Article forthcoming, June/July 2023
Photo credit Princess And The Pea – by permission of visual artist Jelena Kostic, available for purchase at https://www.saatchiart.com/jelenakostic
Many in the men’s issues community have observed pronounced hypergamous behaviors among women. While some commenters pose reasonable evolutionary hypotheses for the behavior, there may be another cause at work – narcissism.
Society’s encouragement of the sexes into quasi social classes, with men as chivalric class and women as freewheeling nobles, has generated a degree of narcissism among women in recent times. Acquired Situational Narcissism is a psychological state arising with acquired status, as in the examples of academic experts, politicians, pop singers, actors – and in this case women who, in modern society, are taught that they possess high worth, dignity, value, purity, status, esteem and reputation simply for being women. This psychological disposition works to multiply the effect of hypergamy beyond what evolutionary models would require.
Among high narcissistic individuals, studies have found higher incidence of hypergamous behavior, indicating that hypergamy is not unleashed by a culture of sexual liberation alone; it may also be the result of an acquired social class narcissism that says “I deserve.”
Excerpts from narcissism studies:
A third strand of evidence concerns narcissists’ relationship choices. Because humans are a social species, relationship choices are an important feature of situation selection. Narcissists are more likely to choose relationships that elevate their status over relationships that cultivate affiliation. For example, narcissists are keener on gaining new partners than on establishing close relationships with existing ones (Wurst et al., 2017). They often demonstrate an increased preference for high-status friends (Jonason & Schmitt, 2012) and trophy partners (Campbell, 1999), perhaps because they can bask in the reflected glory of these people. In sum, narcissists are more likely to select social environments that allow them to display their performances publicly, ideally in competition with others. These settings are potentially more accepting and reinforcing of narcissistic status strivings.
[Source: The “Why” and “How” of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit]
Consistent with the self-orientation model, Study 5 provided an empirical demonstration of the mediational role of self enhancement in narcissists’ preference for perfect rather than caring romantic partners. Furthermore, these potential romantic partners were more likely to be seen as a source of self-esteem to the extent that they provided the narcissist with a sense of popularity and importance (i.e., social status). Narcissists’ preference for romantic partners reflects a strategy for interpersonal self-esteem regulation. Narcissists also were attracted to self-oriented romantic partners to the extent that these others were viewed as similar. The mediational roles of self-enhancement and similarity were independent. That is, narcissists’ romantic preferences were driven both by a desire to gain self-esteem and a desire to associate with similar others.
Narcissism has been linked with the materialistic pursuit of wealth and symbols that convey high status (Kasser, 2002; Rose, 2007). This quest for status extends to relationship partners. Narcissists seek romantic partners who offer self- enhancement value either as sources of fawning admiration, or as human trophies (e.g., by possessing impressive wealth or exceptional physical beauty) (Campbell, 1999; Tanchotsrinon, Maneesri, & Campbell, 2007)
Source: The Handbook of Narcissism And Narcissistic Personality Disorders
Dozens more quotations could be added, however the point is obvious: self-enhancement strategies of both narcissism and hypergamy share overlapping features.
The rise of narcissistic behavior in women is receiving increased attention from academia in recent years, particularly with the addition of new variants to the lexicon such as communal narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism, which are considered female dominated modes of expressing narcissism.
*Note: A more in-depth survey of narcissism variants among women, and their implications, will be published in the forthcoming New Male Studies mid-year (2023).
Transmaxxing is a relatively new term referring to men who transition gender (MtF) in order to obtain personal, social and legal benefits associated with being female. Said differently, the transmaxxer transitions to female status, and not to recognizing a sense of female selfhood as is the case with transwomen.
The phenomenon appeared many years before the term was coined, and while it has recently gained some interest in the incel community, its application is far broader than that. It involves a decision to identify as a female regardless of this being contrary to one’s usual sense-of-self.
The Urban Dictionary defines transmaxxing simply as, “Transitioning from male to female for personal gain.”
Based on this broad definition we will conclude the following: 1. that transmaxxing cannot be reduced to an incel activity, nor to a proclivity of gay men as some have proposed, nor to any other single demographic. 2. It never or rarely applies to cases of female-to-male transition which are considered to involve minimal gain. 3. Transmaxxing isn’t based on the clichéd explanation that the individual is “a female trapped inside a man’s body,” nor that he “has always felt like a woman.” 4. The only premise of transmaxxing is the undergoing of a MtF transition for the sake of securing a range of benefits associated with female identification.
So lets look at some of those benefits.
Some recent online discussions have cited the following benefits belonging exclusively to the female sex, and also by legal extension to transmaxxers:
SAMPLE OF BENEFITS
Transmaxxers don’t need to wear lipstick, put on a dress or engage in other performative gestures we might typically associate with transwomen (although some may choose to take these extra steps). Further, transmaxxer identification doesnt even require a renunciation of traits referred to as masculine. At minimum, all it requires is a technical change of gender either on a legal paper, or in some countries by verbal statement, and numerous aspects of female privilege become available for the transmaxxer’s enjoyment.
While the change of gender may appear cynical or inauthentic, we can say that transmaxxers may genuinely identify with an internal sense of privilege, esteem, status, deservingness, dignity, worth, purity, beauty and social value that we euphemistically call “feminine.” The degree to which a transmaxxer genuinely identifies with these “feminine” things, such femininity is integral to his sense of self.
Addendum: The primary difference between a transwoman and transmaxxer needs to be differentiated, as there seems to be some confusion on this point. Transwomen organically feel & desire female identification, with negligeable desire to identify as male. Whereas MtF transmaxxers tend to identify as male or gender dysphoric, without an organic desire to identify as a woman. This can be summarized as follows:
The following articles define the tradwife along with other relationship templates:
Having touched briefly on tradwives in the past, I though it was time to pen some matured thoughts on the subject – in particular the thought that there are actually two very different models of the tradwife.
The oldest, best, but apparently least appreciated kind of tradwife is the one who brings value to the table for men looking to pairbond or start a family with a woman – I’ll refer to her loosely as Tradwife-1. The other more popular conceptualization of a tradwife amounts to a shallow and performative grifter who spies an easy ride on some poor man’s goodwill and labor, whom I’ll refer to as Tradwife-2.
Tradwife-1 mirrors a pre Victorian-era model consisting of non-gynocentric forms of traditionalism. It advocates a mixture of separate gender roles mixed in with a significant amount of role-sharing as might have been seen on a traditional farm, homestead or ‘cottage industry’ of pre-industrialized Britain or United States. This model assumes a commensurate valuing, interpersonal devotion, and labor contribution from both husband and wife.
Tradwife-2 is different, and aligns more with the post Victorian-era model of family. She is promoted by advocates of a traditional gynocentrism which reached its apogee in the 1950’s housewife, and her needs, wants and comforts are generally prioritized over those of her husband. In this model, men and women are called to adhere to strict gender roles with husband functioning as symbolic ‘head of household’ who protects the wife and labors to earn all the money, while she makes babies, apple pies, keeps the house clean.
The model for the tradwife-2 is what many people refer to as the ‘two-spheres doctrine’ in which men and women are apportioned sovereignty over different realms – he over the political and labor realms, and she over the domestic and social realms. For the red pilled audience, this version of the tradwife sometimes appears as a parasite in an apron while contributing very little to the relationship, especially in the era of electrification and white goods.
These two tradwives are the traditional alternatives to feminist-inspired relationships. For men who can’t see value in older models, however, and who gravitate toward what Warren Farrell calls a “gender transition movement,” there’s a newer kind of a female companion we will refer to as the modwife.
Farrell’s proposed gender transition movement, and implied concept of a modwife, refers to greater role-sharing among men and women than has traditionally been the case. Farrell proposes, for example, that women may wish to contribute more labor and more income so that “neither sex is expected to pay more than half the income,”1 and that men may wish to spend more time with family so that “both sexes raise the children.” He states,
“Taking what had worked for most women traditionally and seeing it as a plot against them led us to see men as “owing” women. This created Stage II entitlement: women being entitled to compensation for past oppression. This prevented us from seeing the need to make a transition from Stage I to Stage II together : the need not for a women’s movement or a men’s movement, but for a gender transition movement.”1
He further adds,
“A gender transition movement will be the longest of all movements because it is not proposing merely to integrate blacks or Latinos into a system that already exists; rather, it is proposing an evolutionary shift in the system itself—an end to “woman-the-protected” and “man-the-protector.”2
Farrell’s proposed transition movement involves stages of a grand historical process, which are simplified as follows:
By this process modwives are born, whom I’ve referred to elsewhere as women who have embraced multi-option lives over more traditional roles, and who accept or encourage multi-option lives for their male partners. While containing the word ‘wife,’ the term modwife applies equally to non-married women who follow the principles being outlined here… so there’s no need to worry, men; this is not a Petersonian advert for marriage.
‘Modwife’ was coined as an alternative to the popular trend in tradwives outlined above. Both the tradwife and modwife eschew feminist prescriptions for relationships because they are geared toward female domination of men and not to partnerships based on reciprocal labor, value and devotion. A distaste for feminism, however, is where the similarities between tradwife and modwife end.
The unlikelihood that modern women will embrace tradwife roles of yesteryear with any consistent or genuine commitment underpins attraction to the modwife option. Thus, for a best-case scenario today’s multi-option women can support their male partners to embrace multi-option lives also. The modwife’s modus operandi is based on personal liberty within relationships, extending a freedom of opportunity to her partner such as society has championed for her.
Yet few multi-option women today are willing to extend such multi-option liberty to men, preferring instead to pocket the advantages extended by women’s ‘liberation’ while expecting their boyfriends and husbands to remain in the mismatched role of protector and provider. There are women however, very limited in number as they are, who lean toward the model of commensurate liberty for both men and women in relationships — some of them will be recognized among the supporters of the men’s rights movement.
That libertarian spirit is understood as belonging to the political sphere, but it is accepted by the modwife as a guiding principle in her relationship with men. It emphasizes individual choice, relative autonomy, voluntary association, individual judgement, free will, self-determination, and free labor-sharing arrangements and agreements. In a word; freedom. Is this a rare stance among women? Absolutely yes, but they may exist for the man who is discerning, patient, and willing to hold fast to his values.
To summarize, the more shallow version of the tradwife is gaining popularity among traditional conservatives who have little appreciation for, nor awareness of the older, pre-Victorian models for same. Alternatively we have the shaky concept of the modwife touched on by Farrell, myself and others which may be a viable alternative but such women are currently as rare as spotting a unicorn in the forest. These templates offer ways of navigating the available relationship territory, and as always the choice to explore them, or abstain completely remains yours.
 Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power
 Warren Farrell, ‘Toward A Gender Transition Movement,’ in Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?
The following excepts are from The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. The chapter (23), written by Adam J. Goldwyn is titled ‘Byzantium in the American Alt-Right Imagination: Paradigms of the Medieval Greek Past Among Men’s Rights Activists and White Supremacists.’
Despite this over-the-top title insinuating that all men’s issues groups are “alt-right” (a false claim) and that they are somehow aligned with “white supremacists” (also a false association), Adam has nevertheless utilized some valid source material for his critique of the theory that cultural gynocentrism emerged during the Middle Ages, and has presented it with some fidelity. I have limited the following excerpts to the author’s critique of material on this website – gynocentrism.com. At the Notes section at bottom, I provide a few corrections to the author’s comments.
The most detailed articulation of MRA views of the Middle Ages can be found in the work of Peter Wright, whose website gynocentrism.com exemplifies these trends of men’s gender based subjugation to women and the development of specialised pseudo-jargon for describing it.a Indeed, its tagline, “Gynocentric culture was born in the Middle Ages with the practices of romantic chivalry and courtly love. It continues today relatively unchanged,”12 with its Greco Latinate title, reflects the importance of specialised pseudo-academic language to the formation of MRA ideology, while also providing the Middle Ages as the moment for the rise of this new system of male oppression.13
Wright’s “timeline of gynocentric culture” centres the medieval romance in this narrative of historical development. He begins by arguing that “Prior to 1200 AD broadspread gynocentric culture simply did not exist, despite evidence of isolated gynocentric acts and events. It was only in the Middle Ages that gynocentrism developed cultural complexity and became a ubiquitous enduring cultural norm.”14 Indeed, Wright identifies 1102 as the year when “Gynocentrism meme first introduced,” ascribing the fault to William II of Aquitaine, who, in addition to writing troubadour poetry, “part[ed] with the tradition of fighting wars strictly on behalf of man, king, God and country,” as exemplified by his having “the image of his mistress painted on his shield.”15
The second entry in the timeline comes in 1152, when William’s granddaughter Eleanor of Aquitaine began to “utilise poetry and song for setting expectations of how men should act around them, thus was born the attitude of romantic chivalry promoting the idea that men need to devote themselves to serving the honour, purity and dignity of women.”16 Thus, medieval romance becomes the vehicle by which gynocentric values were spread. Other dates in the timeline also suggest the centrality of the medieval romance: Wright specifies 1180, when Marie de Champagne directs Chretien de Troyes to write “a love story about Lancelot and Guinevere elaborating the nature of gynocentric chivalry” and the 1188 publication of Andreas Capellanus’s The Art of Courtly Love as moments of particular importance.17 The twelfth-century origins of gynocracy from within the genre of the romance is also important for MRA use of Byzantine literature since the twelfth century saw a similar revival of romance writing in Constantinople.18
For Men’s Rights Activists, the past is not a thing that merits dispassionate study for its own sake; rather, its value lies in how their interpretation of it can reveal the ways in which society continues to empower women at the expense of men. Thus, the timeline’s concluding entry, “21st century: Gynocentrism continues,” makes explicit the connection between the deep history of gynocentrism and the influence of the medieval romance on contemporary society:
The modern feminist movement has rejected some chivalric customs such as opening car doors or giving up a seat ?n a bus for women; however, they continue to rely on ‘the spirit of chivalry’ to attain new privileges for women: opening car doors has become opening doors into university or employment via affirmative action; and giving up seats on busses has become giving up seats in boardrooms and political parties via quotas. Despite the varied goals, contemporary gynocentrism remains a project for maintaining and increasing women’s power with the assistance of chivalry.19
In addition to giving examples of how the underlying principles of medieval chivalry manifest themselves in modern culture, Wright’s conflation of feminism with the Civil Rights movement is also a standard tactic in MRA rhetoric. Donna Zuckerberg refers to the transference of racial discourse to gender discourse as “the appropriative bait-and-switch” by which MRA members “appropriate to disastrous effect a topic that is about race and the legacy of slavery and use it to support an ideology that allows white men to restrict women’s reproductive freedom by limiting access to abortion and birth control.”20 Thus, in this instance, a historically informed reading would acknowledge that affirmative action and ending restrictions on bus seating were not policies rooted in gender; rather, they were policies of racial desegregation. The language of civil rights is thus turned to the empowerment of MRA.
In “The Birth of Chivalric Love,” for instance, Peter Wright defines several key terms, each of which has its own modern parallel. “Damseling,” for instance, “is a popular shorthand for women’s projection of themselves as damsels in distress. [ … W]omen have been taught from generation to generation to mimic juvenile characteristics via the use of makeup and vocal intonations, along with a feigning of distress typical of children–which collectively works to extract utility of men.”22 Having laid out the historical roots of damseling in the Middle Ages and in the medieval romance, Wright applies this paradigm to contemporary politics in a post entitled “Damseling, chivalry and courtly love (part two).”23
Arguing that damseling has “been referred to as grievance feminism, victim feminism, and even fainting-couch feminism,” Wright offers the contemporary example of Anita Sarkeesian, who urged that game designers diversify the kinds of characters and plot arcs available to female characters in video games, concluding that “Sarkeesian’s case is particularly poignant because, from the many subjects she could have highlighted to damsel herself for attention, she chose to damsel herself over the very existence of damsels. This demonstrates that even when disavowing the medieval pageant of damsels in distress, feminists continue to enact it even while obfuscating their complicity in the tradition.”24 Thus, the medieval archetype of the damsel in distress becomes redefined in a way that actually gives the woman agency over the men in the medieval romance, and this then becomes the paradigm for modern ways of considering gendered power dynamics.
Similarly, Wright argues that “Courtly Ladies (= Feminists). Feminists today refer to courtly ladies of the late Middle Ages as the first feminists.”25 Having redefined a commonly understood medieval concept with a counterintuitive new definition, Wright then goes on to make the connection between medieval and modern: “Not surprisingly this was the time [12th to 14th centuries] when powerful women were able to establish the female-headed “courts of love” which acted in a comparable way to today’s Family Courts in that both arbitrated disputes between couples.”26 The family court, as an institution in which women’s parental rights and bodily and economic autonomy are sometimes guaranteed by the force of the state, is a frequent target of Men’s Rights Activism. Parallel to the concept of the Courtly Lady as feminist is the Troubadour, further subdivided into Troubadour 1 and Troubadour 2. Troubadour 1 is a “PUA [pick-up artist] and Game promoter [ … whose] job was to spread the word about the virtues of chivalric love through music, song, poetry, and storytelling.”27
MRAs oppose this type of troubadour because, even though their behaviour is insincere in that they only perform chivalry as a way to “gain sex,” they nevertheless support the intellectual underpinnings of chivalry and thus gynocentrism.28 Troubadour 2 is defined as “Protofeminist Men Sometimes derogatorily named ‘manginas’. Troubadour 2 is a sincere believer in chivalric love, unlike Troubadour 1, who uses the rhetoric of chivalry only to advance his own ends. Thus, where Troubadour 1 and Troubadour 2 have the same function in supporting chivalry, Troubadour 2 is a figure of greater scorn insofar as he voluntarily submits to this system: “Think of today’s version being the typical protofeminist men who work slavishly to pass on the message of their feminist superiors, much as these troubadours slaved to advocate the narcissistic idiosyncrasies of their Ladies.”29
None of these figures is the subject of as much derision as the “White Knight,” whom Wright defines as “such heroic individuals, men who are gallant in so many ways, but mostly the wrong ways such as showing-off to undeserving women and concomitantly delighting in competing with and hurting other men.”30 Wright exemplifies this concept by comparing the ‘?nterprise of the Green Shield with the White Lady … a chivalric order founded by Jean le Maingre and twelve knights in 1399 committing themselves to the protection of women” with the contemporary “White Ribbon Campaign in which male ‘ambassadors’ pledge an oath to all of womanhood to never condone, excuse or remain silent about violence against women, and to intervene and take action against any man accused of wrongdoing against a woman.”31
Wright here suggests that men who willingly submit to women are foolish and contemptible: these men abandon their own agency, believe all women who claim they have been the subject of violence, and, as importantly, pledge to fight other men. Such groups thus endanger men’s rights both by subordinating men to women and by acting violently against other men. This is particularly wrongheaded in that MRA ideology suggests that it is in fact men, not women, who are the object of gender-based violence and that men should never do harm to other men for the sake of women. From this, Wright again suggests the continuity between medieval and modern ideas of gynocracy: “The similarities in these gallant missions make clear that the lineage of white knights has progressed seamlessly into the modern era.”32 Taken together, these (and the many other instances of medieval redefinition) create a shared in-group idiolect that allows men to analyse both literary texts and contemporary behaviour.
12 “Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins,” accessed August 20, 2019, www.gynocentrism.com/.
13 Zuckerberg notes that the “misuse of the language of scholarly interpretation” is also a key feature of MRA rhetoric (Dead White Men, 43).
14 Peter Wright, “Timeline of Gynocentric Culture,” October 11, 2013, accessed August 20, 2019, https://gynocentrism.com/2013/10/11/timeline-of-gynocentric-culture/. As a demonstration of the way that these ideas migrate around the manosphere, this timeline was also posted to avoiceformen.com, perhaps the main MRA site, accessed August 20, 2019, https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/timeline-of-gynocentric-culture/.
15 For the significance of the figure of the troubadour to MRA thought, see below.
16 Wright, “Timeline of Gynocentric Culture.”
17 Wright, “Timeline of Gynocentric Culture,” also suggests, without any evidence, that “Chretien de Troyes abandoned this project before it was completed because he objected to the implicit approval of the adulterous affair between Lancelot and Guinevere that Marie had directed him to write.”
18 Though the contextual nuances of the rise of romance writing and the classification of various texts within the Byzantine revival are subjects of much debate, the broad contours of the field as outlined in seminal work ?n the subject, Roderick Beaton’s The Medieval Greek Romance (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), remain largely intact. The revival is broken down into roughly two periods: those of the twelfth century produced under the Komnenian dynasty in the twelfth century and hence called the Komnenian novels and those published under the Palaiologan dynasty from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. For translations of the three extant Komnenian novels, see Elizabeth Jeffreys, Four Byzantine Novels: Theodore Prodromos, Rhodanthe and Dosikles; Eumathios Makrembolites, Hysrnine and Hysminias; Constantine Manasses, A?standros and Kallithea; Niketas Eugenianos, Drosilla and Charikles (Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2012). For translations of three of the Palaiologan romances, see Gavin Betts, Three Byzantine Novels (London: Roudedge, 2019) and, more recently, Kostas Yiavis, Imperios and Margarona: Rhymed Version (Athens: Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, 2019). For a recent scholarly overview of the Palaiologan romances, see Adam Goldwyn and Ingela Nilsson, eds., Reading the Late Byzantine Romance: ? Handbook (Cambridge: CUP, 2019).
19 For Zuckerberg’s broader analysis of this as it relates to the appropriation of race, gender, and classical literature, see Zuckerberg, Dead White Men, 42.
20 Zuckerberg, Dead White Men, 41.
21 Adam Kostakis, “Pig Latin,” May 24, 2014, accessed August 20, 2010, https://gynocentrism.com/2014/05/24/pig-latin/. For “frame theory” or “frame control” as an MRA rhetorical strategy, see Zuckerberg, Dead White Men, 39.
22 Peter Wright, “Damseling, Chivalry and Courtly Love (Part One),” July 3, 2016, accessed August 20,
23 Wright, “Damseling (Part Two).“
24 Wright, “Damseling (Part Two).“
25 Peter Wright, “The Birth of Chivalric Love,” July 14, 2013, accessed August 20, 2020, https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/.
26 Wright, “Birth of Chivalric Love.”
27 Wright, “Birth of Chivalric Love.”
28 For which, see Zuckerberg, Dead White Men, 2018, in which she notes that “Members of the men’s rights movement see pickup artists as participating in and contributing to gynocentrism; by placing so much value ?n women as sex objects, they inadvertently afford women power over them. Pickup artists, meanwhile, believe that sexual success is a key element of being a true alpha male, and they believe those in the men’s rights movement channel their sexual frustration into social activism because they are unable to convince women to have sex with them” (17).
29 Wright, “Birth of Chivalric Love.”
30 Wright, “Birth of Chivalric Love.” “Gallantry” is another term of derision drawn from the Middle Ages to function in the present: gallantry is derided as a form of male acquiescence to gynocracy through which it lost its militaristic connotations and became associated with indulgent behavior towards women.
31 Wright, “Birth of Chivalric Love.”
32 Wright, “Birth of Chivalric Love.”
Paragraph 1. The author makes a claim that I use “pseudo jargon” and offers as the only example a google search byline: “Gynocentric culture was born in the Middle Ages with the practices of romantic chivalry and courtly love. It continues today relatively unchanged.”
The words used here, such as ‘chivalry’ and ‘courtly love,’ hardly amount to pseudo jargon, nor does the proposition that courtly love entails a degree of pedestalization of women – a practice that can be fairly referred to as gynocentric. The only other word cited as pseudo jargon is “damseling” which is shorthand for the universally recognized trope of the “Damsel in distress” – which again hardly amounts to difficult, or esoteric pseudo jargon. I will leave it to the author to clarify whether there are more troublesome words that he didn’t mention in his critique, or perhaps by ‘pseudo jargon’ he is referring to common parlance unfamiliar in academic fields such as his own which are infected with gender-studies jargon?
Paragraph 3. Quote: “For Men’s Rights Activists, the past is not a thing that merits dispassionate study for its own sake; rather, its value lies in how their interpretation of it can reveal the ways in which society continues to empower women at the expense of men.” Could not the preceding charge be made of the feminist lens which has, over the last 50 years, completely dominated most academic readings of history? If the answer is reasonably a yes, then a dispassionate emphasis on the gynocentric facets of historical writings & societies is a necessary step to balance the academic ledger.
Paragraph 4. Quote: “In addition to giving examples of how the underlying principles of medieval chivalry manifest themselves in modern culture, Wright’s conflation of feminism with the Civil Rights movement is also a standard tactic in MRA rhetoric…” I’m not aware that I have done this anywhere on this website nor in my published books, and in fact don’t remember using the phrase “civil rights movement” in relation to feminism anywhere. This charge appears to be a completely fabricated one, as applied to my work. Not to put too fine a line on this topic I have, nevertheless, lost count of the thousands of feminists (both obscure and prominent) who do compare the feminist movement with the civil rights movement for African Americans – and I could provide an extremely long list of citations for same.
The author continues, quote: “Thus, in this instance, a historically informed reading would acknowledge that affirmative action and ending restrictions ?n bus seating were not policies rooted in gender; rather, they were policies of racial desegregation.” Again, the ‘bait-and-switch’ appears to be the author’s own, substituting a bizarre strawman in place of proper analysis of the written word. Perhaps the author can enlighten about which offending text he is referring to.
Footnote 17. Quote: Wright, “Timeline of Gynocentric Culture,” also suggests, without any evidence, that “Chretien de Troyes abandoned this project before it was completed because he objected to the implicit approval of the adulterous affair between Lancelot and Guinevere that Marie had directed him to write.” – The source for this sentence was and remains hyperlinked in the original paragraph on gynocentrism.com (from its first publication date in October 2013). The sentence source is the Wikipedia article on Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart which reads in part, “Marie de Champagne was well known for her interest in affairs of courtly love, and is believed to have suggested the inclusion of this theme into the story. For this reason, it is said that Chrétien could not finish the story himself because he did not support the adulterous themes.” [Wikipedia citation for this claim is: Uitti, Karl D. (1995). Chrétien de Troyes Revisited. New York, New York: Twayne Publishers. ISBN 0-8057-4307-3.].
*Errors like those detailed above are extremely common in gender-studies informed writers – writers who rush to the apriori goal of establishing non-feminist approaches to literature as a bogeyman. That said, Adam Goldwyn’s above piece, while carrying several flawed assumptions, provides a superior effort to that of Christa Hoddap whose book on men’s issues literature titled Men’s Rights, Gender, and Social Media is saturated with transliteration errors, errors of attribution (sloppily ascribing several texts to the wrong authors), citing of debunked and out-of-date assumptions from gender-studies writers, and ultimately offering conclusions that reaffirm misandric feminist fantasies about non-feminist, male-focused writings. In her favor Hodapp does, like Goldwyn, isolate some representative sources of literature to analyze (as compared with the standard feminist practice of citing unrepresentative, extreme, outlier texts) even as her conclusions amount to hyperbolic misrepresentations for the most part. I will provide a short review of Hodapp’s book in future, if time allows.
The following is a sampling of men’s human rights initiatives constituting the early men’s rights movement, a list that could be easily expanded into thousands of initiatives by the diligent researcher. Bear in mind that although we are talking of a single men’s movement, it is more accurately defined as the aggregate of separate initiatives in the same manner as separate feminist initiatives are spoken of as one movement:
1810 A network of meeting places under the collective name ‘Henpeck’d Husbands Club’ are established for men who were enduring abusive behavior from wives. The club set up dozens of chapters across Britain and in Europe, which offered support and advice for men enduring emotional or physical abuse.
1856 A long newspaper article entitled A Word for Men’s Rights is published in Putnam’s Monthly, which discusses sexist laws that oppressed men and benefited women, including the practice of frivolous, unjustified lawsuits for supposed breach of marriage promise.
1857 A Mr. Todd proposes a “Men’s Rights Conference” be held in response to exaggerations of the women’s rights movement.
1875 Article entitled Women’s and Men’s Rights appeared in the 1875 volume Historic and literary miscellany by G.M.D. Bloss
1886 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, writes his first major commentary on gynocentrism and misandry, ‘Some Bourgeois Idols; Or Ideals, Reals, and Shams.’
1890s New York Alimony Club (informal)
1896 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, co-authors book, The Legal Subjection of Men (Twentieth Century Press).
1896 Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band, Atlanta Georgia. Formed to fight against a national campaign headed by activist Charlotte Smith (Women’s Rescue League) to promote a tax on bachelors. Another, similar effort was made by the Hoboken Bachelor’s Club in Hoboken, New Jersey.
1898 League for Men’s Rights formed by Mr. William Austin in London. The movement is reported in newspapers of the time as a “Men’s Rights Movement”.
1908 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, republishes his 1896 book, The Legal Subjection of Men (New Age Press)
1911 Anti-Alimony Association, New York
1912 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, writes a landmark book ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ in which he called feminism a fraud and discussed “female privilege”
1912 Anti-alimony leader: George Esterling – Denver, Colorado
1925 Samuel Reid, “Alimony Sam,” the “alimony martyr” of California
1926 Men’s Rights organizations formed Bund für Männerrechte, Vienna, founded by Sigurd von Hoeberth (Höberth) and Leopold Kornblüh in March 1926. In January 1927 the Bund split into two organizations circa: Aequitas (Hoeberth), Justicia (Kornblueh); journal “Self-Defense”
1926 Themisverbandes (Men’s Rights organization for female members, Sigurd Höberth von Schwarzthal). The founding of this organization led to a schism in Bund January
1927 Aequitas Weltbund für Männerrechte (Aequitas Word Federation for Men’s Rights) (international), Vienna, following a schism in Bund für Männerrechte (Federation for Men’s Rights). This was Sigurd Hoeberth’s new organization for men’s rights which welcomed female members.
1927 Justitia Verein für Männer und Familienrecht (Justitia Society for Men’s Rights and Family Rights), Vienna, founded by Leopold Kornblüh following a schism in Bund für Männerrechte (Federation for Men’s Rights). This group did not allow female members.
1927 Alimony Club of Illinois, Society of Disgruntled Alimony Payers, Chicago, founded by Dr. Vernon B. Cooley and second wife, Mrs. Bessie Cooley
1927 Alimony Payers Protective Association, led by Robert Gilbert Ecob
1927 Milwaukee Alimony Club, Wisconsin
1927 Fifty-Fifty League, London; manifesto “The Sex War”
1928 Tibet Men’s Rights organization (name of org. unknown), founded by Amouki
1929 ‘World’s League for the Rights of Men’ formed in the UK, advocating for male issues, and holding an anti-“ultra-feminist” stance. The League had chapters in Vienna, Berlin, Munich, and other Continental centres.
1930 D. A. M. Association, Kansas City, Missouri, founded by French L. Nelson
1930 National Sociological League, Dr. Alexander Dallek, executive secretary
1931 Organization “The Modern Men’s Rights Movement” (formation date unknown) publishes broadsheet, The Gauntlet outlining goals for gender equality and “emancipation of man from feminist domination.”
1932 Alimony Club of New York County (Adolph Wodiska) (cited Jan. 9, 1932)
1932 Ohio Alimony Association, Cleveland
1933 National Divorce Reform League, Theodore Apstein (cited Feb. 14, 1933)
1933 “Men’s rights” org ‘1933 Men’s Association’ started by lieutenant colonel R. A. Broughton, England
1935 Alimony Reform League, New York
1948 Society for Men’s Rights forms to address various forms of social and legal discrimination against men, London.
1948 Men’s rights magazine ‘Men’s Review’ launched in England, with at least two consecutive volumes circulated across the country.
1960 Divorce Racket Busters (incorporated 1961 as U.S.A. Divorce Reform, Inc.) – California – Reuben Kidd. This initiative continued to operate into the late 1960’s.
Feature image: Ernest Belfort Bax.
Gamma bias refers to a cognitive gender bias theory developed by Seager & Barry (2019).1
Gamma bias refers to the operation of two concurrent biases: alpha bias (exaggerating or magnifying gender differences) and beta bias (ignoring or minimizing gender differences). Gamma bias occurs when one gender difference is minimized while simultaneously another is magnified, resulting in a doubling of cognitive distortion.2
Seager & Barry state that gamma bias works by magnifying women’s issues and achievements and minimizing men’s issues and achievements. Alternatively, the dynamic is reversed and employed to minimize negative female traits and behaviors, while magnifying or exaggerating negative male traits or behaviors.
Theories on the purpose of gamma bias
Hypotheses regarding the growth of gamma bias and the disfavoring of males include evolutionary pressures for males to protect and provide for women which involves a reluctance to view men as vulnerable. Alternatively there is the sociological explanation of ‘ingroup’ and ‘outgroup’ bias which may have developed around men and women in the form of social conventions.1
A more detailed explanation is provided by gynocentrism theory3 which posits the genesis of gamma bias in medieval Europe where feudal class distinctions between lords and vassals were re-applied to men and women. The application of such class distinctions led C.S. Lewis to refer to it as “the feudalisation of love,” making the observation that this sociological development “has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched.”
Lewis explains that European society drifted essentially from a social feudalism to a sexual feudalism, fostering a convention of male chivalry in service to elevated Ladies of aristocratic society — a convention that moved by degrees, over time, to be embraced by all classes of people. The psychological operations supporting the ‘feudalization of love’ are numerous and involve gamma bias, male gender blindness, and misandry to name a few. The internal operations result in a gender empathy gap which reinforces the root medieval trope.
 Seager, M., Barry, J.A. (2019). Cognitive Distortion in Thinking About Gender Issues: Gamma Bias and the Gender Distortion Matrix. In: Barry, J., Kingerlee, R., Seager, M., Sullivan, L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health. Palgrave Macmillan
 John Barry & Martin Seager, Can we discuss gender issues rationally? Yes, if we can stop gamma bias
 Wright, Peter. Gynocentrism As A Narcissistic Pathology. New Male Studies 9, no. 1 (2020).
Process philosophy understands the universe and human systems as ‘continually becoming.’ It emphasizes the elements of change and novelty as contrasted with a belief in permanence of forms, and uniformity. In the Greek tradition Heraclitus said that no person ever steps into the same river twice, because on the second attempt it is not the same river and he is not the same man.
Vaginoplasty, womb transplants, hormone blockers, hormone injections. These things represent the crowning achievement of cultural feminism, creating a kind of unforeseen gyno-dystopia resulting from the elevation of all things female. That same feminism exerts a gravitational pull that tends to filter all human events through its interpretive lens.
Many women show their participation in the feminist worldview via postures of gendered narcissism, while men might show their participation in it by acts of chivalry or, more recently, by initiating changes to their sexual and gender orientation (MtF) in order to become more like women.
Gynocentric feminism is the soil from which the transgender revolution has sprouted, and it represents nothing less than a dissolution of centuries of accumulated gender customs. As Simone de Beauvoir famously stated, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature.”
To explore the outcome of this thinking a bit further, I’lI start with a quote from the brilliant Darren J. Beattie from Revolver News:
It used to be that getting a high SAT score and getting into an elite college was the greatest path to social mobility in the United States— Darren J. Beattie ? (@DarrenJBeattie) August 26, 2022
Now, it is becoming m to f trans
I think Darren’s comment is important in that it emphasizes the historical tilt toward MtF orientation as holding higher currency than FtM – particularly in the USA. That remains the case, although a more recent behavioral anomaly among teenage girls is falsely skewing the data. This representative sample from the 2021 Canadian Census tells the story:
From this table we see that this statistical anomaly results from a fad among many of the 15 – 24 age group; something to ‘try on,’ especially among teen girls. Above this age bracket, trans-identification appears contingent on an internal sense of self as transgender. After age 29, all age brackets have more MtF which supports the theory that there are different motivations, and levels of psychological authenticity, per age group. I will note in passing that many parents are noticing peer pressure to transition among the younger age groups of girls, as one Mumsnet mother testifies:
The mother of an 11-year-old girl tells Mumsnet that her daughter is feeling ostracised because she is one of the few girls in her class who doesn't say she is transgender. Several of the replies are mothers saying they are experiencing this with their daughters as well pic.twitter.com/BFrWi3StTy— ripx4nutmeg (@ripx4nutmeg) August 23, 2022
Aside from the teenage anomaly, gynocentrism remains a predominant motivator for transgender choice in the European and Anglosphere contents, especially in the USA which has for centuries been a champion of more extreme forms of gynocentrism, as demonstrated by the following prima facie observations:
In 1846 a London Sun article describes American culture as an epicenter of exaggerated gynocentrism & chivalry:
I am convinced that a lady, no matter what her age and attractions might be, could journey through the whole extent of the union, not only without experiencing a single annoyance, but aided in every possible way with unobtrusive civility. Indeed a great number of Saphonisbas and Almiras do travel about, protected only by the chivalry of their countrymen and their own undoubted propriety.
To them the best seats, the best of everything, are always allotted. A friend of mine told me of a little affair at New York Theatre, the other night, illustrative of my assertion. A stiff-necked Englishman had engaged a front place, and of course the best corner: when the curtain rose, he was duly seated, opera-glass in hand, to enjoy the performance. A lady and a gentleman came into the box shortly afterwards; the cavalier in escort, seeing that the place where our friend sat was the best, calling his attention, saying “The lady, sir,” and motioned that the corner should be vacated. The possessor, partly because he disliked the imperative mood, and partly because it bored him to be disturbed, refused. Some words ensued, which attracted the attention of the sovereign people in the pit, who magisterially enquired what was the matter?
The American came to the front of the box and said, “There is an Englishman here who will not give up his place to a lady.” Immediately their majesties swarmed up by dozens over the barriers, seized the offender, very gently though, and carried him to the entrance; he kicked, cursed, and fought all in vain: he excited neither the pity nor the anger of his stern executioners; they placed him carefully on his feet again at the steps, one man handing him his hat, another his opera glass, and a third the price he had paid for his ticket of admission, then quickly shut the door upon him, and returned to their places. The shade of the departed Judge Lynch must have rejoiced at such an angelic administration of his law! – England in the New World.
In 1856, author of Putnam’s Monthly Magazine published the following summary of the relations between men and women in America:
“Long before the cry of woman’s rights was openly raised, the powers and prerogatives of the American husband had been gradually undermined. Usage superseded law, and trampled it under foot. Sentiment put logical consistency at defiance, and the American husband has thus become a legal monster, a logical impossibility, required to fly without wings, and to run without feet.
“While the wife is thus rendered to a great extent independent of her husband, he, by a strange inconsistency is still held, both by law and public opinion, just as responsible for her as before. The old and reasonable maxim that ‘he who dances must pay the piper,’ does not apply to wives—they dance, and the husband pays. To such an extent is this carried, that if the wife beats her husband, and he, having no authority to punish her in kind, applies to the criminal courts for redress, she will be fined for assault and battery, which fine he must pay, even thought she has plenty of money of her own. or, in default of paying, go to jail! Such cases are by no means of unprecedented occurrence in our criminal courts.
In 1903 culture critic Max O’Rell observed the following about gynocentrism in the USA:
“The government of the American people is not a Republic, it is not a monarchy: it is a gynarchy, a government by the women for the women, a sort of occult power behind the scenes that rules the country.”
Price Collier observed in 1909:
In England the establishment is, as a rule, at any rate from a man’s point of view, more comfortable than the American home. Americans staying any time in England, whether men or women, are impressed by the fact that it is the country of men. Likewise the English, both men and women, who visit America are impressed by the fact that America is the country of women.
The Kalgoorlie Newspaper reported the following in 1910:
“In Europe the aristocracy is largely relieved from drudgery in order that they may cultivate the graces of life. In America the attempt is being made to relieve the women of all classes from drudgery, and we are glad to see that some of them at least are making good use of the leisure thus afforded them. It is a project involving unprecedented daring and self-sacrifice on the part of American men, this making an aristocracy of half the race. That it is possible yet remains to be proved. Whether it is desirable depends upon whether this new feminine aristocracy avoids the faults of the aristocracy of the Old World, such as frivolousness and snobbishness.”
Irishman George A. Birmingham wrote in 1914:
“There are people in the world who believe that we are born again and again, rising or sinking in the scale of living things at each successive incarnation according as we behave ourselves well or badly in our present state. If this creed were true, I should try very hard to be good, because I should want, next time I am born, to be an American woman. She seems to me to have a better kind of life than the women of any other nation, or, indeed, than anybody else, man or woman… American social life seems to me — the word is one to apologize for — gynocentric. It is arranged with a view to the convenience and delight of women. Men come in where and how they can…. The American woman is certainly more her own mistress than the Englishwoman, just because America does its best for women and only its second-best for men. The tendency among American humourists is to dwell a little on the greed of the Englishman, who is represented as incapable of earning money for himself. The English jester lays more stress on the American woman’s desire to be called “my lady,” and pokes sly fun at the true Democrat’s fondness for titles. The American man is reverent toward women. It is not the homage of the strong toward the weak, but the obeisance of the inferior in the presence of a superior. This difference of spirit underlies the whole relationship of men to women in England and America. The English feminist is up against chivalry and wants equality. The American woman, though she may claim rights, has no inducement to destroy reverence.
Albert Einstein observed in 1921:
Above all things are the women who as a literal fact, dominate the entire life in America. The men take an interest in absolutely nothing at all. They work and work, the like of which I have never seen anywhere yet. For the rest they are the toy dogs of the women, who spend the money in the most unmeasurable, illimitable way and wrap themselves in a fog of extravagance. They do everything which is in the vogue, and now quite by chance they have thrown themselves on the Einstein fashion.
Following the above collection of artifacts, we can begin to wrap these details into a more coherent conclusion, and for this I’m going to turn to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) for a template. Hegel naturally didn’t write about vaginoplasties or the transgender movement, but he did write about process philosophy and the proposition that social processes are an ever-recurring cycle which he characterized by three phases (1) an initial set of cultural beliefs called a thesis, (2) next arises dissatisfaction and a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and lastly (3) there occurs a synthesis of culture beliefs whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition.
Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis.
This provides a suitable template for organizing the peculiar shifts in gender ideology we’ve been witnessing over recent centuries which, following Hegel, we can now characterize as follows:
As mentioned elsewhere, the transgender movement is not a cause célèbre driven by men’s rights advocates, as is sometimes claimed. Rather, the current support for transgender rights is derived from the power of government administrations and global regimes playing “freedom one-upmanship” – ie., the feigning of moral purity to position themselves at top of the global hierarchy.
The elites however are not the ones ultimately driving this process forward, even if they are doing the job of hastening, supporting and exploiting it. Instead, it appears to be Hegel’s mysterious process philosophy that is driving the changes, and the elites and sundry grifters are riding this gender-bender horse in a rodeo of competing cultural powers.
Where does all this leave us?
We can draw the conclusion that over the last century our framing of gendered customs has become increasingly captured by a gynocentric turf war between traditional women, and progressive feminist forces, with trans activism being one of the few novel forces that is actively working to disrupt it. Time will tell if the transgender movement continues its disintegrative influence over traditional sex privileges, however the surgical and chemical technology that has allowed this to flourish does not look like disappearing anytime soon – in fact researchers are just getting started.
The chemical invention of the birth control pill, introduced for women in the 1950s, served to crown the gynocentric culture project and to cement the dominance of its centuries-long evolution. The chemical and surgical support for trans-people holds equally gargantuan potential; in this case leading us hopefully past the polarizing gender war and back to a saner place where not only transpeople, but particularly everyday men and women can be themselves without judgement… notably minus those inflated gender privileges and perks that have driven us into this position to begin with.
Traditional conservative sex roles and liberal-feminist views about sexual relations can be imagined as two heads growing from the same Hydra. What aim do these ideologies have in common?
The answer to that question is beautifully captured by C.S. Lewis’ phrase “the feudalisation of love.”
According to Lewis, the feudalisation of love (FOL) refers to the medieval event when the feudal contract employed between Lords & vassals was repurposed by noblewomen. These women believed the feudal contract could serve as a new model to govern sexual relations, whereby a woman would assume the role of Lord, and man her vassal symbolised in the iconic display of a man going down on one knee before her. After a continuous process of cultural diffusion this sexual relations formula appears in most countries today, such has been its remarkable power to colonize.
Lewis states that in comparison with the revolution generated by the feudalisation of love, the Renaissance amounts to a mere ripple on the surface of literature. It forms the internal rationale of post-industrial societies and the subsequent waves of feminism which embraced this idea with greater fervor, applying its principles ever more aggressively with each iteration of the movement.
Lewis places a precise date on the rise of love feudalism, claiming it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century in France. He describes it as an elitist fad spreading to all the courts of Europe while subsequently permeating down the vertical axis to capture the imagination of lower classes. The spread was so thorough that the feudalisation of love is now regarded as a “timeless” and “natural” human arrangement, held up as as a sacrosanct pillar of human evolution by layperson and academic alike.
The fact that feudalisation of love is not a timeless universal of human biology has been demonstrated by Peter Ryan whose exhaustive investigations reveal the rise of gynocentrism to be a perversion, or what I have elsewhere labeled as a supernormal stimulus. Despite these debunkings however, the belief in the “timeless” and “universal” nature of feudalisation of love continues unabated.
Feudalisation of love is based on the principle male service to women. It leads to poor treatment of males, serving as root cause of the malignant outcomes tackled by men’s advocates. Among the catalogue of negative outcomes is the act of male suicide — and yet even family members, friends and academics who have lost loved ones (men) to suicide remain leery about naming this lack of social value directly: it is caused by both the gynocentrism and misandry inherent in the feudalisation of love.
The only place where female suicide is higher is in rural China: ergo where women have lower social value than men. China is also the place where the feudalisation of love never took root in the culture because it was explicitly outlawed there by Mao during the cultural revolution, because it was viewed as a disintegrative culture product.
Outside certain parts of Asia most cultures are decidedly gynocentric, hyper-valuing women’s identity, needs and wants. While there are many factors that can contribute to male suicide, if we were to address men’s devalued sense of self by removing the feudalisation of love, then the majority of these men would not suicide because they would be buoyed by that magic ingredient – value. This can only happen if we voice a full throated diminution of gynocentrism, running in tandem with a social revalorization of men and boys.
Those who adhere to the feudalisation of love script in their relationships, please don’t be surprised when it begins to hurt or when tragedy hits. In order to regain your sense of value you will need to divest yourself of it and, in the long run, find alternative and better models to live by.