

There are some gleeful closet dwelling female supremacists and radical feminists in the media and elsewhere, that like to rely on cherry picked research that men will soon disappear because the Y chromosome is supposedly “dying out”. The gynocentric mainstream media has enjoyed promoting this narrative and reporting on it every couple of years. The claim that males and the Y chromosome are disappearing is not supported by most population geneticists, as Dr. Judith Mank explains in her presentation10 at the Royal Institution. Dr. Mank states that due to selection pressures that have acted on and refined the Y chromosome, rather than degraded, “You have a Y chromosome that’s small but quite mighty in its functions”. Of course people would not know that if they read certain news articles that want to twist science to suit an agenda.

The Y chromosome is not disappearing. The size of the Y chromosomes has stabilised and it has not lost a gene for 25 million years11. The Y chromosome has features (such as palindromes) and mechanisms (such as gene conversion12) that enable it repair to itself (see this link13this link14 and this link15 for more information). Research also shows that purifying selection16 may play a role in maintaining and refining the quality and structure of the Y chromosome. Lastly it has also been found17 that the Y chromosome has genes whose functions extend beyond sperm production, that are active in other areas of the body like the heart and lungs etc and play a role in essential cellular processes important to survival. It is thought that the presence of such important genes on the Y chromosome, may be a further factor in ensuring the integrity of the Y chromosome. Even if the Y chromosome does disappear, there are multiple examples18 observed in other species that males still remain after it is lost and that another chromosome simply takes over the Y chromosomes functions and/or an alternative mechanism of sex-determination is developed.

Linked to this ‘men are disappearing’ myth is a less common but ridiculous narrative that the lower sperm counts of men is evidence that nature is getting rid of males. Firstly the claim that the decrease in sperm counts in men over the last 50 years is going to lead to a male fertility crisis for humans, has been exaggerated and it is unclear such a crisis awaits us. Whilst there has been a large decline in sperm count reported19, it was also stated that men still have 47 million sperm per ml and that this is well within normal ranges. The average male sperm count is well above the 15 million per ml threshold where fertility problems occur20. With that said, that does not mean this is a problem we should ignore and just make idiotic remarks that “nature” is working against men. Despite what female supremacists claim, the available evidence suggests the declining sperm count of men is not due to nature selecting men out of the gene pool, but is actually driven by artificial causes. Prenatal exposure to plasticizers such as phthalates, have been shown21 to negatively affect male fertility. Women are not exempt either from these negative effects. The same plastic chemicals have been shown to also negatively affect female fertility and also their health. See these links here22 and here23 for more information. The claim lower male sperm counts are evidence of nature getting rid of males, has no leg to stand on.

The Male Variance In Reproduction

It is often quoted2425 by some that in the past one man reproduced for every two women. I have heard other numbers cited, some higher, some lower. The exact numbers of male and female ancestors that reproduced is still a matter of debate and has likely fluctuated over time and will probably remain uncertain. It is certainly a fact that males show a greater variance in reproductive success than females. When it is quoted that one man reproduced for every two women, it is misunderstood by some people to mean that men contributed only a third of the genome and women the other two thirds. In reality this is not correct. If one man reproduced for every two women, each man that did reproduce, reproduced at double the frequency of their female counterparts. Whilst lower numbers of men may have passed on their genes than women, those men that reproduced did so at a higher frequency than women. So the total contribution to the genome was exactly equal between males and females, but the contribution per male that reproduced was higher than the contribution per female that reproduced. It is a common misunderstanding to confuse the difference in the numbers of men and women reproducing, with the total level of reproduction of each sex. They are not necessarily identical.

It is also incorrect to assert that because more females reproduce than males, females are more biologically valuable to their parents as more female offspring pass on their genes. Whilst a parent may give birth to males that do not reproduce at all, that does not necessarily mean males in general are less biologically valuable than females. Any population that has fewer males reproducing than females, will also have individual males reproducing at a higher rate than individual females. This is a mathematical reality. There are parents of male offspring that pass on their genome at a higher rate than any female offspring in the population. For every male that fails to reproduce, there is another male out-reproducing his female counterparts.

The total biological value of males and females is exactly equal, but there are differences when comparing the distributions of the biological value of individuals of each sex. As we see predictably with so many human traits, women cluster around the mean of biological value with less variance and men are over-represented at both the high and low extremes with greater variance. There are females that are more biologically valuable than males and males more biologically valuable than any female. I will have more to say later on in this article on why the value of male and female life is greater than its biological value and must be regarded as equal.

The Trivers-Willard Hypothesis And The Biological Value Of Men

Fishers principle applies to the population as a whole and the result is that the total evolutionary success and biological value of male and female offspring to their parents as a whole, is exactly equal. However as previously mentioned, there can be deviations within the population when we consider individual males and individual females within the population. Some male offspring leave more copies of their genes behind than females and some female offspring leave more copies of their genes behind than males.

The Trivers-Willard hypothesis (TWH)26 predicts that the sex ratio of offspring can be varied with maternal condition. This is because males show a greater variance in reproduction than females. The number of copies of the genome males leave behind relative to females, can increase and decrease by a much greater degree. Furthermore, the physical and mental condition of male and female offspring affects their reproductive success. Consequently the reproductive success of sons is much more sensitive to the physical and mental condition of sons, than the reproductive success of daughters is to the condition of daughters. If the condition of a son increases, this could lead to a much larger gain in reproductive success than for a daughter, because male offspring can reproduce at a much faster rate and therefore have a much higher limit on how many offspring they can produce. A daughter in good condition might have 10 children and a son in good condition might have 100 children. The condition of offspring will affect their reproductive success and the condition of offspring is affected by maternal condition.  As maternal condition affects the condition of offspring (paternal condition does also in other ways) and the condition of offspring impacts the reproductive success of sons to a greater degree, maternal condition has a greater impact on the reproductive success of males than on females.

To illustrate this point, consider a mother in good condition. A mother in good condition could produce a son in good condition that could father 100 children. In contrast, a mother in good condition could produce a daughter in good condition that could give birth to 10 children. TWH predicts that mothers in good condition, will have a sex ratio biased in favour of producing male offspring to maximise evolutionary success. What happens when a mother is in poor condition? A mother in poor condition could produce a son in poor condition, who will be outcompeted by male offspring in good condition and may father only 1 or 2 children or none at all. Conversely, a mother in poor condition could produce a daughter in poor condition, that may still give birth to at least 4 or 5 children. The poor condition of the mother negatively impacts the reproductive success of the son to a much greater degree than it does for the daughter’s reproductive success. TWH predicts that mothers in poor condition, will have a sex ratio biased in favour of producing female offspring to maximise evolutionary success.

Fishers Principle does provide a constraint on the dynamics emerging from TWH. If every mother in the population is in good condition and produces more sons than daughters, or every mother in poor condition produces more daughters than sons, that will bias the parental expenditure in favour of one sex over the other in the population. Fishers principle predicts parents of the rarer sex in such a scenario, will have a higher return on their parental investment (as the total evolutionary success of each sex is equal and is shared between fewer males than females for example). This will eventually lead to an opposing bias emerging, where more of the rarer sex will be produced and the sex ratio will then shift back to equilibrium.

Whilst the population as a whole will have a sex ratio of virtually 1:1, the cohort of the population in good condition will have more sons than average and the cohort of the population in poor condition will have more daughters than average. The sex ratio bias in each cohort will balance each other out and so neither sex is favoured in the population as a whole. Fishers principle will apply to the population as a whole and TWH will predict confined deviations from the 1:1 sex ratio within cohorts of the population based on maternal condition.

What does TWH have to do with male value? Let us assume that biological value is solely or overwhelmingly derived from reproductive investment and women are more biologically valuable based solely on their greater reproductive investment. If this is correct then we would expect parents to be producing daughters in greater proportion than sons, across all values of maternal condition. This is because females always have a greater reproductive investment than males across all values of maternal condition, thanks to females having a uterus and males lacking one. If parents are in optimal condition, then they are free of external pressures and have the resources available to select for whichever sex they prefer. It would then follow they would select for producing female offspring, in such an instance where females were more biologically valuable than males. TWH does not predict this result and neither do the studies27supporting it, instead they show the predicted bias in favour of producing male offspring when there is good maternal condition.

For those that automatically assume that the effect of maternal condition on the sex ratio is proof of women being more valuable than men, there is research showing that paternal condition also affects the sex ratio. Research has found28 that adult male primates higher in the social dominance hierarchy with higher testosterone levels, can bias the sex ratio in favour of producing sons. It is also worth considering that good maternal condition is not important under TWH, unless it leads to sons that are also in good condition and can successfully compete and survive to make full use of their reproductive capacity. Good maternal condition has value under TWH, only if it positively affects the condition of sons.

Whilst the evidence for TWH remains mixed in humans, there is no evidence to demonstrate that production of female offspring is universally preferred over the production of male offspring by parents, on the basis of females being the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Studies that have better measures of parental investment show more support for the TWH, than studies with poorer measures29. Like most aspects of human biology that are based on systems, relative investment in male and female offspring is multifactorial and cannot be reduced down to a single simple mechanism (like women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction). So it is unsurprising that the evidence shows mixed support for TWH.

Where research runs contrary to TWH, it does not support the claim female offspring are selected over male offspring based solely or primarily on greater female reproductive value. A recent study30 of TWH in humans, reported little support for TWH and found women had a stronger psychological preference for having girls and men had a stronger psychological preference for having boys. If females were more biologically valuable than males, both male and female parents would show a preference for having daughters and yet that was not what was observed.

If females were truly more biologically valuable than males, then the bias to favour having female offspring would be deeply biologically ingrained. There would not be communities in China having a disproportionate amount of sons, based on the cultural tradition of wanting to continue the family name31. If all it takes is a cultural tradition of passing on the family name to cause communities to favour sons and skew the sex ratio at birth, then that makes a few claims very questionable and probably wrong. If women were more biologically valuable than men based on their reproductive value, then a preference for daughters over sons would be a universal biological reality with no significant exceptions (certainly not whole communities). No cultural tradition or exception would be strong enough to override such a biological reality, as the bias would exist at such a fundamental level of our nature. Simply wanting to pass on the family name would not stand a chance against such a deeply seated biological bias to favour females, if it actually existed as described.

The Biological Value Of Men That Do Not Reproduce

The number of copies of the genes that male and female offspring contribute to their parents, is not solely determined by their individual frequency of reproduction. It is often said casually by critics of MGTOW (men going their own way), that as these men do not reproduce they will be removed from the gene pool. Of course as predicted, these same people fail to point out that the same reductive reasoning can be applied to many feminists and entitled princesses that also fail to reproduce. The data32 shows that childless women are on the rise. Would anyone dare make the same remarks about childless women as some people do about MGTOW? I don’t think so.

It is also worth pointing out that whilst substantial numbers of MGTOW may not have children, that choice is incidental to men going their own way and very often the result of choosing to not marry women or cohabitate with them. A man going his own way does not automatically translate to a man choosing not to have children, any more than it means having children. MGTOW is a man going his way over gynocentrism and choosing a direction in life based on his choices, rather than winning female approval. Some MGTOW may choose to have children and other MGTOW may choose not to.

The evolutionary reality is actually more complicated than simply asserting that the failure of an individual to reproduce, means a failure to pass on their genes. The number of copies of the genes (or the contribution of the genome) an individual leaves behind, is decided not only by their individual frequency of reproduction, but also by a number of other factors such as:

  1. The number of their offspring that actually survive to sexual maturity and are in a sufficiently healthy condition to reproduce.
  1. The number of offspring their relatives produce and survive to sexual maturity in a healthy condition to reproduce.
  1. The number of offspring genetically similar non-relatives (unrelated individuals that share genetic similarity, will share a certain fraction of genes) produce and survive to sexual maturity in a healthy condition to reproduce.

Concepts like inclusive fitness33 and kin selection34 matter when considering the total fitness and evolutionary success of an individual. It is not just all based on the individual’s personal reproductive fitness. Whilst there are males that do not reproduce, they may still leave copies of their genes behind. These males may directly and indirectly contribute to the fitness of relatives and genetically similar non-relatives. What is often overlooked by many people, is the contribution men make to the survival of their community and the impact that then has on the capacity of the community to reproduce and also care for offspring. Men that do not reproduce but contribute to the survival of their community, can enhance the capacity of their relatives and genetically similar non-relatives to reproduce and care for their offspring and to pass on their genes. As these individuals share similar genes to the men that do not reproduce, the genes of these men can be passed on to the next generation indirectly through other people.

The concept of alloparental care35 is an important example to consider in this context. In our species, adults care for related and unrelated children that are not their direct descendants. Brothers, uncles and cousins etc that may not reproduce, may care for related kin (which was even more the case in our historical and prehistoric past). Male teachers may educate children that are completely unrelated to them. Men running our basic infrastructure and utilities provide essential services that ensure related kin and non-relatives get electricity, food, water, shelter and basic provisions. Men running our military and emergency services, protect and care for relatives and non-relatives. Men inventing, designing, constructing and maintaining our technology, infrastructure and buildings, ensure our economies continue to churn and their innovation ensures the prosperity of our societies. All of what I am describing either directly or indirectly increases the survival and reproductive prospects of relatives of these men and non-relatives that they share genes with. The list goes on and on. These examples are just a small sample of the alternative activities to reproduction, that can contribute to the evolutionary success or total fitness of individual men and allow men that do not reproduce to pass on their genes indirectly through other individuals.

The cooperation between men to ensure the continued existence of civilisation, has been going on for thousands of years and extends all the way back before civilisation to our primitive hunter-gatherer communities. These cooperative efforts between men, increase the number of copies of their genome and genes they leave behind. A man may do hundreds of activities in his lifetime which allow other activities to occur, which then either helps his own offspring survive, or his relative’s offspring, or the offspring of people genetically similar to him. A man who does not reproduce but drives a train carrying food to a local city or maintains the electrical grid, is indirectly contributing to the continuation of his own genes by ensuring his brothers, sisters, nieces or nephews or genetically similar people in that city, survive and reproduce. A male teacher that teaches unrelated children, may educate pupils that go on to improve the prospects of his relatives or individuals that share genetic similarity to him.

The cooperative efforts between men, can also lead to social rewards that enhance their evolutionary success. Cooperation between unrelated men, can enhance the evolutionary success of both of them. This can even apply where one of them does not reproduce. If such cooperation leads to the man raising the social standing of his family in the eyes of the men he assisted, then this may benefit the prospects of his family in the long term and increase the number of copies of his genes that are passed on through other members of his family to the next generation.

Cooperation, altruism and alloparental care are ubiquitous in our species, because evolutionary success is not solely guaranteed by individual reproduction and is substantially dependent on other activities related to survival that often require coordinated social activity. Such social activity very often involves males working together. The dark triad of human nature exists, but so do the better parts of our nature. It was the mass organised cooperative efforts between men, combined with an organised and rule-based (or honour based) form of competition, that enabled civilisation to emerge and harness male value. The notion that natural selection favours survival of the fittest in a dog eat dog world, is an oversimplification of evolution.

Whilst that raw side of our nature exists, human social behaviour is not solely governed by individual evolutionary success and individuals competing against each other. There would be far more violence and no civilisation to speak of, if human males demonstrated little cooperation and had the same level of competition and aggression as male chimpanzees. The same can also be said about there being far more violence and no civilisation, if human males were truly biologically disposable. Civilisation requires sufficient numbers of men in good mental and physical health to support it and to peacefully work together. This in turn requires society to value the worth of men and not treat them as disposable. Male disposability leads to violence, war and in the long term destroys the male value civilisation requires to sustain itself.

Men Are Not Solely Driven To Reproduce

It would be incorrect to assume that men failing to reproduce means they demonstrate no evolutionary success and have no biological value. As discussed, such men can indirectly leave copies of their genes behind through their efforts to contribute to the survival of the community. There has always been a cohort of men in history and prehistory that never reproduced and had no interest in doing so. They used to be called confirmed bachelors. Men choosing not to marry and have children is not a new phenomenon, it has just markedly increased in recent years with the social changes of rampant gynocentrism and feminism.

The simple fact is that if the hypothesis of men filtering themselves out of the gene pool by failing to reproduce was correct, then the significant and growing cohort of men that are choosing to avoid marriage and children would not exist and would never have arisen in the first place. Male lifestyles of any kind that do not lead to having children (religious clergy, confirmed bachelors and many MGTOW) and any deviation from heterosexuality would not exist, if this hypothesis were correct. This is because the hypothesis depends on the assumption that the only way to pass on your genes is to reproduce and consequently that then means that any predisposition to not reproduce, would have absolutely no chance of passing on to the next generation. Consequently after enough time, only males that desire to sexually reproduce with females would remain in the species.

The reality is that childless or celibate and homosexual men that do not desire heterosexual relationships do exist and have done throughout history. Why? The genes of those men were passed down through other relatives or genetically similar individuals. Take religion as an illustrative example. Dr. Brett Weinstein in a discussion36 with Dr. Richard Dawkins pointed out that whilst clergy may not have reproduced, their contribution to their religion may have indirectly furthered their genes. In actively promoting their religion, they may have encouraged behaviours and practices that could have enhanced the evolutionary success of their relatives and individuals within their communities, that they shared genetic similarity with.

We can go through a long list of famous men like Wilbur Wright, Nikola Tesla and Isaac Newton that never married and never reproduced, but made massive contributions to society that led to technological changes that enabled the population size to mushroom from one billion to seven billion in just a few centuries. There are plenty of unknown men that never reproduced that helped build and maintain all of our roads, canals, railways, airplanes, ships, numerous pieces of infrastructure and buildings we all use on a daily basis. There are unknown men that never reproduce, that farm the land and transport our food to supermarkets. Civilisation relies on a massive coordinated effort of male activity to support the current population size and therefore support evolutionary success. This supportive buttressing effect of coordinated male activity on evolutionary success, was also true for our prehistory before civilisation. Reproduction is not the only contributor to evolutionary success.

Whilst the exact numbers of men relative to women that reproduced in our prehistory is a matter of debate, it is generally accepted that there has always been a cohort of men that never reproduced. There has always been an environment where men needed to find another way to live, pass on their genes and contribute to the community, that did not necessarily involve reproduction. There has been a selective pressure on men to develop an alternative pathway to propagating their genes, when reproductive opportunities are limited.

Much has been said about the strong sexual appetite of men in popular culture (the sex drive of men has been exaggerated), which has been generalised to represent the libido of all men. However there is next to no recognition made about the substantial numbers of men that find fulfilment beyond chasing vagina and whom silently immerse themselves in other pursuits. There are men that spend most of their waking hours in a lab doing experiments, or designing a new device, or doing programming, or building a legal case, or running a company, or working in finance maximising their portfolio returns, or building something in their garage. For these men chasing vagina is often a distraction they have very little interest in. They are married to their interests, hobbies and careers. Some men are wired that way. On occasion such men through the achievements they derive from their single-minded focus on such pursuits, may rise in social status, be instead chased by women and sexually reproduce.

Regardless as to whether they end up reproducing or not, it is my view that the cohort of single men finding an alternative pathway in life beyond mating and reproduction, has been a significant factor that has led to the development of our culture as a species. I believe it has also been a significant factor in much of the exploration, invention, research and discovery that led to the emergence of civilisation. I am not the first person to suspect this either. Nikola Tesla said, “I do not think you can name many great inventions that have been made by married men”37.When Wilbur Wright was developing the airplane he said, “I don’t have time for both a wife and an airplane”38.

I am certainly not suggesting married men or men that have partners, cannot invent and I do not believe Tesla was absolutely correct in the assertion that not many inventions were made by married men. However there is some underlying truth to the remarks of these famous inventors. It is a fact that single men are freer to focus on and undertake certain activities than other men, particularly those pursuits that require large amounts of time and require geographical mobility. Men focused on their intellectual, economic, political, artistic and athletic pursuits and that prioritise them over pursuing relationships with women, will generally spend more time on those pursuits and achieve more. These greater achievements can positively affect the survival and reproduction of their community and indirectly increase their own individual evolutionary success (through benefitting related kin and genetically similar individuals) and that of others.

It is also worth pointing out that when men find alternatives to reproduction, intrasexual male competition drops and so does the level of violence in a community when mating opportunities are scarce. This carries benefits to evolutionary success through ensuring a safer environment to raise offspring and more male cooperation. The greater male cooperation leads to greater provision and protection for the community.

There are numerous examples of men that despite being heterosexual, are immersed in other pursuits and for which relationships are a low or non-existent priority. There is likely a neurological and genetic basis to this alternative pathway in life for men, given how lopsided mating prospects may have been in the past and the evolutionary benefits that can be derived from men pursuing activities beyond reproduction. Barbarosaaa had a few things to say in this video39 on the notion of MGTOW being “inherently” unsustainable and that reproduction is all that counts. Yes a society must reproduce to replace itself, but reproduction means little without the prosperity to support the progeny. Furthermore, once society is past a certain threshold, prosperity for a population matters more to evolutionary success than reproduction (As Barbarosaaa’s video discusses).

Single men can contribute to their evolutionary success in ways that can compensate for not reproducing, by contributing to the betterment of their community. The contribution of these men may be incremental across multiple generations in some cases. For some men their legacy on the survival and reproductive prospects of society may be felt in the second, third and fourth generations of their relatives and unrelated but genetically similar individuals. This may lead to a large increase in evolutionary success over the longer term. The impact certain influential men can have on our culture and the downstream effects that can have on evolutionary success, can be profound. Think of all the philosophers, scientists, inventors, soldiers, legal scholars and leaders etc that left no offspring, but improved their cultures and society and enhanced the future survival and reproductive prospects of dozens of generations.

The Value Of Human Life Is Greater Than The Sum Of Its Parts

When we consider males that do not reproduce, we are not considering their evolutionary success in totality if we just look at their lack of reproduction. With that said, it is a reality that men do dominate the extremes of the bell curve when it comes to evolutionary success and biological value. Men and women have equal evolutionary success and biological value overall, but men are over-represented in the highest and lowest values of the distribution. That does not mean that men who have little evolutionary success are less valuable as human beings, or that men with the highest level of evolutionary success are more valuable than everyone else.

The mentally disabled and the elderly are not regarded as less valuable human beings because they have less potential evolutionary success than the general population. We correctly recognise that the value of human life transcends biological value. Why? Civilisation requires that we respect the value of human life, regardless of the inherent characteristics of that life. This is an essential part of our culture, because it allows us to cooperate and be civil and fair with each other. Reducing the value of human life down to biological value, is a very destructive way of regressing civilisation to violent and barbaric tribalism. There are numerous historical examples of science being used to argue certain groups are subhuman or inferior to justify extermination, sterilisation and the use of eugenics.

Civilised societies that regard the value human life as sacrosanct, tend to be safer and more prosperous. Consequently, they generally do better in passing on their genes than primitive tribal shitholes. Of course all of this basic logic and fact is completely lost on those that want to wilfully ignore the value of men and promote gynocentric double standards based on a narrative that having a uterus makes you a more valuable human being. The value of human life whether it is male or female, is greater than its biological value. The inherent value of all human life must be regarded as equal and not be ranked based on the sex or race etc of the individual. Anything less than that leads to tribalism, social dysfunction, dehumanisation, exploitation and violence. Given enough time any form of implied or overt sexual superiority, leads to mounting social and economic consequences that eventually destroys civilisation.

In part two of this article I will be debunking further sophist arguments that men are biologically less valuable than women and are biologically disposable.



  22. and-women/


Women of color feminists are bringing white woman feminists to their knees


Ruby Hamad’s recent Guardian article How white women use strategic tears to silence women of colour carries the byline “The legitimate grievances of brown and black women are no match for the accusations of a white damsel in distress.”


The article is interesting for a number of reasons, among them being that European ‘white woman feminism’ (WWF) is being called out for the farce that it is, and secondly those WoCs calling it out are reducing it to its knees.

While its true that women cry far more often and easily than the average man – a biological fact examined by several research articles – there is no doubt that European white women have leveraged the crying game through the intricate culture of damseling that has made people hypersensitive to white women’s tears. An Arab woman cries? who cares. A black woman cries? meh. A white woman cries? – Quick call an ambulance!!

Hamad refers to this anomaly as the weaponising of white women’s tears, and adds;

As I look back over my adult life a pattern emerges. Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her. My confidence diminished and second-guessing myself, I either flare up in frustration at not being heard (which only seems to prove her point) or I back down immediately, apologising and consoling the very person causing me harm.

It is not weakness or guilt that compels me to capitulate. Rather, as I recently wrote, it is the manufactured reputation Arabs have for being threatening and aggressive that follows us everywhere. In a society that routinely places imaginary “wide-eyed, angry and Middle Eastern” people at the scenes of violent crimes they did not commit, having a legitimate grievance is no match for the strategic tears of a white damsel in distress whose innocence is taken for granted.

Feminist women of every skin color share a belief in the existence of an oppressive patriarchy, female victimization at its hands, and the need to increase the power of women in every imaginable way. That mandate is enough to raise my resistance to each and every feminist pitch regardless of skin color – including supposedly male friendly feminists like Christina Hoff-Sommers and Camille Paglia who would institute a feminist utopia based on traditional male chivalry, their imagined golden era of the past that third wave feminists have undermined.

Added to those core beliefs, the cultural background of feminists often gives their behaviour a different accent or twist.  I find myself agreeing with WoC feminists that white women have culture values embedded in their feminist project that render it, shall we say, different. This difference is why WWF has been accurately described as victim feminism, safe space feminism, and even fainting-couch feminism – a kind of battle between fragile maidens and those who would hurt them.

To be specific, white western feminists have their cultural roots in the European practices of damseling, chivalry and courtly love, practices that many WoC like Arabs, Asians and Africans do not. White Western feminists lean on European tropes to gain advantage over their WoC sisters, including the belief in (white) women’s moral superiority, extreme vulnerability and fragility, and the need for a protective chivalry that can be assumed or otherwise elicited with a few well-timed tears. The elements of the trope are used to foster an aristocrat-like status of white Western feminists, which is evidenced in their appeals to “dignity” “respect” “status” and “esteem” etc. – words usually reserved for dignitaries.

The cultural conventions that enable such behaviour closely resemble the sexual fetish of Subs to Doms, as seen in the European practice of a man going down on one knee to propose to a White Lady. That behaviour has traditionally been extended to feminist WoC who have likewise been expected to go down on a metaphorical knee, so to speak, before their white women feminist betters. But WoC feminists are having none of it today – they are done with taking runner-up prize in the Oppression Olympics.

The fact that WoC want none of it is a death sentence for their own brand of feminism, for without the European customs mentioned above feminism simply cannot be; it absolutely requires damseling and a supportive culture of male chivalry in order to survive. That’s what has made WW feminism the one and only kind of feminism, ensuring its life and longevity, and without adopting elements of the European trope WoC feminism is dead in the water. At best WoC feminists could expect to get some platform for the simple act of attacking their well heeled and pedestalized sisters, but little more.

To be sure the dividing of WoC and WW feminisms is somewhat superficial, for despite their denials many WoC have already adopted WW European practices, especially African American feminists, and wield them every bit as much as their ivory sisters.

Back to the question of crying, I believe the author has a mild case, if simply articulated, for the unique ways culture entwines itself with the tears of white Western feminists. That unique European brand has sometimes been referred to as ‘Anglosphere feminism’ – it is not something you will find in China, Iran or Sudan for example.


A feminist takes a well-earned break from being empathetic to men in pain.

White feminists have been busy drinking male tears for years, and they may find the prospect of WoC feminists drinking their tears somewhat disconcerting – and hopefully a reminder of just how badly they’ve been treating their menfolk. Judging by the current trajectory that’s exactly what will happen, or rather is happening – a callous disregard for white women and their issues by WoC. The result is that WW feminists are finding out their hands are tied in some of the same ways that men’s hands are tied based on the formula that perceived privilege = gag orders.

How do WW feminists and women feel to be in the same pit with white Western men? Will they take comfort from the usual ‘suck it up’ mantra reserved for Western males? Whatever their next moves its clear that European white women’s damseling and status-seeking has reached the teleological end of its evolution, called out by none other than women of color.

See also: Did you know the “Damsel in Distress” trope has a feminist origin?

Gynocentrism in the Criminal Justice System

The concept of ‘gynocentrism’ was recently cited in research on domestic violence in Trinidad and Tobago. This is viewed by stakeholders as a positive development toward understanding the complex dynamics involved in IPV and why men are reluctant to report it.

“Traditionally, Trinidad and Tobago’s society is patriarchal in its ontology, however, there is a tendency on the island towards gynocentrism or the inclination to place the needs, wants, and desires of women ahead of all others (Elam, 2016).

“This non-reporting of spousal violence by males in the study can also be attributed to the effect of gynocentrism which creates a cultural default on the micro and macro level where women’s DV victimization reporting is a call to action and a man’s DV victimization reporting is seen as taboo (Elam, 2016). In the context of Trinidad and Tobago, the authors of this article submit that gynocentrism pervades all aspects of the criminal justice system as well as society, hence the apprehension by men in the study to report their DV victimization to the police. For male respondents, the main barrier to non-reporting DV victimization to the police was embarrassment/shame (17%).”



Justice Policy Journal  Volume 16, Number 1 (Spring, 2019)


Gynocentrism and the golden uterus (part two)

The following is part 2 of my article on debunking the bedrock of the female supremacist belief system that drives gynocentrism; the golden uterus. Please read part 1 before continuing. – Peter Ryan

Commons building workers

The Naturalistic Fallacy

Often reproductive reductionists will appeal to nature to justify their bigoted beliefs that we should treat men as a lower class of human being, or even regard men as subhuman on the basis that having a uterus makes an individual more biological valuable to the species. The assertion that having a uterus makes an individual more biologically valuable is wrong, because it assumes that reproduction is the sole determining factor of biological value – and I have explained in part one of this article why this is wrong.

But I want to assume for the moment that reproductive reductionists and female supremacists are right. Should we value human life on its utility? Should we base society and government policy on the survival of the fittest and selectively abort males prior to birth and subjugate the males that are born, as some female supremacists put forward? We have numerous examples of genocides in the 20th century that were the inevitable end result of such ideas.

We have seen what happens when such a society dehumanises a group of people and the destruction it brings for such societies. We have observed the legacy and the guilt such atrocities have on their culture. History is littered with such examples, and there is a reason why societies that dehumanise groups of people remain either undeveloped tribal shitholes or deteriorate into such shitholes given enough time. It never ends well for the society that dehumanises a group within their population, let alone the half of the population responsible for keeping most of the infrastructure going, etc.

If we are concerned about making sure civilisation remains functional enough so that it can sustain itself, then we should consider the reality that dehumanising half the population which keeps the water running and the lights on at night, will invariably lead to its collapse.  When enough men are that marginalised they have nothing left to lose, history shows it leads to revolution and war. That is just me citing history, it is not a threat. The United States itself was founded in the wake of marginalised men fighting a tyrannical government. If national security matters to our governments, then they might want to consider what happens when large numbers of men are raised with no father for generations, have little or no employment prospects and are marginalised in society.

For the record, I do not want to see a violent revolution happen. I want to peacefully go about my business. However I am concerned about the growing likelihood of this eventuality occurring, and the steps we should be taking right now to reduce the risk of future national instability in Western countries from large numbers of marginalised men. The solution is not to marginalise men further. The solution is simply to respect men, invest in them, support them, and guide and provide them with an avenue to voluntarily contribute to society in a way that is personally fulfilling and constructive.

Treating men as subhuman, creating a male underclass and demonising and marginalising men and boys on the basis they are male, is a sure-fire way to bankrupt your country, collapse your economy, socially destabilise your society and destroy your country from within through civil unrest, crime, revolution and war. If you treat men and boys with no compassion, then do not be surprised when you create monsters and witness a surge in mass shootings, organised crime, roaming gangs of male thugs and eventually an organised militia and then an army. I do not want to see that future unfold, but that is where society is headed if we don’t start treating men as human beings and supporting them.

So on a purely rational level, appealing to nature to subjugate and marginalise men is not sustainable or functional for the long-term prosperity and the continued existence of civilisation. The Nuremburg trials that were organised after World War 2 are a testament to that reality in the aftermath of the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jews.

In the words of Justice Jackson1,

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”

A statement that needs to be etched in stone. When we dehumanise men or any group of people, we undermine the basis of civilisation itself- human dignity. We do not just undermine the dignity of the group that is dehumanised, but our own dignity by participating in the abuse or letting it happen. Once dignity is gone, civilised behaviour quickly goes as well and with it civilisation.

Some people infer from history and from the present day, that dehumanising men and treating them as disposable is natural, normal and okay, as they believe it is required for civilisation. Slave owners used to use similar arguments to justify slavery. Disposability implies that something can be discarded without any consequence and that it can easily be replaced. Civilisations and tribal communities have certainly required a contribution of protection, provision and innovation from men to ensure their continuation. However just as with reproduction and evolutionary success, male contribution to the community is not automatically interchangeable with male disposability. Men can contribute to communities without being disposed of and the less that are lost, the more men are available to contribute in the future.

Any community or civilisation that loses its men or fails to invest in its men, or fails to adequately support them, loses some or all of its manpower and some or all of the contribution men bring to sustaining civilisation and their communities. The loss of male life and the marginalisation of men is something to be minimised and avoided, because it costs communities and it costs civilisation. Any community that exploits and marginalises men and neglects them, squanders and wastes the value men can provide to society. By avoidably undermining the well-being and health of men, communities and civilisations undermine themselves.

Any community that exploits and marginalises men and neglects them, squanders and wastes the value men can provide to society.

It is indeed the case that men have sacrificed their lives in war for their countries countless times, but that does not mean it was ideal for that society that they lost their men. The loss of male life in war was just unavoidable, just as women dying performing their reproductive role in childbirth was unavoidable for centuries. The country that not only won battles but did so with the least amount of male casualties, had the larger army to win the war and the men available to rebuild their societies and occupy and rebuild the societies of the territory they captured.

As with women in childbirth, men have died in performing their role for society. Society has days to recognise the cost of the sacrifice of millions of men in war. Anzac Day, Memorial Day and Remembrance Day come to mind. Disposable utilities do not have days of remembrance. We say, “Lest we forget” on Anzac Day for a reason. Deep down we recognise the loss that society, countless families and the men themselves incurred, from losing men in war. We have days of remembrance in part to remind ourselves of the cost of war and the cost of losing men. It is a solemn warning not to forget the cost of war.

Countries that raised their men and boys properly and invested in them and supported them, had more available men that were equipped to power their economy and participate in a larger and fitter military in times of war. Strong support for men and boys creates strong men and strong men create strong empires. The empires that not only harness the potential of their men, but look after their men and lose as little of their men as possible, prevail and win. These are not an either/or set of priorities for a given civilisation, one priority is dependent on the other.

The simple truth is that civilisations that look after men so they can in turn look after society, prosper and they eventually surpass civilisations that exploit their men and treat them as disposable. Yes societies require men to contribute to their continued existence and prosperity, but with the least amount of loss to male life and well-being. Societies that follow that simple rule thrive over societies that do not.

I am not suggesting that we have never had elements of society and our culture over history and in the present day, that have marginalised men, exploited men and treated men as disposable. We certainly have. The difference between the past and the present though, is that in the past we recognised to a certain extent the need to minimise needless male sacrifice as much as possible, despite the far greater incidence of male sacrifice. The sacrifice of men was not ideal for past society, it was just often unavoidable. Unavoidable male sacrifice is not the same as regarding men as disposable. One perspective recognises the value in men and the other does not. Over the last 250 years and particularly over the last 50 years, this perspective has been lost.

In the present prosperous, safe, well nourished and risk free society we live in, we take men for granted. We have normalised men’s marginalisation and exploitation and confused unavoidable male sacrifice in the past as a justification to treat men today as disposable. Society can get away with this temporarily until the safety bubble of prosperity bursts, from its own decadent recklessness and disregard for the men keeping society running.

Current Western society does indeed marginalise men and has increasingly treated men as disposable, as the costs of male sacrifice for society have faded into distant memory since World War 2. However the West does so to its own detriment and eventually given enough time neglecting the men it relies on to sustain itself, will result in the collapse2 of the West as other societies take its place.

Male disposability proliferating and becoming normalised, is a characteristic of the final stages of a decadent and complacent civilisation on the decline. It is a pathology arising from societal decadence. Some collective pathological behaviour will always be present in a society, regardless as to what stage it is at. However it is in the final stages of civilisation, that pathological behaviours previously minimised and confined to the margins of society, start to spread and become normalised. This is the same pattern that has occurred with male disposability.

In the last 1000 years, male disposability and gynocentrism has slowly grown century after century from the fringes of our culture, to a substantive and enduring level. Much of the proliferation of male disposability within our culture, has occurred in the last 250 years and especially in the last 50 years. We have always had some degree of male disposability in the past, just as we have always had murder and rape. That does not mean we considered it to be normal or acceptable to the point it was pervasive within every aspect of the entire culture, like we see today.

Like I said earlier, regarding men as disposable and society accepting the unavoidable level of male sacrifice required to protect and sustain society, is not the same thing. One perspective recognises the value of male life and the other perspective does not. The difference in the current cultural climate is that now we are rationalising and justifying male disposability, and gynocentric double standards in an effort for our society to convince itself it is “normal”, when it is anything but normal.

There are plenty of behaviours that have natural and biological underpinnings that are not optimal for society and are morally repugnant. Rape, murder and infanticide are seen in the wild and in other primate species and are driven in part by hormones, genes and biology. A man that rapes a woman or a young underage girl who is fertile, enhances his reproductive fitness. That does not make it okay to rape them. Plenty of violent, pathological and deviant behaviours have a biological basis to them and improve reproductive fitness. None of these acts are morally right and normalising them on the basis they are natural will not allow a civilisation to prosper and sustain itself over long periods of time. In fact normalising such behaviour is a recipe to turn civilisation into an uncivilised barbaric primitive tribal shithole.

If female supremacists want to argue treating men as disposable and as subhuman is acceptable and right because it is natural, then they should have no problem accepting that rape is acceptable and morally right because it is natural. Both of course are not acceptable or right. If female supremacists are going to rationalise double standards against men on biological grounds, we can argue the same when it comes to race and the biological differences between races. Again both forms of bigotry of course are wrong. However if female supremacists want to remain logically consistent, then they should at least have the honesty to acknowledge they are no different from the KKK and numerous other groups that claim group supremacy and appeal to nature to justify their beliefs. Claims of male supremacy or any other form of group supremacy on the basis of biology, are not morally justifiable either.

Acknowledging biological group differences does not automatically require making value judgements about the value of human life and justifying double standards based on the group an individual belongs to. Advanced society requires an advanced culture that acknowledges biological differences between individuals and groups, but rises above appealing to nature to justify bigoted and irrational beliefs and double standards that are demonstrably dysfunctional and that undermine the long term prosperity, stability and sustainability of civilisation. Societies that invest in men and support men will have the manpower to flourish, and societies that exploit men and marginalise men will not. That is just a fact. Whilst male sacrifice has been unavoidable at times, it came at a great cost to society. Those societies that minimised such sacrifice had enough healthy men available to live and fight another day and they prospered.

I do not think I need to describe the value men provide to civilisation in detail. Men discover, invent, design, build, maintain, repair and improve the bulk of basically every facet of our infrastructure, technology and buildings. Men are responsible for the majority of the leadership, innovation, research and expansion of the intellectual frontiers of civilisation and our political, legal and economic systems. Our military, police and emergency services all heavily rely on men. Men are the bulk of our Nobel laureates, Fields Medallists and inventors. None of this has changed despite 50-60 years of feminist social engineering and affirmative action. Whether or not feminists want to accept it, there are biological underpinnings to these realities and the value men provide to their families, their communities and their civilisation.

If men stopped working for a week, billions would be dead from thirst, starvation and violence before men went back to work, as a result of the lack of basic working utilities and mass unrestrained civil unrest. Men are not easy to replace either. It takes 18 years of parental and societal investment to raise an adult male from scratch and they must be raised properly so they have the required physical health, mental health, skills, knowledge and motivation, in order to productively contribute to society.

This is why our current society is screwed. Even if we started today reforming the education system, marriage, family courts and divorce, the legal system, health system and workplace etc, to attend to the social, medical, psychological, learning and employment needs of men and boys and ensure fathers play a role in raising children, it is going to take at least a generation to see any positive impact on society. This idea we can just disregard men and boys with no consequences to society and treat them as disposable, is an idea that will be unlearned through suffering and death on a scale society has not seen for centuries. Death and suffering on a scale that matches our own collective stupidity and reckless indifference toward male well-being.

Our best hope to stave off this social and economic catastrophe is to take as much redemptive action as quickly as possible, to reduce the long-term consequences of this multidecade indifference toward men and boys, and use the now unavoidable consequences coming our way as a lesson for future generations on what not to do. We need to value men, boys and masculinity again in our culture and we need to do it now.

Society requires men, because men like women have an intrinsic value that society depends on to survive and thrive. An intrinsic value that arises from the unique male biological potential they possess. If society harnesses this male potential and does not squander it by exploiting and marginalising men, society persists and advances. Just as women have the potential to bear children, men have the potential to provide, innovate and protect. If we are going to argue men are human doings because they only have value from what they produce, then why not argue women are human doings that only have value if they produce children? Of course I am not endorsing this, but I want to make a point here.

If we are going to argue men are human doings because they only have value from what they produce, then why not argue women are human doings that only have value if they produce children?

Using the bigoted logic of a reproductive reductionist, women’s reproductive utility has no value if women remain barren (as growing numbers of them are). That question and that logic provokes, or at least should provoke scepticism regarding the saying, “men are human doings and women are human beings”. If reproductive utility is the basis of the value of human life, then women themselves only have value based on the quantity of children they produce and those that remain barren are of no value at all. This is not my belief, this is just the logical conclusion that one arrives at by employing the reasoning of female supremacists and reproductive reductionists.

Human males and human females must be treated as human beings if they are to contribute anything to society. Like women, men are not machines. Men have personalities, emotions, hopes and dreams. Men and boys have to be raised properly, invested in, supported, nurtured and loved, to express their potential and do so in a constructive way. Dr. Warren Farrell’s book3 on the boy crisis has some good direction that. If the humanity of men is given no consideration, then their psychological and physical condition will reflect that neglect and their contribution to society will be significantly reduced or eliminated entirely. That is the flaw in treating men like they are human doings.

In some cases with abuse and neglect, male biological potential will not be reduced or eliminated, but instead be directed toward highly destructive and violent ends. If you abuse men and boys and neglect their suffering, then do not be surprised if some of them start shooting people and engaging in violent crime. That is not a justification for their actions, they are still responsible for their actions. However society is also partially responsible for such tragedies through our collective indifference toward the well-being of men and boys.

At the very least if we neglect male well-being, we get failure to launch (which is really nowhere to land), men checking out of society and an epidemic of male suicide. We all know what eventually happens if you fail to look after the general maintenance of your car. If we do not look after the basic needs of men and their general well-being and instead exploit them, then like a car that is not properly looked after, men will break down psychologically and physically. The male suicide epidemic, the falling employment and educational attainment of men, the plummeting fertility rate, the dissolution of the family and the slow and gradual social and economic implosion of Western society, is all partly the result of or entirely because we treat men as disposable and have neglected their humanity.

Exploiting men has a use by date for society, which it will either need to abandon or unlearn through unprecedented death and suffering of its own making. Failing that, natural selection itself will remove gynocentrism and male disposability from humanity, as populations that harness male potential but remember to invest and support their men, surpass populations that do not and replace them. I am not supporting social darwinism, I am just stating reality. Treating men as disposable has consequences.

Civilised society requires us to base the value human life on something beyond its simple biological utility. I am not being hyperbolic when I equate female supremacists with Nazis, because they both make the same fundamental mistake of equating the value of human life with its utility and biological characteristics. The mentally and physically disabled were exterminated with the Jews, because they were deemed by the Nazis to be biologically defective. Claiming men are biologically less valuable than women and using that to justify bigotry, leads to the gynocentric double standards we see today, and eventually given enough time it will escalate to the same outcomes as what occurred in Nazi Germany.

Gynocentrism is indefensible and just based on a different flavour of the same general bigoted logic of every other form of group supremacy in history. Like I said earlier in this article, we have numerous examples in the 20th century alone of what eventually happens to such societies and how it culminates in their decline as other countries prosper and often ends in their collapse. When you put half your population down to benefit the other half of the population, they both sink together.

Humans Are Not Mice or Microbes

As I mentioned in part one of this article, every species has a strategy to maximise its own evolutionary success by strategically investing in activities related to not just reproduction, but survival, growth and parental care (etc.) to differing degrees over their lifespan. Life history theory explains this in detail4. The species whose life history strategies prioritise reproduction, have fast life history speeds. They exhibit little parental investment, reach sexual maturity quickly and have short lifespans and put minimal investment in their own development and growth. They tend toward reproducing once (semelparity) and produce large numbers of offspring. They have relatively high mortality rates among their young and for the population in general, compared to other species with slower life history speeds. Bacteria, and many insects and small mammals like mice and rats, prioritise reproduction.

Complex lifeforms like elephants and humans have life history strategies that show a more balanced investment in survival in addition to reproduction and have slower life history speeds. They have high parental investment, mature slowly, have long lifespans and show substantial investment in their own development and growth. They tend to reproduce multiple times (iteroparity) and produce fewer numbers of offspring. They have lower mortality rates among their young and for the population in general, relative to species with fast life history speeds.

Human beings have high levels of parental investment, long intensive developmental periods and slow rates of maturation. Humans have long life spans, are iteroparous and produce relatively few offspring. We are not a species that focuses on maximising reproduction. Humans perform very poorly relative to other species when comparing rates of reproduction. Humans have a life history strategy that invests considerably in activities other than reproduction, such as survival, parental investment and development and growth. Human communities and human individuals are driven to optimise their own life history strategy, not to just simply maximise their rate of reproduction. Simply focusing on reproduction alone or overemphasising reproduction in a species like humans, leads to evolutionary failure and not evolutionary success. We are not simple microbes, insects or mice that can just rely on breeding our way to the future.

Human beings are social animals that have developed a large brain and a sophisticated culture, precisely because we are so heavily invested in activities beyond reproduction. Many of these activities are focused on maximising our own survival in often unforgiving and harsh environments that demand a more sophisticated life history strategy than simply maximising reproduction. Just pumping out babies does not cut it for humans. That is why we have civilisation and have landed on the Moon. None of that happens if the priority is reproduction and maximising the quantity of offspring. Such a life history strategy does not allow for the developmental period or the somatic effort to be long enough and great enough for a large brain to develop and make such feats possible. If our lineage evolved on the basis of maximising reproduction, we would resemble small mammals with large litters of offspring. There is a reason why mice, insects and microbes are not building rockets to go to Mars. When a species is on the track to maximise reproduction, there is little time or energy for anything else other than reproduction, aside from doing the bare minimum to subsist.

I have experience in the molecular life sciences and a general understanding of evolutionary biology. Yes I am aware of Bateman’s principle, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis etc. None of these evolutionary concepts state women are biologically more valuable than men, or that reproduction alone is the sole determining factor of evolutionary success. That is a twisted inference of evolutionary theory to justify an agenda. It is not science, it is dogma masquerading as science.


What I have described in this article could be mostly arrived at by employing common sense (which is worryingly becoming not so common), that is how simple and basic this is. I find it telling that our culture is so gynocentric that many people are blind to such obvious realities. I find it concerning that even some scientists who should know better, will actually beat a drum claiming female superiority5 because it fashionable to do so in this man-hating culture and I can cite more than one example of this. This is no better than scientists who claimed male superiority in the past and female supremacists make the same error in basing the value of human life on its utility. They cherry pick data and omit facts that do not support their narrative and make unsubstantiated and oversimplified inferences from the data, as this article discusses6.

Make no mistake, there are people with a vested interest in framing human evolution along gynocentric lines to justify their own bigotry. It is simply a matter of time before feminism switches from ignoring sex differences, to acknowledging sex differences and then twisting the science to justify their own female supremacist agenda. The manosphere needs to identify this, be prepared for the switch in strategy from feminists and be ready to address it head on when it surfaces.

It is simply a matter of time before feminism switches from ignoring sex differences, to acknowledging sex differences.

What I have described in this two part article is just the beginning of debunking the underserved worship of the golden uterus. This is just the opening salvo, there is much more to come. In closing I have provided a link7 from evolutionary biologists Dr. Bret Weinstein and Dr. Heather Heying, on why it is neither “better” to be a man or a woman from an evolutionary perspective and why neither sex is more “valuable”. I will have more to say regarding this excellent video discussing Fishers principle8 and other important evolutionary factors at a later date. For now I encourage people to watch it and am glad to see that at least some of academia has not yet been polluted with female supremacist man-hatred.

Men and women are simply two reproductive components in one reproductive system which the genome fabricates to perpetuate itself. The propagation of a lineage has nothing to do with sexual superiority and everything to do with optimising the interdependent relationship between the sexes that best propagates the genome, given the prevailing environmental conditions. Arguing female superiority in the context of genome propagation is like arguing in the superiority of your reproductive system over your circulatory system. It is a meaningless false dichotomy. It is time for society to see the forest through the trees when it comes to men and women. We are all part of a system bigger than ourselves. Astronauts call this awareness the overview effect9. It is time for humanity to grow up and move beyond these reductionist perspectives of sexual, racial and group superiority and narrow concepts of value and instead look at the big picture.

I note Dr. Robert Sapolsky from Stanford University shares a similar perspective to my own on the dangers of employing reductionist “categorical thinking”, when examining human behavioural biology and I would encourage people to watch his first lecture10 discussing that very danger (in a brilliant highly recommended lecture series on human behaviour). As he discusses, plenty of monstrous activities have occurred on the basis of bad, bigotry driven science. Female supremacists in the sciences twisting the data to push their narrative, are not an exception.

Men and women might be different, but that does not mean society shouldn’t treat men and women with equal dignity (that does not mean equality of outcome). The equal value of human life of all people regardless of race or sex, must be considered sacrosanct for civilisation to remain civil and not descend into tribalism.


  1. Wikiquote: Robert H. Jackson
  2. The Fempocalypse!!
  3. The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It
  4. Life History Theory
  5. The Natural Superiority of Women
  6. Review of Melvin Konner, Women After All: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy
  7. Sex: An Evolutionary Perspective | Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying
  8. Fisher’s principle
  9. The Overview Effect
  10. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology