This is part two of a two part article, please see part one first before reading part two.
Some Further Remarks On Sexual Conflict
I do want to expand on a few points from my ICMI speech. Often people cite the sexual cannibalism of the female spider eating the male spider after mating as being evolutionary advantageous, as the male is described as a source of energy for the female and their offspring. This explanation is often used in the media with a combination of humour and derision directed at men, to set a frame in which sexual conflict can be seen as “natural” or justified when it is directed at the male of a species, with the unspoken implication that such a principle applies as well to human males.
There is an assumption buried within that explanation, that all of what is natural, must have been selected for by evolution in some way and thus be optimal or beneficial or have some evolutionary purpose for a species. Just because a trait or behaviour occurs in nature does not mean that it was selected for under natural selection and is biologically optimal or beneficial to the species or serves some function. Huntington’s disease3 is a classic example of a condition that occurs naturally in humans and is suboptimal under natural selection. Despite this Huntington’s disease remains in the population after numerous generations, because enough people that carry the mutated variant of the huntingtin gene survive to reproduce. Just because sexual cannibalism occurs in nature, does not make it an optimal or beneficial strategy that is favoured by evolution. As Paul Elam and Peter Wright have discussed in Chasing The Dragon4 and Slaying The Dragon5, biology can express itself beyond its own evolutionary purpose and do so in a suboptimal way. Remember that the biology of any organism does not have to be perfect for their genes to be passed on, just good enough.
There are costs to sexual cannibalism such as reduced genetic variation in the population from fewer males and lowered probability of females finding a mate, especially in larger habitats. The males that are eaten, also incur a high cost from the elimination of all future mating prospects. This cost is also indirectly applicable as well to the female parent spiders of the males that are eaten. It does not automatically follow that sexual cannibalism is the optimal strategy in all instances or that eating males provides any net benefit to the species. In many instances the males and the species as a whole may be better off if males are not eaten from an evolutionary standpoint and natural selection may result in the males of the species developing adaptations to counter sexual cannibalism. In many instances a cooperative mating strategy may dominate, with sexual cannibalism confined to the fringes of the population.
I am not suggesting that the explanation that sexual cannibalism of males in various species of spider is always suboptimal, but conversely I don’t think it follows that we should just automatically assume such phenomenon provide an evolutionary benefit simply because they occur in nature. Think of how much biological dysfunction exists in nature like cancer and how much of it has obviously no evolutionary benefit. Evolution is not intelligent design, biology is not perfect. Sometimes people go down a rabbit hole of looking for evolutionary justifications for why certain traits or aspects of biology exist, where there is no actual evolutionary benefit to find.
Another inconvenient fact often left out when discussing sexual cannibalism through a gynocentric lens, is the fact there are actually examples6 of spiders where the males eat females and also numerous examples in the animal kingdom of sexual conflict where males are the aggressor. Instances of sexual conflict against males is no more of what “nature intended”, than sexual conflict against females.
Like I discussed, it does not even hold that sexual cannibalism in spiders serves any special evolutionary purpose. Sexual cannibalism may actually be a by-product of extreme environmental conditions where female spiders are driven purely out of hunger and scarcity of resources to eat their mates. Even in humans under extreme enough conditions, there have been examples of cannibalism. No one would argue that cannibalism in humans is a specific evolved trait. It is merely an extreme manifestation of the survival instinct!
The existence of cannibalism in humans is incidental to the survival instinct and not something that natural selection has specifically selected for. The same may indeed be the case with female spiders eating their mates and vice versa. Whilst evolutionary explanations may be true, they are also difficult prove and may be wrong. Sexual cannibalism in spiders is hardly a phenomenon where scientists have actually proven beyond doubt, that it exists because of some evolutionary advantage in eating males to provide energy to the female spider and resulting offspring. Multiple explanations have been proposed on why sexual cannibalism takes place in certain species. It still all very much remains speculation at this stage.
Of course the gynocentric narrative on sexual cannibalism in spiders, leaves out the part that there are enormous differences between spiders and humans. The sexual size dimorphism which is at the root of sexual cannibalism in spiders, is reversed in humans where the male is bigger. Such facts are inconvenient to the gynocentric narrative you see, so it is not discussed in that way.
It is notable that we don’t see such explanations like what we see with sexual cannibalism of male spiders being celebrated in our culture, when females are the victims of sexual conflict. Dominant males in an animal community that sexual coerce or rape their female mates, is also a form of sexual conflict. Despite arguments to the contrary, it could be argued using the same logic as the spider analogy, that there is an evolutionary benefit to such sexual coercion. I am not supporting or in any way condoning this, I am just walking people through the gynocentric logic of the spider analogy with the sexes reversed, so people can contrast the gynocentric bias at work when our culture appeals to biology for explanations on things.
So here is the logic in reverse- Dominant males that rise to the top of the male dominance hierarchy from intense male intrasexual competition, are very often the strongest and the fittest males and so have the highest genetic quality. Therefore whilst females may incur some cost from the sexual coercion of dominant males, the genetic benefit of females giving birth to the offspring of dominant males (which share the dominant male’s high genetic quality) exceeds the cost. Perhaps this explains the popularity of 50 Shades Of Grey among women and the reported female sexual interest in male dominance!7
Now if you find that logic questionable and the conclusions drawn offensive (again I am not supporting or condoning the logic), then I would ask you why it is that when this dynamic is reversed and we talk about female sexual antagonism directed at men (like the spider analogy), that there is no scrutiny or offense taken to the armchair evolutionary explanations given? That discrepancy is the gender empathy gap in action, that I was alluding to in the speech. We have one standard of concern for females and a lower standard of concern for males. In fact it has been shown8 even in the relatively objective field of scientific research, that there is a clear bias against men when reporting sex differences that favour men in contrast to those that favour women. Only women it seems are allowed to have any biological advantage, for men it is taboo to report any male advantage no matter how trivial it might be.
Appealing to nature to justify behaviour as good or acceptable is what we call the naturalistic fallacy9. As I mentioned in the speech, murder, rape and genocide are all natural, that does not make them optimal for society or justifiable. Likewise running civilisation in such a way that we treat men as disposable and exploit them for women’s benefit and appealing to nature to justify it, does not make it optimal or acceptable for society. In fact we can see the negative effects10 already of what rampant gynocentrism is doing to our societies and it will only get worse as the consequences continue to accumulate at an ever-increasing rate. These societies are not replacing themselves and are rife with social problems as a result of marginalising men. Gynocentric societies are on a declining trajectory where they are on the track to eventually die out.
Some Further Remarks On Hunter-gatherer Societies And Survival
Another point that I wanted to address are claims suggesting that the survival of children is more contingent on women than on men in hunter-gatherer cultures. Such claims (and related claims) are questionable due to the simple reality we cannot directly observe what occurred in prehistoric times and as previously cited there is a gynocentric bias present unfortunately in the field of scientific research surrounding sex.
We cannot necessarily infer that modern hunter-gatherer communities adequately represent their prehistoric counterparts either, given the fact that one set of communities eventually developed into urbanised civilisation, while modern hunter-gatherer communities clearly did not. I am not making a judgement on any community being superior to another, I am simply pointing out there may be basic differences between prehistoric communities that transitioned into urbanised civilisation and modern-day hunter-gatherer communities that did not and that those differences may undermine making inferences that modern hunter-gatherer communities are a mirror of all past prehistoric communities. It is also worth considering that modern day hunter-gatherer communities undoubtedly have had their own cultural evolution over the last 12,000 years and may not necessarily resemble a mirror image of even their own past. I am not suggesting studies of current hunter-gatherer societies have no merit, I am suggesting caution in assuming what we observe in present hunter-gatherer societies in the modern day, perfectly translate to our prehistoric past.
With all of that said though, let us assume for a moment that the claim the survival of children in hunter-gather communities is more dependent on women is actually true. Is the survival of women not at least in part to some extent dependent on men? It is definitely the case that the survival of any community in prehistoric times is to a significant and substantive degree dependent on men. We know this by examining the evidence acquired from the remains of past human settlements and human bones. Tom Golden in his 2020 ICMI speech11, discussed inter-tribal conflict and the role of men in protecting their communities.
In evolutionary scientist David Geary’s book “Male, Female The Evolution Of Human Sex Differences”12, he describes a mass grave found in South Dakota (A US state) of men, women and children from a tribe that was was wiped out whilst the village fortifications were being reconstructed. The construction of such fortifications would have been a physically demanding task and primarily a male role, along with the actual physical defence of the village from attack.
Once the male defenders of the village were wiped out and the defences were overwhelmed, most of the village was massacred and the few survivors that were spared which were primarily younger women, were taken for spoils. This is not an example of gynocentrism, the women that were spared were taken as captives to do whatever bidding their male captors decided. Women were also found in the mass grave with men and children. Presumably these were women that may have resisted the male attackers, or been unwanted and disposed of by the attackers. The males of the village were eliminated not because they were less valuable, but because they were a threat. As David Geary noted in the book, the capture of women and the murder of male rivals had nothing to do with female mate choice and is simply an example of male competition at its most intense.
The male role in protection is something that has being going on for as long as humans have been around. The remains of this settlement were dated around 1325 AD before Christopher Columbus arrived and there was any contact with civilisation. Some like to argue that hunter-gatherer communities were always peaceful and war came from male patriarchal civilisation, but there is a plethora of evidence suggesting otherwise.
Hunter-gather communities fought each other in our prehistoric past, long before civilisation and there is plenty of evidence to show this and the role men played in protecting their communities. Resources were scarce at times and fighting over access to water, food and territory was a frequent occurrence. We also see the same patterns of territorial aggression in primates and a wide range of animals. War and combat are simply organised human manifestations of the territorial aggression seen in all animals and in both males and females. Aggression of course is not the sole domain of men and Geary does go on in the book to describe female aggression in humans, which is far less physical and much more relational in nature.
There are plenty of other examples in our prehistoric record and from current hunter-gatherer communities, showing how dependent communities are on men to survive. Karen Straughan discussed in one of her videos the Inuit13 and the importance that men have in those communities to hunt on the ice and keep everyone fed and alive. Karen also discussed more generally in the linked video in great detail, the biological evidence pointing to men’s substantive role in community survival and in provision and protection in prehistoric times.
Whilst we cannot perfectly describe past hunter-gatherer societies, we can draw some basic conclusions from the anthropological record of human remains and settlements we have found and also by examining the evolved sexual dimorphism of our species. Men have played a significant and substantive role in the survival of their community and through that they have enhanced the survival of women and by extension have then indirectly contributed to the survival of children. Basic sex differences in size, physical strength and physical fitness and psychological sex differences such as greater male risk-taking behaviour, would have had implications for the survival of prehistoric communities, especially in harsh environments.
The reality is that while women did hunt and did significantly contribute to the food supply in certain environmental contexts, it is predominantly men that are better suited to undertaking tasks that require high levels of physical strength. It is also a fact that men by virtue of not directly caring for infants or becoming pregnant, are more available to undertake physically strenuous tasks like hunting. These are physical realities that become much more apparent in hunter-gatherer communities without the benefits of mechanisation, no matter how hard the social constructionists would wish otherwise. The harsher the environment, the more relevant the physical sexual dimorphism favouring men becomes to the survival of the community.
So whilst it may be apparent to some people in a direct sense that the survival of children may be more dependent on women than on men (and that is a highly questionable claim), if there is any truth to the claim it may only be true to a certain degree in specific environmental settings and only in a direct sense. If we consider all of the environmental settings humans have lived in across the planet and we consider the indirect role men have on the survival of children through their support of their community and the women in that community, the picture becomes a lot more equal than certain gynocentric elements within the field of sex difference research wish to accept.
Even if we ignore all of the evidence and the points that I have made and just automatically assume the survival of children is more dependent on women in a hunter-gatherer setting in all instances and in an overall sense, such claims do not scale to civilisation or the overall health of children in a modern setting. The statistics on the prospects of children without a father in our current modern societies, show just how important fathers are to raising healthy children in our modern social environment. There is a difference between just surviving and offspring surviving to become mentally and physically healthy and capable adults that reach their potential. There is also a big difference between the requirements on offspring to develop in a hunter-gatherer environment in comparison to that of modern society. Such consideration does not fit the gynocentric narrative. Instead we are meant to take seriously the argument by certain feminist ideologues, that having no father has little or no impact on children. We are meant to ignore all of the evidence14 suggesting otherwise, while we watch the effects of fatherlessness play out in the society around us.
I want people to consider this next point very seriously and the implications it has for our Western societies. There has not been one advanced and fully developed civilisation or country on this planet that exists today or in the past, that has lasted centuries with widespread fatherlessness and marginalised men providing little or no contribution to the continuation of their communities. Not one. That should tell people something about how important men are. It has only been through harnessing the value that men provide, that civilisation has even emerged in the first place. It still remains a reality today that if men collectively walked off the job, our modern society would literally fall apart and descend into perpetual darkness (aside from the fires blazing everywhere at night). The statistics15 bare out just how essential men are to keep our modern civilisation running and how dire the situation would be if men left civilisation entirely to women and walked away from it.
None of what I have written in the speech or in these additional remarks or past writings, is intended to argue that men are superior to women or that all women are evil beings attempting to manipulate men every hour of the day. However we do now live in a gynocentric society that promotes the narrative that men have no value, are naturally inferior and disposable and that women are not capable of doing anything wrong or committing any violence, harm or evil in this world. We are living in a world filled with gynocentric delusions, which will eventually be our own underdoing as a society, because reality can and will eventually assert itself when everything eventually comes crashing down.
There needs to be some balance restored to our culture regarding how we consider men and women. Men do have value, enormous value and a great deal of that value is beyond just men’s role in community survival. Women also have value and a great deal of that value has nothing to do with having a uterus. There is a darker side to men’s nature and also a good side, but there is a darker side to women’s nature as well as their good side. I think society can accept the reality both sexes have value and both sexes are human and are capable of doing bad things, without having a nervous breakdown!
This is a two part article. In part one (this part) I will provide the complete speech that I wrote, which was kindly presented by Robert Brockway on my behalf at the International Men’s Conference in 2020. A link to the speech spoken by Robert is here1, the complete speech in writing is a little bit longer than what was presented and is provided below. Part two of this article will elaborate on certain points that I have discussed in the speech, which address particular gynocentric traps I have noted that people fall into when discussing the topics I wrote about in the speech.
For a full reading of my writings addressing the fallacy of the golden uterus and why male disposability based on females being the rate limiting factor in reproduction does not have a leg to stand on, please consult this two part article and the articles numbered 8-11 and 14-20 of my Gynocentrism lecture series on the webpage linked here2 on Gynocentrism.com. This two part article, will conclude my discussion on this particular topic. The extent of my writing on it reflects the extent to which I believe this justification functions as an excuse to normalise gynocentrism in our culture.
Science has in many respects replaced religion as the unquestioned orthodoxy of our time, despite the scientific method being an open source of enquiry. Science is not meant to be treated as an unquestioned orthodoxy, but unfortunately ideology does appear to be to some extent subverting how science is communicated to the public. So naturally using explanations that appear to rely on science has increasingly become the go-to strategy of gynocentric elements of our culture, to justify bigotry toward men and why we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it.
Science is not dogma and does not have all of the answers to every question and as I discuss in the speech and in my writings on Gynocentrism.com, what we do know from science does not support the argument women are more valuable and men are disposable, simply because women have a uterus and give birth. That is an argument of sophistry, not science. I do have a past scientific background researching, working and studying in the molecular life sciences and so this argument has been of particular interest to me to soundly and comprehensively debunk and provide my own unique contribution to knowledge in the manosphere.
Without further delay the full written speech is below:
The Fallacy Of The Golden Uterus And The True Origins Of Gynocentrism
By Peter Ryan
I will begin this speech quoting Mark Twain, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”.
For many years there has been an unquestioned assumption in the manosphere and in our wider gynocentric culture that because women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, women are more valuable than men and men are disposable. It is perhaps one of the biggest blue pill myths there is and a sacred cow belief of our gynocentric culture. This core assumption underpins so many of the rationalisations given for justifying gynocentric bigotry toward men, that unless it is addressed and exposed for the distorted and factually wrong interpretation of biology that it is, nothing much is going to change for men. The glorification of the female role in reproduction is an old idea and widely held. However like what we have seen with obsolete ideas such as the Earth being flat and the Earth being the center of the universe, just because an idea is old and widely held as the truth, does not then make it right.
Let me get something straightened out right off the bat. Women do not create life, men and women create life. This should be an obvious fact and yet the line “women create life” is mentioned frequently enough in our gynocentric culture to be mindlessly accepted and repeated like it is common knowledge. To put it bluntly, functioning as an incubator does not make a woman a real mother, let alone a more valuable human being or the sole creator of life. The narcissism surrounding the role of women in reproduction, needs to be confronted in our culture and put down a peg, if we are to address the serious matters surrounding the epidemic of fatherlessness in our society. Fatherlessness is not just a legal issue, it is a social and cultural issue now in the West as well. A real mother respects fatherhood.
With that opening statement, I will now embark on dismantling the pseudoscientific dogma surrounding the golden uterus in a number of topics during this talk. The golden uterus is not just used to elevate motherhood undeservedly over fatherhood, it is also used to argue why women are more valuable human beings.
The Tale Of Two Tribes Scenario
You have probably heard the tale of two tribe’s scenario a million times before, a community of 1 man and 999 women is far better off than a community of 999 men and 1 woman. We are told the community with more women will replace itself and the community with a single woman will perish. It is certainly true that in such an extreme example, the community with just one single woman is likely to perish. However it is also likely, although perhaps less likely, for the community with a single man to also perish in such a scenario. Genetic diversity may not be sufficient for the community to recover, or there may not be the manpower available to ensure there is sufficient resources, shelter and protection for the community. The lone male may not even be fertile enough to ensure sufficient numbers of offspring are produced. It could even be that some sort of mixture of all three factors, may result in the community with a single male perishing.
There is a bigger issue though with the tale of two tribes. It is misleading. What may be correct at one population size with certain sex ratios, may not apply at another population size with different sex ratios. For example, what if there were 900 men and 100 women? Or 99000 men and 1000 women? Or 600 men and 400 women? Will they still perish? In such instances the communities may shrink temporarily but not perish and are likely to recover in a few generations. The reproductive fitness outcomes that apply at one scale of population size and sex ratio, may not apply at another. So taking such extreme examples of 1 man and 999 women or 999 men and 1 woman and then formulating a universal law that says women are more valuable than men, is both misleading and factually incorrect.
Having such skewed numbers as 999 men and 1 woman or 999 women and 1 man, represent very extreme scenarios. The likelihood of them arising is very rare in the actual historic or prehistoric past and may not have even happened at all. It is much more likely that for most of human history and prehistory, sex ratios between men and women in communities have been much more even. Indeed we are biologically predisposed to have a roughly 1:1 sex ratio at birth, which is explained by an evolutionary concept called Fisher’s principle. It has hardly been the norm that communities have had prolonged periods where there have been such heavily skewed sex ratios that women make up only 0.1% of the population, such as in the two tribes scenario with 1 woman and 999 men. Although there may have been periods where there were a few more men or more women in communities, such periods have been temporary and the sex ratios whilst a little imbalanced, would rarely if ever have reached the extremes of 1 woman to 999 men or vice versa.
Whilst sex ratios do vary with age cohorts and temporary imbalances can arise in the population as a whole, the overall sex ratio of men and women eventually gravitates back to 1:1. As explained by Fisher’s principle, if one sex becomes scarce, then there is a selective pressure for there to be greater parental investment in producing the minority sex in future generations until the sex ratios reach 1:1. Thus sex ratio imbalances that do arise are eventually gone in a generation or two and simply cannot be used to explain any protective bias toward women. I will explain this evolutionary principle in further detail later on in this speech.
I point all of this out to drive home the ridiculousness of the tale of two tribe’s scenario in arguing that such scenarios explain why society has evolved a bias to protect women over men. Such an explanation is only plausible if we assume that the two tribe’s scenario represents the demographics of human societies over a prolonged period of time, in which natural selection had the opportunity to select for a psychological bias to protect women over men on this basis. If it was the case that human societies often had only the bare minimum number of women to ensure their continuation for thousands of years, then it would follow humans would have a evolved a trait to protect women over men simply due to women being the rate limiting factor reproduction and being in such consistently short supply.
However human societies for most of human history and prehistory, have likely had a surplus number of women that was significantly beyond the bare minimum required, to ensure the continuation of the community. A community of 150 men and 150 women for example, may only require 10 of the women not to perish. It takes a very extreme scenario indeed for a community to reach a point where the loss of one more woman, leads the community to die out. Even if we go to low numbers of 100 people, with 60 men and 40 women for instance, just a fraction of those women may be the bare minimum required to ensure the community produces enough offspring to continue its existence.
Over just a generation or two, the community population size can eventually recover from extreme shocks if large numbers of the women in a society and the population as a whole are lost, as the young replace those people. Human societies can recover from population bottlenecks with only low numbers of men and women, as long as the numbers of each sex don’t drop below the bare minimum required to produce the minimum level of offspring to perpetuate society.
The Fixation On Reproduction And Life History Theory
A key reason why the tale of two tribe’s scenario gains traction, is because of the simplicity of it. Simple ideas might be appealing, but as we see with the feminist gender wage gap, they are misleading! The two tribe’s scenario masks the very complicated process of ensuring a lineage, a community and a species continues. Reproduction whilst important to the continuation of a lineage and community etc, is not the only factor that is essential. Individuals must survive and develop well enough to live to sexual maturity, attract mates, reproduce at an optimal rate and care for the resulting offspring. Those offspring in turn must also survive and develop to sexual maturity. Reproduction is a dead-end if the offspring die before they reproduce and reproduction cannot even occur if people do not survive long enough to mate. There must also be a certain level of genetic diversity in the population to ensure offspring are healthy enough to reproduce healthy offspring of their own. It is not enough to simply breed offspring. The offspring and their parents have to be healthy, fertile and survive.
In actual biological reality, reproduction is just one component in a chain of activities required to propagate the genome. Life history theory in evolutionary biology, explains the numerous balances and trade-offs that organisms make in their survival, development and reproductive activities across their lifespan to optimise their reproductive success (or evolutionary success). Human beings reproduce at relatively low rates compared to other species and have a very long developmental period, precisely because there is more to evolutionary success than just maximising reproduction. Unlike microbial life, humans are organisms with a slow life history strategy, that places a lower priority on the rate of reproduction. Having high numbers of women in a community to maximise the rate of reproduction of a community, is not the be all and end all to evolutionary success that it is made out to be.
In reality the role of women in reproduction is just one component in a much bigger and far more complex life history equation. The fixation on women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction, blinds people to the bigger picture- The reproductive success of human communities is the result of many factors working together in a complex interdependent system and is not just determined by how many uteri you have. Think of all of the activities that have to occur in a human community aside from reproduction and gestation that are related to survival, to ensure healthy fertile offspring are born and properly develop and the community and their resultant offspring survive. Think of the role of men in ensuring those activities are adequately performed, particularly when women are pregnant or preoccupied with looking after small infants. Think of the extreme survival challenges our ancestors faced in environments across the world before modern civilisation and the role of men in such a context. Even today our societies are utterly dependent on men to keep them running.
Whilst some may argue technology may eventually make men’s role in community survival redundant, the same can be said for women and their role in reproduction with the eventual development of artificial uteri. However it is worth noting such developments for either sex are a long way off and in many respects it will be harder to replace men given the greater multitude of tasks men perform, including repairing the very robots and machines that supposedly will replace them!
With deeper reflection, we can see that simply making the claim that women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction makes them more valuable, assumes that there are not a multitude of other factors that are just as essential to ensuring the future of a community. Let us consider this with some detail in relation to the evolutionary environment humans have lived in for most of their history and prehistory.
1. Any community is going to require a minimum number of men and women to reproduce.
2. Any community will also require a minimum number of men and women to ensure sufficient levels of genetic diversity.
3. A certain minimum amount of investment in survival will also be required to ensure the community has adequate food, water, resources, shelter and protection to keep everyone alive.
4. The surrounding environment must have the carrying capacity or resources available to support the population.
As can be seen with that simple description, we discover that it is not just about having enough women to reproduce. A certain number of men are also going to be required. The exact minimum number of men and women required to ensure a community does not perish, may actually require more men in some instances. It is also the case that a certain minimum amount of resources or habitat carrying capacity, will be required to support the population. Simply focusing on maximising reproduction is almost doomed to fail, because the resulting population growth will eventually collapse the food chain and ecosystem and the community will perish. Reproduction has to be maintained at a level that can be sustained by the carrying capacity of the habitat the community finds itself in.
Not all environments are lush jungles with a high carrying capacity, easy access to food and water, no predators and plenty of available shelter. Many environments on this planet have a low carrying capacity, food and water is hard to collect or grow and shelter is difficult to find or construct. Many habitats like the African savanna have dangerous predators lurking around and the weather and geological conditions are harsh. Think of Siberia and the numerous deserts. Not all habitats are paradise and humans have had to adapt to all of them and survive.
Whilst women may be the rate limiting factor of reproduction, men do play a disproportionate role in undertaking risky and physically demanding work required for community survival. Of course there is overlap between the sexes in these domains, but there is a substantial difference on average when considering the relative contributions of each sex as a whole in these areas.
If women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, then men are the rate limiting factor of survival. When you consider pregnant women and women raising small infants in a prehistoric context, or even as early as one hundred and fifty years ago and the harsh living conditions that human communities faced across different environments, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand the importance of men in undertaking physically challenging and dangerous tasks related to community survival. The reality is that raising small infants and simply gathering food with relatively little physical effort compared to hunting, is not enough to survive in many environments throughout the world. It is also a fact that in many places throughout the world, the carrying capacity of the environment may not be able to support large population growth and low rates of reproduction may actually be advantageous.
In some environment’s reproduction may be less critical to the future of the community and it may actually be pressures related to survival that matter more. In such contexts a higher minimum amount of men than women may actually be required. In other contexts more women may be advantageous. It does not always follow that more women are needed than men, because golden uterus!
We must also consider that there is a difference between the minimum number of men and women required to perpetuate a community and the optimal number of men and women required for a community to thrive. A community may indeed continue to eke out an existence with only 10 men and 990 women, but that does not mean it will thrive and not suffer great costs. Having more men may allow such communities to thrive to a point where they become resistant to the very shocks that threaten to wipe out the community in the first place. As with the minimum numbers of men and women required to sustain a community, different environments, demographics and living conditions, may mean in some instances greater numbers of men are more important to a community thriving and in other instances women may be more important. Natural selection does not favour just what is required at a minimum, it also preferentially selects what is optimal. A community of 500 men and 500 women that thrives over a community of 10 men and 990 women, will consequently be favoured under selection pressures.
None of any of this detail is considered if we assume the number of uteri in a community, is the sole determinant of reproductive success and biological value. None of the complexity of what it takes for a community to continue its existence is considered. This is what reproductive reductionism omits.
Fisher’s Principle And The Biological System Of Males And Females
The fundamental truth which is consistently ignored by reproductive reductionists despite it being well established within the field of evolutionary biology, is that biology does not value or favour the existence of one sex over the other in our species. This reality is reflected in the equal parental investment in producing males and females. Fisher’s principle is an evolutionary concept that explains why the sex ratio of many sexually reproducing species including humans, is roughly 1:1 and why parental investment in male and female offspring is equal.
Fisher’s principle can be illustrated as follows:
1. Assume there are less males than females in a given population.
2. The males will have a higher rate of reproduction per individual than individual females, as the total reproductive output of each sex is equal but distributed among fewer numbers of males.
3. Consequently parents that produce males are at an evolutionary advantage, as their offspring will be more reproductively successful per individual than if they had of produced females.
4. As a result, over time parents will produce more male offspring as it is selectively advantageous.
5. Greater parental investment in male offspring will continue until the number of males and females in the population equalises and the reproductive advantage male offspring enjoy reduces to zero.
Fisher’s principle describes a form of equilibrium where parental investment in males and females will be equal. The core reason for this equality is because the total reproductive output of men and women as a whole is exactly equal. Neither sex as a whole can produce a greater number of offspring than the other sex and get a leg up. It is mathematically impossible! For every child that is conceived there has to be one male parent and one female parent. The result is that the male and female sex have the same biological value in evolutionary terms, as total reproductive success for each sex as a whole is equal. There is no long-term evolutionary advantage to producing female offspring over male offspring or vice versa.
Some will no doubt point out that human beings have a sex ratio at birth of roughly 1.05 males to 1 female. This does not invalidate Fisher’s principle, but is actually supported by it. Geneticist Ronald Fisher the author of Fisher’s principle, explained the slight deviation from the 1:1 sex ratio as a compensatory mechanism for the higher rate of male infant mortality. The higher rate of male infant mortality drives larger numbers of males to be born to ensure equal parental expenditure in producing male and female offspring that actually reach sexual maturity. There is no grand gynocentric conspiracy by nature to favour females over males. Nature does not have a favourite!
There is equal biological investment in producing each sex, because each sex has the same overall reproductive success. The distribution of that reproductive success between individuals may differ by sex, but not the total output. Fewer men may reproduce, but each of those men that do reproduce will do so at a higher frequency than any individual woman. That is the part which is left out when people discuss fewer men reproducing than women. There is no argument to be made that women are somehow more important than men, because more women reproduced. Such arguments can simply be countered by pointing to the higher reproductive success of the individual men that do reproduce. Genghis Khan anyone?
We have had half of the population chromosomal XX female and the other half XY male in our lineage for at least 160 million years, since our current sex-determination system came into being. That is 160 million years of natural selection tolerating half the population not directly giving birth to offspring. Supercontinents have broken up and major geological and extinction level events have occurred in that period of time, including the extinction of the dinosaurs. There has been plenty of time for natural selection to alter the reproductive paradigm at some point with our evolutionary predecessors, so that all of the members of our species give birth, if that was all that mattered and it was so crucial. Our evolutionary predecessors could have evolved back to asexual reproduction or become hermaphrodites in that period of time. 160 million years is not a trivial timespan, even when we consider the slow process of evolution. 160 million years is a very long block of time to have stuck with a maladaptive strategy of wasting half the genome, especially when we consider the extinction events that have occurred over that period of time. Species have emerged and then vanished in much smaller time scales than 160 million years!
Despite all of the time that has passed, our lineage settled on an evolutionary track where only half the population internally gestates the offspring for nine months. This reproductive strategy is the result of millions of years of natural selection and not an accident. It is a strategy that does not maximise reproduction and yet it has actually been favoured by natural selection in our evolutionary branch. Why? It is not reproduction alone that determines evolutionary success, but rather the right combination of investment in survival, development and reproduction that determines evolutionary success. There is a selective advantage in having only one sex give birth to offspring and having the other half of the population available and sexually selected to focus their efforts on other activities related to survival. It allows for a broader, more sophisticated and more robust strategy in adapting to the environment to maximise evolutionary success.
The biological roles of each sex support each other in an interdependent system. This allows activities related to survival and reproduction to be enhanced to produce outputs beyond what would otherwise be possible. In systems theory this is called synergy and emergence. The sum becomes greater than the individual parts on their own and new properties emerge when the components work together as a whole. This is what reproductive reductionists miss, when they just focus on women and reproduction. Human civilisation is arguably one emergent property of the foundational sociobiological system that has evolved around the specialised roles of men and women. It is the overall end result of men and women working together that matters, not the golden uterus!
The Fallacy Of Male Biological Disposability
The concept of men being biologically disposable is just as ludicrous, as the concept that women are more valuable because they have a uterus. Our gynocentric culture may indeed treat men as if they are disposable, but that does not then mean that in biological terms they actually are disposable. The mere existence of bigoted beliefs and behaviours that promote a premise that one group of people is “disposable”, does not then translate to such beliefs and behaviours having a justifiable basis in reality. 6 million Jews were considered disposable based on nothing more than outright hatred. All sorts of pseudoscientific justifications were given to assert they were subhuman. The claim men are biologically disposable is a lie embedded within gynocentric elements of our culture to exploit men. It is a lie the manosphere should reject and expose for the rubbish that it is.
Any society that wants to survive and thrive, has the best the chance of doing so when it has large numbers of healthy men to provide the manpower to support it. Losing men costs society. Even in war it makes little sense to lose men in battle if it can be avoided. Those armies that win battles with the least amount of men lost, win the wars. The loss of men, means loss of available manpower and all of the value to society and armies that comes with that manpower. Disposability implies indifference toward the loss of male life and any society that exercises such indifference, jeopardises its own future and eventually is replaced by societies that do not demonstrate such indifference. Natural selection does not favour men that lose their lives in war or from performing dangerous tasks, it favours men that survive such challenges. Men are no more disposable in performing their roles in society, than women are in dying during childbirth. Both are costs that functional societies and natural selection seek to reduce.
The reason men go off to war and are encouraged to do the risky and dangerous tasks for society, is not because society considers them less valuable than women, it is because men are better equipped to undertake those tasks. Men have evolved strengths to perform these tasks more so than women. Just think of how sex differences play out in the special forces of our militaries for example.
There has been considerable loss of male life throughout history, but that is not automatically a reflection of society being indifferent toward the loss of men. We have Anzac Day, Remembrance Day and Memorial Day for a reason, because society does care when men lose their lives and understands the societal cost. If we were completely indifferent toward men’s lives, no such days would exist. That is the dysfunctional society, feminists and the gynocentric traditionalists before them have been driving us toward. A society where men can be exploited with complete societal indifference or even ridiculed for their sacrifice. Misandry in society definitely exists, but we need to delineate the bigotry based on hatred and sophistry, from actual biological reality.
Female Neoteny, Male Competition And The Gender Empathy Gap
Some point to the sex difference in neoteny and the gender empathy gap as proof that females are more valuable than males. I would argue instead that neoteny is at least partly the result of sex differences in reproductive strategies and mating preferences, rather than a difference in biological value. Men sexually select for neoteny in women because that signals youth which is a marker for fertility and women select for less neoteny in men because that signals strength. The male sex gains more from intrasexual competition and a lower degree of neoteny is advantageous in the contexts in which men compete.
The greater intrasexual competition of the male sex is not the result of men having a lower biological value, but is instead an example of male biological value manifesting itself. Competition for men is one way they make use of their talents and men can gain far more reproductively from successful competition than women can, because men can produce many more offspring from the status they acquire. Competition between men has literally built civilisation and has driven enormous levels of innovation and advances. The greater intrasexual competition of men is not proof of male inferiority, but simply a reflection of the greater returns in reproductive fitness that men acquire from investing in such competition and a means of generating survival value which in turn boosts reproductive fitness. It bears repeating that the acts directly related to reproduction like gestation, are not the only form of deriving biological value.
The gender empathy gap is real and I am certainly not denying its existence. I am also fairly certain that there is at the very least some biological predisposition at an emotional level to have a greater concern for female well-being. However this gender empathy gap does not result from women being more biologically valuable than men, because they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Over millions of years of evolution, women and their female primate ancestors have developed physical, psychological and social traits to elicit greater social support from their peers. Men have not developed these traits to the same degree that women have. Why is that so? The reason is not because women more valuable than men, it is because women and men have different strategies for maximising reproductive success and different forms of biological value.
As I have discussed earlier, men benefit considerably more from intrasexual competition than women as they can produce far more offspring from doing so. Men also have greater availability to engage in activities that are not directly related to reproduction that enhance the survival of the community and offspring, as they do not have to gestate offspring. This survival value that men generate, allows them to acquire status and influence within a community and access to potential mates. It can also be utilised to improve the health of their offspring and related kin and the wider community they belong to.
Just like the case with intrasexual competition, these activities can all boost men’s reproductive success in ways it cannot for women, because men can father hundreds of offspring from the status they derive from these activities and can also better perform these activities without the added burden of pregnancy. Many of the activity’s men engage in to provide survival value involve risks, competition and are labour intensive. The risk and costs can be high, but the reproductive payoff can be huge. The competitive, risky and demanding activities men engage in to harness their intrinsic value and inherent abilities to generate survival value for the community, related kin and offspring, requires a high level of self-reliance and independence. Being reliant on eliciting social support, is to at least some degree less compatible with the means through which men maximise reproductive success in comparison to what the case is for women.
In contrast women during pregnancy and immediately after childbirth, are less able to provide for themselves. They are also very preoccupied with raising small infants and breastfeeding them after giving birth. This was a physical reality that had be factored into how society was structured for thousands of years, until birth control and modern technological advancements. Before birth control, women may have faced multiple periods of pregnancy during their life under very harsh conditions caring for multiple offspring. In such contexts there would have been unique advantages for women in being able to garner social support from the community to boost female reproductive success. It is predictable they would have evolved strengths to elicit that support.
It is the asymmetry in how each sex maximises their reproductive success, that leads to the sex differences underpinning the empathy gap. Empathy from society is more advantageous to female reproductive success than it is for male reproductive success. This difference may also be the other major factor driving the sex difference that we see in neoteny. It is certainly the case that each sex benefits from eliciting social support from other people and there is certainly overlap. We are not talking about a black and white dichotomy. However there is a greater advantage for women in receiving social support and a greater advantage for men in being self-reliant in terms of reproductive fitness. This leads to sex differences developing where women have greater physical and psychological traits to elicit social support from society than men.
What Are The Biological Origins Of Gynocentrism?
The biological origins of gynocentrism do not lie in a difference in overall biological value between men and women. The root of gynocentrism lies in the difference between male and female reproductive strategies and the conflict that can arise when those two strategies oppose each other. Gynocentrism is an example of what is called sexual conflict in evolutionary biology. Sexual conflict is a phenomenon in which one sex deploys an antagonistic strategy to gain a reproductive fitness advantage at the expense of the other sex. The sexual cannibalism of the male spider being eaten by the female spider, is one example of sexual conflict in the animal kingdom. The sexual coercion or rape of females seen in many species and not just humans, is another example of sexual conflict.
Although it is important to acknowledge that there is a considerable degree of intersexual cooperation in our species, there is also to a certain extent a literal biological battle of the sexes underway in our society. Slogans like, “The Future Is Female” and articles like “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” say it all.
Gynocentrism primarily results from a pathological overexpression of the greater emotional predisposition society has to feel empathy for women relative to men. There are certainly other factors at play, but the overarching force at the core of gynocentrism is the gender empathy gap. Whilst the predisposition to feel greater empathy for women exists, this biological predisposition is not a biological inevitability on its own. Humans can and do have the capacity to control and override their emotional impulses. Impulse control centers in the brain such as the prefrontal cortex, allow people to act on their impulses and emotional drives in an intelligent and strategic way in respect of their social environment. Healthy people are not slaves to their impulses, only addicts are.
With that said, our underlying emotional biases can still make us vulnerable to well-executed social manipulation by others and can be exploited. Gynocentrism is the end result of the weaponisation of female hypoagency by specific and well-organised coalitions of women. Yes it is true, not all women are like that, but there are specific groups of women that have been and continue to be the architects and cheerleaders of gynocentrism. Like men, some women are good people and some women are bad people. The coalitions of women I am talking about, generally come in two flavours- Gynocentric Traditionalists and Feminists. Together with their male lackey’s, they have gradually undermined the relations between the sexes over the centuries and recent decades to the dysfunctional state we see today.
The emotional bias we have to care for women and protect them, has been exploited by these groups of women to manipulate society and specifically men over many centuries, to elevate women over men. Karen Straughan called it, “The Tyranny Of Female Hypoagency”. This antagonistic female sexual conflict strategy has over the course of many centuries, subverted our culture. Traditional gynocentric social narratives like romantic chivalry in past centuries and feminist narratives like patriarchy theory in the modern era, have been developed by these women whilst they have been in positions of authority, wealth and privilege. These women have used their positions of influence in the upper classes of society, in academia, the legal system, journalism and elsewhere, to spread these gynocentric narratives through our governments, courts, institutions, media and wider society.
The narratives promote an exaggerated image of female vulnerability and have been designed to exploit our emotional bias to feel empathy for women to further an agenda. These narratives have been deployed to gradually transform our culture over the decades and centuries, into the gynocentric culture we have today. It has been an ongoing process of cultural subversion from generation to generation, under the camouflage of female vulnerability. Our laws, our institutions, our social norms, our societal attitudes toward men and women and the account of our own history and knowledge of the sexes, have all been gradually warped and rewritten by these powerful gynocentric social narratives. Narratives that exploit our emotional bias to perceive women as helpless and as victims, in need of support and rescue from men and society.
The end goal of the underlying agenda is clear, once the crocodile tears are wiped away and the mask of female vulnerability and hypoagency is removed. Gynocentrism leads to a dysfunctional sexual feudal system, where women hold a privileged position in society in relation to men and eventually the complete dehumanisation of men. Gynocentrism is in essence female supremacy under the disguise of female vulnerability.
Nature abhors a vacuum. As with any imbalance, sooner or later it comes to an end. Gynocentrism or any form of sexual conflict for that matter, that grows to a point where it negatively impacts the overall reproductive fitness of a population, will be selected against. The mismatch between the marginalisation of men in gynocentric societies and female hypergamy, is a major factor causing the fertility rates of many countries to fall below replacement levels. There is no middle ground with gynocentrism and it inevitably grows to a point where it undermines the foundations of society. Gynocentrism is essentially a snake that eventually eats its own tail. It is a long process over many centuries of initial growth and then decline, but eventually gynocentric cultures destroy themselves. It is important to note that while the potential for sexual conflict in our species does exist, so does the potential to adopt a strategy of intersexual cooperation. Eventually functionally adaptive strategies for the species win out and any population that adopts the more optimal cooperative strategy and does not marginalise men, will eventually end up replacing the declining gynocentric societies around them.
There are many other forces at work that play into this gynocentric social manipulation and amplify its effect by orders of magnitude and I cannot address them all in this speech. I will be discussing the origins of gynocentrism further and what is driving it, in further detail in my future articles and also presenting possible solutions. People can learn more about the many flaws of reproductive reductionism and the myth of the golden uterus, by reading my articles on the subject on my website Theantigynocentrist.wordpress.com and in my lecture series on Gynocentrism.com, where I have gone into even greater detail on these topics than in this speech.
Humans are no more a gynocentric species, than we are a murderous species and a tribalistic and genocidal species. All behaviour and I do mean all behaviour, including murder, rape, tribalism and genocide, has a biological component and humans do have a biological predisposition for violence. We don’t make biologically determinist justifications for murder, rape, racism, genocide or violence and we should not do so for gynocentrism either. Whilst we are hardly perfect beings, we do have some capacity to rise above the darker side of human nature and behave as better people.
The line women are more valuable because of their golden uterus and the line men are biologically disposable, are all lies. Lies that have been crafted and promoted in our culture to rationalise the exploitation of men and convince men to see themselves and other men as human doings with zero intrinsic worth, so they will accept their own exploitation. The red pill is subject to so much censorship and attacks by feminists and our gynocentric establishment, because it is the antidote to the gynocentric social narratives that pervade our society. They know the great threat the red pill poses to our gynocentric culture. The red pill disrupts the capacity of gynocentric social narratives to act as effective tools to socially manipulate the behaviour of men and society, by exposing them for what they are- Lies, well-crafted lies. So keep spreading the word and red pilling society!
I will finish this speech with a quote from Esther Vilar the author of The Manipulated Man, “What an advantage a man would have if only he realized the cold, clear thoughts running through a woman’s head while her eyes are brimming with tears!”
Once manipulation is exposed for what it is, like a magic trick exposed, it loses its power. That is the power of the red pill. The power of the truth- Men are human beings, not human doings!
In this article I will be examining Lester Ward’s theory on gynocentrism (see these links here1 and here2). I have chosen to write this to demonstrate that views on the supposed superiority of women are not isolated to just the last fifty years. The undeserved deification of women has been going on for far longer than fifty years. My issues with Ward’s theory are too numerous to write in one article, so I will provide my general criticism of his work. You will also notice that many of my future articles, including this one, are going to be considerably shorter than before. These articles are to encourage people to think more deeply about specific topics in the manosphere. I have laid the general foundations on my views on gynocentrism in my previous writings and have gone into great detail. It be should be sufficient now for me to provide a general outline on further topics I will discuss. Rest assured I could go into enormous detail on any given topic (as can be seen from my previous work), but I would rather cover more topics and rely on people to refer to my previous writings on gynocentrism if they need more information.
The Three Problems In Claiming Female Or Male Superiority
Lester Ward puts an argument forward about why women are the naturally superior sex in his theory. There are three major problems with claiming one sex is superior to the other. The first problem is defining what makes one sex superior to the other. Who decides what set of traits are important and what traits are less important? Who decides what combination of traits are relevant to determining which sex is superior? Who decides what even makes something superior? Claims of the overall superiority of a group are nebulous subjective value judgements. There is no universal definition that can be agreed upon, on what makes one group of people superior to the other. It makes far more coherent sense to claim superiority in relation to a specific metric, than to claim one sex is generally superior to the other. If I were to state that men on average have a superior height to that of women for instance, then that claim is far less vague and nebulous than stating that men are superior to women or vice versa.
The second problem with arguing one sex is superior, is that each sex are two interdependent and essential components of one biological system that replicates itself. We are not talking about two sets of organisms that exist independently of each other, where one can gain at the others’ expense over the long term. The relative success or failure of males and females which defines their value, is to some degree dependent on the relative success or failure of the other sex. It is the evolutionary success or failure of the whole biological system that males and females are components of, that determines the success or failure of males and females and thus their value.
The reductionist mindset cannot fathom the interdependent nature of a biological system and the emergent properties of such a system. The sum output of a system is greater than its individual components (synergy) and the components alone do not produce the desired output. The battle of the sexes, is really just a dysfunction of a bigger biological system that is temporarily out of equilibrium. Like cancer, intersexual conflict over the long term is a disturbance from the proper functioning of the biological system of the species. Just as cancerous tissue cannot ultimately gain at the expense of the body, neither can one sex ultimately gain at the expense of the other sex over the long term and not destroy the biological system that comprises the species as a whole.
The third problem with making claims of male or female superiority, is its usefulness. How useful is such a nebulous generalised subjective value judgement of entire halves of the population? It has no sustainable social or economic utility, because such claims are made about each sex in general and are subjective and not focused on just a specific metric or evidence that has practical implications. Claims of male or female superiority are nebulous. What do I mean by nebulous? There is a difference between suggesting that only women should run society because they are “superior”, without reference to any metric or solid evidence and suggesting men have superior physical strength and therefore need their own weightlifting events. One claim is specific to a metric (physical strength in this example) and backed up by evidence and facts and has practical implications, the other claim has none of those characteristics.
We also have to consider the destructive effects of claiming one sex is superior to other on society. How destructive is such a bigoted value judgement? We have centuries of history demonstrating how corrosive and how destructive claims of the superiority of one group of people over the other are. Genocides have occurred on the basis of group superiority and the alleged inferiority of the other group. Our society requires a certain level of cooperation, fairness and civility to function and remain stable and intact. Claims of group superiority of any kind whether it is based on race or sex (or some other characteristic), undermine these critical features that form the foundation of civilisation.
There has to be mutual respect and reciprocity for different groups of people to work together to form and run civilisation. Men and women cannot on their own form their own civilisations and so it becomes essential to maintain mutual respect and reciprocity between the sexes. Once you remove the basic level of respect men should have toward women and women should have toward men, you undermine the core relationship between the sexes that forms the basis of the nuclear family and civilisation itself. There is no relationship more fundamental to civilisation than that between men and women. For this reason we can in part measure the health of society, based on the health of the relationship between men and women. Claims of male or female superiority undermine the relationship between the sexes and thus society and the foundations of civilisation. This is why radical feminism, gynocentrism and claims of female superiority or male superiority, need to be addressed and not ignored.
The Greater Variability Of The Male Sex Does Not Make Them Inferior
Lester Ward’s theory argues that women are superior to men because the female sex is more conserved in nature and the male sex is more variable. That is essentially what his core argument boils down to. Evolution is driven by natural selection and natural selection drives adaptation and adaptation is the result of variation. The fact that the biological role of females is less variable in nature, does not then result in females being the naturally superior sex. Sexual reproduction and the origins of biological sex, result from the evolutionary advantage of variation that arises from them. Being more variable does not make males inferior. The greater biological variation of the male sex in nature, simply demonstrates the importance of the male sex and its role in reproduction, in providing the variation required for a species to adapt to its environment and also enhance a species evolutionary success in general.
Females Are Not The Source Of Life
Lester also seems to hold a view that the female sex has existed long before the male sex and so that somehow makes them superior. Bacteria have existed long before humans, does that make bacteria superior to humans? Just because something has been around longer, does not make it superior. Aside from that reality, females have been around as long as males. The female sex literally cannot exist without sexual reproduction and the existence of the male sex. This should be obvious.
Ward shares a view in his theory, that females have been the main trunk of life. There is a trap in thinking that if less males passed on their genes, then males had a lower contribution to the continuation of the lineage. People fail to consider that in instances where fewer males reproduced, males that did reproduce did so at a higher frequency than females (where sexual reproduction involves an individual male and female, as it does in our species). Thus the total contribution of the male and female sex to the continuation of the lineage is exactly the same, regardless as to how many males versus females reproduce in a species like ours where each instance of reproduction involves one male and one female.
In relation to Ward’s view that females are the main trunk of life, Ward seems to think that asexual life can be considered “female” and therefore asexual life should be counted towards the female contribution to the continuation of life. It is scientifically and factually incorrect to conflate asexual life and the female sex as being interchangeable.
Lester says the following in his writings:
“Origin of the Male Sex. — Although reproduction and sex are two distinct things, and although a creature that reproduces without sex cannot properly be called either male or female, still, so completely have these conceptions become blended in the popular mind that a creature which actually brings forth offspring out of its own body is instinctively classed as female. The female is the fertile sex, and whatever is fertile is looked upon as female. Assuredly it would be absurd to look upon an organism propagating asexually as male. Biologists have proceeded from this popular standpoint, and regularly speak of “mother-cells” and “daughter-cells.” It therefore does no violence to language or to science to say that life begins with the female organism and is carried on a long distance by means of females alone. In all the different forms of asexual reproduction, from fission to parthenogenesis, the female may in this sense be said to exist alone and perform all the functions of life including reproduction. In a word, life begins as female.” 1,3
There is a big difference between the biology of an asexually reproducing organism and a biological female that sexually reproduces. It does do violence to language and to science to attempt to conflate the two. Most of the asexually reproducing species on this planet are simple forms of life and reproduce very differently to sexual reproduction. In contrast, most of the complex forms of life on Earth are sexually reproducing species. There is a big difference between the biology of bacteria asexually reproducing in a petri dish and a human female and how they reproduce. It makes no sense to categorise life that existed 3.8 billion years ago as “female”, or any other form of asexually reproducing life. Life did not begin female, it began with asexually replicating single celled organisms and in the absence of biological sex. Females did not come before males, females originated at the same time as males did. The existence of the female sex, requires the existence of the male sex.
Females in our species and in many other sexually reproducing species, cannot reproduce or “create life” without the male. Females do not “create life” in our species, human males and females create life. This basic reality seems lost on Ward. Ward’s related and skewed presentation that males simply act as fertiliser, fails to properly represent the breadth of what males contribute. Males do other things other than provide sperm, especially in higher order species and in humans (i.e like paternal investment in offspring). Ward does not appear interested in exploring or examining that in any detail, aside from giving it a passing remark.
There Is No Universal Law Of Male Inferiority
A major flaw in Ward’s theory, is his use of different examples in nature of males and females to demonstrate the supposed superiority of the female sex. Examples in nature can be found to demonstrate the exact opposite (i.e “male superiority”), but he does not seem interested in citing those examples. This is confirmation bias, selectively filtering information to confirm an existing belief or conclusion. Ward seems quite willing to accept that the greater variation in males, may lead to instances where females are in a “superior” position to males in certain respects in particular species. In contrast Ward seems uninterested in giving equal consideration to examples where this same greater variation of males, may put males in a superior position to females in certain respects in other species. Who is to say either that what Ward considers is a weakness of a male of a particular species in one context, might actually be a strength is another context. A male spider of a species might be smaller and therefore considered “inferior” by Ward, but that same trait may allow the male spider greater mobility than the female to roam through its habitat and confer certain advantages.
Biology across all of nature is extraordinarily variable across species, families, phyla and kingdoms etc. To draw examples from widely different branches of nature and then form some grand unified theory that males are naturally inferior to females based on cherry picked examples as Ward does, is rife with problems. The evolutionary forces at work across different branches of life can be vastly different. It cannot be assumed that observing a similar pattern between the sexes in two or more different species (that allegedly demonstrate male inferiority), is the result of the same cause and that this cause is male inferiority from greater male variation. It is likely there are completely different forces at work that produce a similar pattern across the species he cites, given how different the biology and habitat of each species he refers to actually are. This would especially be the case when citing examples of males and females from completely different kingdoms as Ward does (species from the plant kingdom versus the animal kingdom)!
Why The Sexes Are Different But Equal
Ward’s theory on gynocentrism, is an example of the warped thinking that occurs when the brain is on gynocentrism- Reality goes out the window and people get selective with facts. I could write far more about why Ward’s theory is fundamentally flawed, but what I have written should suffice. Ultimately one can make arguments that men are superior to women and women are superior to men, but only in certain defined respects (i.e the greater physical strength of men or the greater immunity of women to infectious disease). However when it comes to the overall value of each sex in our species, neither sex is more valuable. For this reason, it does not make much sense to claim either sex is superior in general. In our species the male and female sex each produce exactly the same total number of copies of the genome/number of offspring (the source of biological value) and consequently our biology produces males and females in roughly equal proportion. See Fishers principle4 for more information on why this is so. As mentioned, even in instances where greater numbers of women reproduce in our species, the fewer men that reproduce will do so at a higher frequency than any individual woman and the total reproductive output of each sex will still remain equal.
Our biology does not favour the production of “superior” males or “superior” females over the other sex (hence the roughly 1:1 sex ratio at birth), because each sex produces the same biological value (i.e number of offspring or copies of the genome). Any subjective value judgement of male or female superiority, is our own social invention. As males and females are produced in equal proportion in our species and have the same total reproductive output, each sex faces equivalent selective forces to develop and harness their different strengths in equal proportion to propagate the genome. Nature abhors a vacuum and will select against any scenario where half the population does not pull its own evolutionary weight. Consequently males and females may have different strengths, but over time selective pressures ensure these sets of strengths of each sex have equal value in terms of propagating the genome and the lineage. Ultimately propagating the genome is where all biological value comes from and so each sex has equal biological value. For more discussion on this topic on the biological equality of the sexes, consult this two part article of mine (linked here5 and here6).
It is possible for the sexes to be different in relation to each other, but equal in relation to biological value. This is no different from two houses being different, but having the same monetary value. People who argue that differences between people make equality impossible, fail to consider people can be different in some metrics and equal in other metrics. People can indeed be different in one respect and equal in another respect. Reductionist bigots generally don’t like the complexity of realities like that, but that does not make these realities any less true.
“Never Go Full Retard”– From the movie Tropic Thunder
When we discuss the apocalypse we sometimes refer to The Four Horsemen- Death, War, Famine and Plague. We have two of those right now, but is there one missing from that list? Is there a fifth horsemen we can add? I think there is. I would call it madness. The world has gone mad. Our world is now led to a significant extent by crazy people with crazy ideas. We call it clown world and as we can see with the toilet paper, madness does reign in 2020. Madness brings chaos and chaos brings the fall of society. There is no greater example of madness in modern society, than woke culture and identity politics. This has become the subject of Douglas Murray’s book, The Madness Of Crowds1. We are at a critical juncture in history and what is going on needs to be thoroughly examined and addressed. The first thing we have to acknowledge with madness, is that madness is never supposed to make any sense. Do not go looking for rational and sane causes for irrationality and insanity.
Madness has nothing do with reason and exists in the absence of reason. Year after year attempts have been made to use reason to cure the far-left ideological madness in society. This will never work, just ask the violent mob that divisive identity politics nurtures. All of these intellectual critiques of woke culture and identity politics will fail to bring about their downfall. Appealing to reason to challenge woke culture, is like trying to fight a fire with straw. It is the freedom from the consequences of irrational and pathological ideas and beliefs, that has resulted in the proliferation of madness in our society. When academics can espouse madness in our institutions for decades and when bureaucrats can introduce absurd policies with impunity and there is no accountability for the results of their ideology, madness will grow in society and that is exactly what has happened. Appealing to reason with people, requires that they be open to examining their own beliefs and questioning them. This will only occur when people bear the costs of their own beliefs and cannot push them onto society for their benefit and at our expense.
Unchecked power corrupts and the people promoting the madness we are witnessing in modern society are doing so from privileged positions and with impunity. There are no consequences for these people and no costs they incur from their own ideology, so why should they care about whether their ideology has a positive or negative effect on society? This is the key mechanism of how madness proliferates in society- Lack of accountability for beliefs and ideas. Gynocentrism2 is a bad set of beliefs and ideas that gains traction in a society that permits madness to proliferate. It is certainly not the only set of bad ideas that thrives in madness, but it is definitely a prime example of one of them.
The peace, freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for decades after World War Two as a result of massive technological and social change, has resulted in a relaxation of our vigilance to weed out bad ideas and beliefs. We have dropped our guard as a society and have failed to hold people accountable for promoting bad ideas and beliefs. This is because we have become less concerned with our own survival and have lost our sense of the danger madness represents and the threat it poses to society. Don’t get me wrong, people should have the freedom to say what they like, no matter how stupid or wrong they may be. However I do think people should not be free of accountability for what they promote and implement from positions of authority in the mainstream media, academia, the boardroom, the legal system and in politics etc. Too often woke culture, identity politics and the Marxist far-left, gets a free pass for the results of their ideas and policies whilst holding privileged positions of authority and are kept in a protective bubble free from accountability. That has to change and to change things we have to diagnose what is going on. We have to be able to identify the factors that are driving the madness in society and fuelling the growth of sets of pathological ideas like gynocentrism, if we want to identify the madness in our society and then hold people accountable for promoting it.
The Forces Of Madness
There are eight core social factors or forces that need to be discussed in explaining the power of the current societal madness we are experiencing and that drive the growth in the madness we have observed. Every single one of these eight social forces also drives gynocentrism and the pathological aspects of our culture that are like it. The power of gynocentrism is not all about just sex and neoteny, there is more to it than that. Although these social forces exist independently of gynocentrism, we have to discuss them to properly understand the power behind gynocentrism and what drives it. So what are these eight forces that drive gynocentrism and the growth of madness in society? They are as follows:
Lack of accountability for beliefs and ideas– I have already discussed this and it is the most important force of the eight that I will identify and describe. When people get into academia, into teaching, into the media, into politics, onto boards, into management, into our legal system and into policy, they have to be held accountable for the beliefs and ideas they promote and implement. An elite class has emerged over the last fifty years that appears to be beyond accountability for the ideas and beliefs they push onto society. The consequences of their ideas and their beliefs are never felt by these people and they are never confronted and held to account for them. These elites are the “establishment”. These are the people that consider themselves our moral superiors and live in an echo chamber and a protective bubble where they can virtue signal with impunity and chastise the unwashed masses in society that won’t comply with the ideology they promote. This elite also makes certain to censor any dissenting opinion and “cancel” or ostracise anyone offering a view that runs counter to their narrative. For decades this elite have indoctrinated society through their control of the education system and our media to hold distorted, dangerous and damaging ideas and beliefs. There has been no major resistance or accountability for this indoctrination whatsoever.
Blind faith in authority– People will follow what they perceive to be official and authoritative, even when the information or opinions presented are clearly ridiculous or nonsensical. When people are afraid, angry, uncertain or emotionally invested in a certain belief system, they will turn to authoritative figures and movements to solve problems. If the mainstream media says it, then it must be true. That’s the thinking that embodies what I am describing here. It is the thinking one finds in cults and when such thinking becomes mainstream in society, it is devastating. There is a substantial amount of society who will believe what they are told regardless as to what it is, provided it comes from a position of perceived authority. The genocides instigated by the Nazi party and religious extremism, are horrific examples of what blind faith in authority can lead to and how powerful it is.
Herd mentality– People will go along with what other people think and do, simply to fit in and belong. People are also to some degree cognitive misers. People will think as little as possible in certain circumstances, if they feel they have no incentive to think with any effort. When thinking independently is not perceived to be useful or worth the effort, people will follow what other people think and follow whatever social trend is popular. That is one example of herd mentality- Following the group simply because it involves less effort. Herd mentality is why we have no supermarkets with toilet paper in a pandemic caused by a primarily respiratory virus! Human behaviour does not require logic when herd mentality takes over. Herd mentality fosters groupthink and strict social policing to enforce conformity on the group. Herd mentality does not allow any dissent from collective insanity, delusion and hysteria and thus becomes incredibly dangerous when it grows to a certain level and starts impacting political and economic decisions with long term implications.
Tribalism– When group identity becomes the predominant theme in society, then everything begins to revolve around group identity. People are judged not by what they say and do, but what identity they belong to. We called it discrimination in the past, but apparently discrimination is now equality. When group identity becomes the primary value system of society, expect hypocrisy and double standards to become the new normal. It eventually becomes impossible under such conditions to have meaningful discussions on anything and address societal problems. I don’t think I have to explain in detail how obsessed our society and institutions etc are with group identity at the moment. Tribalism paralyses society and prevents us from properly functioning. Eventually it fractures society and leads to mass violence. We have already had a taste this year in 2020, of what to expect if this tribalistic “us” versus “them” mentality is allowed continue unchallenged.
Surface Thinking– People will skim the surface of a subject based on the information immediately and easily available to them and form snap judgements. Little analysis or scrutiny will be done of the information people are exposed to. Information is just absorbed and repeated in such circumstances. This is a further example of being a cognitive miser. Thinking is hard. There are a lot of lazy people in our decadent society and these lazy people form lazy half-baked opinions about ideas they have not even properly bothered to examine. We know all about surface thinking in the manosphere. How many times does the gender wage gap need to be debunked? How many times?
Surface thinking is why the media can so easily manipulate the beliefs of society about particular issues. How many people bother these days to scrutinise the information they are presented with, or research a topic beyond the information directly disseminated to them, before they form a strong opinion on something? Quite often the goldfish attention span of modern society drives surface thinking. If you can’t explain something to someone in one minute, then they do not wish to know of it. That’s the mentality of a surface thinker. Thinking requires effort and sadly it seems many people lack either the attention span or the motivation to examine things in any detail. Surface thinking is exemplified by the massive void in society of any deep level of intellectual curiosity that extends beyond the frontiers of current knowledge and a lack of motivation to explore the unknown.
Short Term Thinking– We are the society of the short-termers. Short term thinking is evident in sayings like, “She’ll be right”, “I will be dead by then” and “Not my problem”. This type of mentality has become pretty widespread in society. Well I got some news- She won’t be right, you won’t be dead by then and it will be your problem. COVID-19 has put the spanner in the world of the short-termers and suddenly people need to start thinking long term again. Suddenly people are starting to recognise for instance, that saving money, having an emergency cash reserve and not getting into high levels of unsustainable debt, is a good idea.
It is truly incredible how little thought has been given from the top of our society and all the way down to the general public, on our long term future. For decades there has been an apathetic attitude toward the future from the public and also from our leaders. There has been far too little consideration of the long term implications and consequences of decisions made in the present and little responsibility or accountability demonstrated for those decisions. This is particularly the case with our politicians. Just look at the mushrooming levels of government debt we have accumulated over recent decades and continue to accumulate, with no regard from our politicians on how that debt will be paid back or its effect on future generations. Woke culture and identity politics have thrived in the absence of any long term thinking. Frankly it remains to be seen whether COVID-19 will result in any substantial shift in the mentality of society to plan long term and think of the future. Due to this apathy, we have a society of people that will not address reality until it comes crashing into their lives in a major way, like it just has with COVID-19. In the end reality asserts itself.
Reductionism– People will reduce complex information down to simple categories and single causes. There is no recognition of the wider system or the multifactorial nature of a problem or issue and no consideration for the nuance and detail of a subject. This is how we got the current polarised society we now live in. Our media, our political system and our academic institutions, are now filled with arrogant ideological fools that reduce every single matter down to a left wing or right wing issue or down to identity politics. There is no room for any proper intellectual and thoughtful discussion of any issue of significance in public discourse because of this. That is a big problem and we need to address it as a society.
Emotional Thinking– People will let emotions direct their thinking to some degree and this has become much more the case over the last 50 years. Emotional thinking is especially prevalent when people are afraid, angry and have spent decades being indoctrinated into an ideology they are emotionally attached to and that has been promoted with impunity for decades in our institutions. People have an emotionally invested position on certain topics and can consequently be very resistant and hostile to hearing alternative points of view on those topics. You know you have started discussing a topic of this nature, when the people around you suddenly go from 0 to 100 on an emotional scale. This where the safe space and trigger word bullshit comes from. It is also a key reason gynocentrism is so hard to challenge with reason and with facts. Gynocentrism is saturated in emotional thinking. For many of the emotionally challenged on the left side of the political spectrum, merely offering a different opinion now automatically makes you a Nazi. Emotional thinking leads to a reductionist and highly polarised way of thinking.
People have emotional biases and the extent to which they let their emotions bound their thinking, is the extent to which they become wilfully ignorant and intolerant of dissenting opinions. Reality does not care about emotions and sooner or later reality inevitably asserts itself for these people. Unfortunately it is usually only after much destruction, that emotionally charged thinking finally gives way to reason. People who let their emotions drive their thinking, believe in fantasy over reality. It is not the rejection of facts that is the problem with emotional thinking, it is the selective filtering of facts. Such people absorb emotionally appealing information and filter out information that does not conform to their beliefs or ideas that they hold an emotional investment in. We call this confirmation bias.
The role of fatherlessness in creating a society of emotional thinkers is worth mentioning. Fathers have played a key role in socialising children into rational and responsible adults that develop beyond emotional thinking. The absence of fathers has created generations of people that have a stunted psychological development and this is now showing with the new generations of young adults. This what our future looks like, when we remove fathers from children- A society of madness and of chaos.
These eight forces are rife in our society at the moment. They are not only observable with the general public, we can also see them at work within our own governments, corporate sector, academic institutions and especially from our mainstream media and politicians. These forces drive mobs to burn buildings, destroy and vandalise statues and property, assault innocent people, take over city blocks and call it all progressive justice. They are also the same forces that drive mobs of people to buy toilet paper and to behave and think like complete idiots in a pandemic. The level of idiocy has been almost unbearable for me to watch this year. We really have reached new heights of mass stupidity in 2020. Emotion and particularly fear and anger, are at a multidecade high. All that the media is doing is just fanning the flames and they are doing it deliberately for their own agenda and the agenda of their owners. More on that later.
Do We Deserve What We Have?
If people really are this stupid then perhaps society should collapse. Do we really deserve what we have inherited from past generations when we react so emotionally and without reason, as we have done in 2020? It is a question now worth asking. What I am talking about can be illustrated with the example of COVID-19 and our reaction to it. How would people that lived during the Spanish Flu, World War One and Two and the Great Depression react to COVID-19? Would they have locked down their entire society to the same degree as we have, or would they have made smarter and harder decisions? There was a toughness to earlier generations, that frankly our modern society lacks. They accepted far greater levels of mortality and continued to run their economies and keep their societies open to at least some degree, even when bombs were literally raining down on their cities.
Even during the Spanish flu when at least 17 million people died (Many estimates are much higher than that) and the world population was much less than it is today, countries put in place some restrictions, but they did not go to the same extremes as what we are witnessing today all over the world in responding to COVID-19. COVID-19 as of July 2020, has not even caused 5% of the deaths observed from the Spanish flu (Based on the conservative estimate of 17 million deaths from Spanish flu) and we have a far larger world population today than during the Spanish flu pandemic. Of course we need to take COVID-19 seriously, but we also need to have some perspective and keep things in proportion and recognise we have had far worse pandemics historically (Like the Black Death which killed between a third to one half of Europe). We seem to lack in modern society, a readiness to make hard decisions and accept hard realities. We have become soft. There will likely be a second, a third and a fourth wave of this virus and more waves after that until there is a vaccine or the pandemic has run its course. Sooner or later we are going to have to choose between keeping society locked down to save lives, versus the very real prospect of a great depression or even the complete collapse of our national economies from a protracted lockdown and all of the death that will result from that.
Aside from toughness, there was also an intelligence and rationality to the decisions of our leaders during the numerous difficult periods of the early 20th century. This intelligence and rationality seem absent today. We have known the age profile and the health profile of those that are hospitalised and die from COVID-19 since April of this year. We know the majority of those that are infected and are then hospitalised or die, are elderly and/or suffer some kind of health condition (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and lung disease often from smoking etc). We know that the majority of healthy people that are under 60 years of age with no health condition and get infected with COVID-19, will not die or be hospitalised. A substantial number of these people may not even have any symptoms or will be mildly sick. This is not conjecture, these are facts that anyone can check up on. We have had this same pattern confirmed multiple times across the world and have now had time to prepare our hospitals. We now have the knowledge of COVID-19 and the public health capacity, to be more targeted in our measures to react to the pandemic. Despite these realities, we continue to live in fear whipped up by the media and continue to lock all of society down and risk the possibility of another major depression or even socioeconomic collapse.
Sooner or later we will have to confront our thinking on what we are doing, because the long-term consequences of the lockdowns will begin unfolding in major ways. Remember this lockdown was meant to give our hospitals time to prepare and not to eradicate the virus (which is what the media and political narrative has now morphed into). A lockdown will never eradicate this virus. It is also not a socially or economically sustainable long-term solution to the pandemic, to lock down society every single time there is a “wave” of the virus. This is a hard reality that sooner or later we will have to confront.
Interestingly none of the fear of the virus we now seem to again be consumed by and none of the lockdown restrictions seemed to matter, when we had violent mass protests a month ago all over the world during a pandemic, because of the unjust and tragic death of a single individual in one country. What does that stark contrast say about the intelligence and emotional state of modern society? It is complete nonsensical madness! How much of this reaction to COVID-19 is just emotional hysteria whipped up by the media and our politicians, which they ramp up and down with news cycles to suit their agenda? No one seemed to care about social distancing during the protests and our collective fear and concern only seems to arise when we are told to be fearful by our media and politicians. What does our reaction to COVID-19 say about our current society in comparison to past society? I think it speaks volumes on how regressed society has become intellectually and culturally. In many ways we have made intellectual and cultural progress as a society in comparison to the past, but in other respects we have gone in the exact opposite direction and regressed, or have not met the standards we claim to have reached.
I am not suggesting we be cavalier with COVID-19 and the risks it presents, but we need to be tougher, less emotional and more intelligent in how we are reacting to it. A more targeted approach to managing the risk that COVID-19 represents based on considering the age and health profile of those most at risk, seems far more sensible than repeatedly locking down all of society when there is inevitably another wave of the virus. We could put in measures to isolate and properly support those most at risk, along with positive cases, overseas travellers and medical and aged care staff. We could reopen the rest of society and still encourage social distancing where possible and preventative measures like wearing masks and washing hands when people are out and about during the pandemic. Yes that does mean more cases, but not a huge spike in hospitalisations and deaths.
There are reports that some people with mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 can exhibit signs of tissue damage with their organs. However there is a view this damage may not be permanent in some instances and may just be temporary damage that the body will repair. This is concerning of course and I am certainly not saying healthy people under 60, should have a carefree attitude toward the virus. Social distancing, washing hands, wearing masks and proper hygiene, are all very important measures that should be encouraged. Everyone should take precautions, because the virus is dangerous. However, it is a reality that the degree of danger is heavily skewed towards the elderly and those with certain health conditions. They are the majority of people filling our hospital beds and dying from the virus.
It is also a reality that going to the extent of locking down society for more than a few months and/or having multiple mass lockdowns, is also dangerous to public health. Protracted or repeated lockdowns do cost lives. This is about managing risks and consequences and making hard decisions. In the short-term with many unknowns, it could be argued that a lockdown was justifiable, so that we had time to prepare and also evaluate the threat of the virus. In the long-term a protracted lockdown or repeated lockdowns becomes less and less tenable as a strategy, because of the increasing cost to human lives and public health from the lockdown itself. There is a threshold where lockdown measures cost more lives and have a greater negative impact on public health than the actual virus and other risk mitigation strategies have to be considered instead. This is what people with a reductionist mindset swimming in fear of the virus cannot perceive, because they can only focus on the danger of the virus and the deaths directly from the virus. A perpetual lockdown is not a tenable long term option and sooner or later it has to end.
If people want to criticise my opinion on COVID-19 I am perfectly fine with that, as long as such criticism is well thought through. Please consider the facts before you form judgements on an issue that will determine the very social and economic future of our countries for the next 20-30 years. That is how big of a footprint the lockdowns will leave on society. I would also encourage people to watch these discussions with Nobel Laureate Prof. Michael Levitt3, distinguished physician Dr. Scott Atlas4 and former UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption5, before they reactively form a view from listening to our mainstream media, that locking all of society down (sometimes on multiple occasions) for a protracted and often uncertain period of time, is the only way to react to this virus.
Also ask yourself these questions- How many times can we keep locking society down with every new wave of the virus, before we no longer have the economy and the money to support our health systems beyond 2020? What resources will we have available for the next pandemic or for future waves of this virus, if we destroy our economies? How many lives will be lost from suicide, addictions/overdoses, intimate partner violence, stress induced heart disease and cancer and from failing to seek medical care to diagnose and treat other life threatening conditions (Other than COVID-19, like preventing the diagnosis of cancer or heart disease at an early stage) etcetera from the lockdowns? How much is overall health and life expectancy going to be reduced from livelihoods being destroyed because of the lockdowns? These lockdowns are not harmless to public health. There are costly limits to the effectiveness of locking society down over a protracted period of time or doing so repeatedly.
It takes a certain level of responsibility, a strong intellect, moral discipline, emotional toughness and resilience, to ensure the continuation of our modern civilisation. Frankly I see very little of any of these attributes reflected in our leaders or from the general population at the moment. Past generations built society by putting reason and accountability before feelings. Our society is not even close to where past generations were in this regard. It may seem cold, but being overly emotional on important issues like a pandemic is dangerous and can be more dangerous than the actual virus itself. You don’t get all of the technological and social progress we have experienced in the West over the last 300 years by letting feelings and the mob dictate society. We could learn something from that. What did Franklin Roosevelt say during the Great Depression? “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”6. When I look at society today, it is consumed with fear and our leaders and mainstream media are stoking and playing to that fear. That is the difference between past society and the society of today.
What we are living through is a challenge to the age of reason and modern civilisation itself. We are living through a crucial moment in history. This year and this decade are inflection points that will set the course of the rest of this century. Facts have to come before emotion. Bad ideas that are proven to be factually incorrect need to be dismissed, regardless as to how emotionally appealing they may be. People need to think for themselves instead of robotically following the herd or authority. People need to consider information, ideas and opinions more deeply before they just absorb them, think long term and take in the bigger picture beyond the reductive lens of ideology. People need to value individuality above group identity, because individuality is the ultimate form of diversity. We need to hold people that promote bad ideas accountable for the consequences of their ideas. At the moment we are doing the complete opposite of every single one of these things and rest assured it will have enormous consequences on society.
When we cannot have nuanced discussions on complex and difficult issues because society has become too polarised and emotionally charged to discuss them, civilised society is under threat. If winning the argument is determined by who yells the loudest, violently protests and censors the most, then society will eventually implode in the intellectual vacuum such conditions create. When the group identity of a person determines the value of their contribution to society and not what they actually contribute, then society destroys its very capacity to be a society. In these conditions and after enough time, society eventually transitions into a fractured collection of tribal groups. In such a dystopia, the authoritarian mob and group identity rules. Individuality is gone, individual liberty is gone and the rule of law is replaced by the law of the jungle and totalitarianism.
What Is At Stake
Make no mistake, all of our individual liberties are at stake over the next three decades. We are in an information war against ideologues that what to divide the population against itself and keep society weak, dumbed down and in a state of perpetual social and financial dependence for their own gain and for their own power. These elitist ideologues are in our media, they are in our universities, they are in our legal systems and they are in our politics and boardrooms. They will use societies blind faith in authority, herd mentality, tribalism, surface thinking, short-term thinking, reductionism and emotional thinking and their lack of accountability they enjoy, to manipulate society for their own benefit and at our expense.
Notice when black is turned against white and women are turned against men, society is never uniting to challenge the societal status quo that leaves people weaker and poorer every year? That is not an accident. It is the strategy of divide and rule. This is not a conspiracy, it is an open secret and being done right in our faces. The media and academia are leading the way on a sustained campaign of psychological warfare against society. There is a reason the establishment funds and supports divisive political ideology- It keeps the public too distracted and divided to identify and resist the gradual introduction of a sophisticated system of mass exploitation.
Gynocentrism has gone far beyond any historical level seen in the past, in part because of those eight forces I have mentioned growing in our society over the past five decades and the influence of bad actors in our society fanning the flames. Our institutions and culture need to encourage the very opposites of these eight forces to quash the general madness in our culture and gynocentrism. However that cannot occur without accountability being applied to people promoting bad ideas.
We are quite capable of turning things around as a society and addressing these eight forces, by fostering, encouraging and demonstrating their exact opposites in our culture and in our institutions. We are capable of more than we are currently exhibiting as a society and I think there is an increasing awareness of that and that something is really wrong with the direction we are headed in. All it takes is for the silent majority to decide enough is enough and it all stops. We have subversive ideologues in positions of power. They have to eventually be held accountable by the public and I think the public is running out of patience with what is happening to society. You can see in it the public reactions to various issues as each year passes. People are reaching a tipping point, where they won’t keep buying into what they have been told for years. The next step is to actually demand something be done and without compromise.
Some Room For Hope
We have the rule of law, for the very reason that we recognise that the concept of justice is above the emotion of a mob. We are emotional beings, but that does not mean we have to be slaves to our emotions. We have been rational enough to form governments, administer and enforce laws and adopt science over superstition. We are animals, but that does not mean we have to be slaves to our animal impulses. We have a choice to behave as better people and we have strived in the past to become those better people and a better society. That is what drove the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. The realisation of what society could become is a powerful motivator to improve.
So much positive social change has been preceded by a hunger to move beyond our more primitive ways. We have made some progress there. Just because we still have violence, bigotry and cruelty in society, does not mean we have not improved over the thousands of years of civilisation. We are less cruel, less bigoted and less violent than in the past. There is more justice and fairness than in the past. No matter how much ideologues would convince us otherwise, we have made social progress and continue to do so. I would encourage people to read Stephen Pinker’s two books on the subject, Enlightenment Now7 and The Better Angels Of Our Nature8 which discusses this further. Are we perfect? No. Have we improved in all areas? No. Can we still improve? Yes, we have demonstrated that over thousands of years as a civilisation and as a species.
If humanity can come as far as it has in the last ten thousand years from huts to space stations, then clearly we can live beyond pure instinct and emotion and continue to improve. If we can do these things, then we can overcome the madness that has currently gripped society. I think we can do a better job in the future than we have done in the last fifty years, but only if we recognise where we have gone wrong. It is true that civilisations have risen and fallen, but with each iteration of civilisation, humanity has become more civilised, more advanced and more adherent to reason. We have the capacity to learn from the past and slowly with each cycle of civilisation, we are moving further away from our primitive behaviour and toward a higher state of being. There has been an undeniable upward trend in the advancement of civilisation.
There is no reason to think we have to wait until the current civilisation collapses before we can move to the next level of civilisation9. We can work on addressing the madness now and moving beyond it. We can start taking notes right now on what is going on, formulating a plan and building our future. We can either look toward the future, plan for it and take control of our own destiny, or we can let fear, tyrants and ideologues set our future for us. We need to have the courage to call the bad actors out, address our vices and support each other when we do.
In our modern world technological and social change has resulted in an enormous increase in misandry. We have transitioned from male exploitation to genuine male disposability. Our decadent, safe and prosperous societies have lost touch with basic fundamental truths required to sustain civilisation, because technology has temporarily buffered and delayed the consequences of doing so. This is why we have clown world. Only a society completely unconcerned with its own future survival, would tolerate the level of insanity and mass stupidity we see in present day society.
Due to these societal changes, men are now indeed viewed as disposable and are dehumanised to the point their right to even have a place in society is being questioned. Our culture is now filled with messages like, “The End Of Men”12, “The Future Is Female”13, “Why Can’t We Hate Men”14 and “The Coronavirus Is Not Killing Men Fast Enough”15. There are a plethora of examples like this over the last fifty years. These messages are not coming from the margins of our society, they are coming from our mainstream media and our political system. We can also see the routine marginalisation of men in the legal system and the abuses of their fundamental rights. In the education system we can see a complete indifference to the learning needs of young men and boys and the long-term economic impact that will have on society. The list goes on. Men are not actually biologically disposable as I have discussed in my previous writings, but men are certainly treated as disposable in this modern society and there is a general level of indifference shown toward them as a result.
There is no concern for how failing to support men and boys will impact on societies future whatsoever. The cognitive connection of looking after men so they can in turn look after society has been lost. Our culture has lost the logic of survival and neglecting men will inevitably result in a socioeconomic collapse of our societies, which Karen Straughan called the Fempocalypse16. As I have discussed in my earlier writings17, men still remain essential to keeping our societies functioning. This is despite all of the social and technological changes that have occurred. In some dimensions we are even more dependent on men today than we have been in the past. However because of the effect that technology and creating massive amounts of debt has had on greatly enhancing the living conditions of society, we have become disconnected from this reality and other realities related to survival.
It is easy to see when you look at history, how the exploitation of men from gynocentrism has led to the emergence of male disposability. Men’s blindness to gynocentrism and the technological and social changes that have occurred over the last three centuries, made it inevitable. If men were not going to challenge their own exploitation from gynocentrism, then the exploitation of men would flourish along the lines of biological sex and it has. The only obstacle that stood in the way of male disposability in the past, was the logic of survival and an understanding of the importance of supporting men so they could support society. Once that logic was lost, any concern for men went with it.
It does not take much for exploitation to transition to disposability, when supporting “human doings” so they can be exploited, ceases to be perceived to be necessary. If society has no concept of men’s humanity and does not regard them as human beings, they become disposable once they cease being perceived to be useful human doings. That is precarious manhood and men’s place in the world is conditional under precarious manhood. As the world has undergone huge changes, men have gradually been losing their place in society and have come under increasing attack and dehumanisation as a result. Of course men are more than human doings, but gynocentrism unlike other forms of exploitation, has never been challenged by men on any substantive societal level and so has been allowed to grow for centuries to become the monster it is today.
The Final Outcome Of Disposability
The eventual outcome of treating a group of people as disposable is genocide. This is what Adam Kostakis wrote about18 in his series on gynocentrism, when he talked about the eventual outcome of feminism. People might dismiss the idea of men being eliminated as they are the “physically stronger sex”. As we can see from war, all it takes is for men to be turned against each other to make androcide possible. When rampant gynocentrism reaches a level where our own institutions regard the majority of men as a threat and a minority of men in authority in a feminist controlled state are given the “honour” of being the “good men” fighting the oppressive force of the “patriarchy”, then those men will do the killing for their female betters.
That might sound brutal and unbelievable and that is understandable, but look at history. Many Jewish people had the same level of disbelief initially before they were sent to the death camps. What Jew would have thought that his entire family would be exterminated only a decade after Hitler came to power? These atrocities happen because good people in society are asleep at the wheel during critical moments in history and remain in a state of disbelief. Yes people really are that insane when insanity is not challenged and yes androcide can happen and it can happen on an industrial scale.
Setting men against each other is gynocentric female proxy violence 101. Now imagine that on a societal scale with the full support and enforcement of our institutions. That’s the eventual outcome of rampant gynocentrism- A society that regards men as subhumans that have to be eradicated and a handful of chosen men are considered to be reformed and “good men” that do all the dirty work for their feminist masters. These are the male feminists and the white knights. The ones that think that killing men in the name of protecting women makes them brave and honourable.
Do I think all male feminists are like that? No. But at the extreme end of any movement you will find people with extreme views and as we have seen, feminism has no immune response to extremists in their ranks. With every year the feminist movement becomes more and more radical and more and more dangerous. We know the genocidal leanings of radical feminism, because they have written about it in their writings. They are not a fringe element of feminism any longer. People may regard such men and women as insane and yet this is insanity has found its way and continues to find its way into positions of power in our institutions and governments.
Can we stop this? Yes we can, but it is going to take a major shift in the way men see themselves and the way society regards men. Perhaps when society truly discovers the dark evil radical feminism presents and looks back at history, there will be a recognition that change in how we regard men is needed. Men need to be taught to reframe their sense of self-worth along lines of intrinsic value and on that of a human being and not a human doing. Men need to be raised to see the duality of power that exists between the sexes and the power women have in relation to men. Men need to be raised to identify the exploitive nature of chivalry. Only if this social programming is overcome, will men be in a position to challenge gynocentrism. When the mask is lifted and men have an empowered sense of internally derived self-worth and men see the gynocentric dynamic between men and women for what it is, then the days of gynocentrism are numbered.
Men going their own way (MGTOW) is all about men finding their own intrinsic sense of self-worth and going in their own direction in life. MGTOW and red pill knowledge is a significant part of the solution to overcoming gynocentrism. Men that go their own way and have an awareness of the exploitative gynocentric landscape of modern society, are in a prime position to challenge gynocentrism.
Feminism is fascism in a dress and the sooner men recognise the threat it presents and the cultural pathology of gynocentrism it emerged from, the better. Keeping men divided and against each other with gynocentric threat narratives19, is a huge part of gynocentrism and what prevents men from challenging it. For decades we have had a feminist threat narrative that men have oppressed women for thousands of years. There are many other feminist threat narratives, such as the feminist account of domestic violence as an expression of men’s patriarchal tyranny and the feminist rape culture narrative. All of these threat narratives are seeds of hate to justify the demonisation and dehumanisation of men. They have been sown in our society over many decades by feminists. As a result of this, our academic institutions, media, legal system and political systems are now predictably full of contempt for men (particularly academia). At the same time this has occurred, there has been a creeping trend toward authoritarianism, selective censorship and infringements of our civil liberties in so-called Western democracies. Feminism and an emerging authoritarian police state are a perfect marriage of evil cloaked in the supposed feminine innocence that our gynocentric culture glorifies. Feminism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or as I prefer to call it- Feminism is fascism in a dress.
The enforcement of gynocentrism, requires men to see themselves as the good guy slaying the evil men and protecting the women (or the damsels in distress). All of the threat narratives from feminism, tap into the psychological dynamic in men to see themselves as the protector and provider of women. All of these feminist threat narratives demand that men redeem themselves by demonstrating a hatred for their own sex. That’s how the seeds for mass androcide are sown. All a feminist police state has to do in such a social environment saturated with these threat narratives over many past decades, is to convince the “good men” in authority to view the men that challenge feminism as a threat. From there feminists can then reframe the rest of men in society as a threat and as an example of toxic masculinity that must be eradicated for the survival of humanity. The “good men” in authority will then do the violent and androcidal bidding of feminists on their behalf. After that, then any “good man” that is not ideologically pure enough for the feminist authorities becomes the new threat to be eradicated and so the mass murder goes on and on from there.
For people that doubt this could happen, look at how easy it is to get other men to vilify and condemn other men for being white or black, with all the threat narratives targeted at white men or black men over the decades and centuries. Look at how divided men are because of far-left ideology and identity politics. Consider how dangerous it is for men in particular, to divide men against each other by race. Feminism has been right up there promoting racial identity politics with the far-left for decades. There are too many sick radical feminist ideas to cite and too many examples of extreme feminist ideology such as toxic masculinity20 being taken up by our institutions, for the real possibility of androcide to be dismissed. People in academia have even written about selectively aborting male fetuses and using genetic engineering to control and subjugate men. It is sick and yet this is coming from people in academia. These people have influence and are not on the fringes of our society. So yes, it is indeed possible for society to head down a very dark road when it comes to the future treatment of men and boys in society.
Remember the men from the Christmas Truce in World War One I wrote about at the start of this article? These were men that despite all of the propaganda, recognised they had more in common with each other than they had with the people that had sent them there to fight and die. Men need to overcome the gynocentric forces dividing them and come together to overcome gynocentrism. It is possible that men can do this. Even during war, men from opposing armies have come together under extraordinary circumstances. If men can come together in war, they can come together to fight gynocentrism. However it will require patience, a lot of effort on the part of men and an unconditional regard for the well-being of our fellow men regardless of race or ideology etcetera (whether they are black or white, or a male feminist or a men’s rights activist). Men have to overcome the gynocentric lines that divide us and identity politics. Love your enemy, because feminism sure as hell does not love a male feminist. Feminism just regards their male allies as pawns to enforce gynocentrism and feminist ideology on society, nothing more.
Feminists have put an enormous amount of effort into preventing men from gathering together to discuss men’s issues, or gathering together in general into any sort of men’s only group or organisation without female supervision. Feminists know the power of men getting together in groups and discussing men’s issues and how it undermines gynocentrism and their power base. That’s why there is so much effort from feminists21, to censor the manosphere and disrupt men’s conferences and events. As Prof. Janice Fiamengo said22 at a lecture on men’s issues that was disrupted by feminists, “It’s the signature of a totalitarian ideology to attempt to quash dissent”. Feminism is fascism in a dress.
Time for men to wake up and come to together. Time for society to wake up and recognise men as human beings. Gynocentrism will come to an end in some form or another. Gynocentrism can only end in three ways- socioeconomic collapse, androcide or men peacefully rising up against the authoritarian feminist police state that will emerge from decades of rampant unchecked gynocentrism and passively resisting their own exploitation and dehumanisation. Perhaps we may get all three occurring at once. It all comes down to how much men are prepared to defend their own lives and their own future.
What is disposable? Something is disposable when it has little or no value and can be easily replaced and readily discarded. Disposable cutlery is one example of this. Highly valuable items that cannot be easily replaced or readily discarded, are not something we consider to be disposable. Famous paintings come to mind as one example of what we would not consider to be disposable. I have always had a problem with the concept of male disposability as a generalised description of the state of men’s lives throughout history. People that are truly disposable are exterminated in death camps and dehumanised to the point their very right to exist is challenged. Genocide is what the end result of disposability of a group looks like at a societal level. When society considers a group of people to be disposable, they are disposed of. There is a difference between facing discrimination or being marginalised and actually being considered to be disposable.
Please read this two part article in its entirety before you comment or form opinions about what I am saying. Disposability implies that society considers men to be of little or no value and something to be eradicated. Throughout history it is certainly the case that we have always had some degree of misandry in the culture. I would certainly agree that to some degree male disposability has existed throughout history, however I would not agree it was systemic. The only exception to this would be during war. Opposing armies have certainly regarded each other as a threat to be eliminated and the dehumanisation of men in war has resulted in enormous loss of life and gruesome abuses as a result. We only have to look at prisoner of war camps and the millions of dead bodies on battlefields to attest to male disposability in war.
Male disposability in war dwarfs any other historical example of male disposability by orders of magnitude. However even in war men of opposing armies have demonstrated extraordinary civility with their opposing male counterparts at times. The Christmas truce1 of World War One being one example of this. Men in an unofficial ceasefire instigated by the soldiers themselves, decided to lay down their arms, fraternise with the enemy and celebrate Christmas with each other. It is even suspected there may have been a football match!
To repeat, I am certainly not suggesting male disposability has not occurred in our history or on a large scale in times of war. However I think there has been a mistake in understanding the true nature of the discrimination men have historically faced, versus what they now face today. Like soldiers that do not value the life of their enemy, society does not value the life of people it considers to be disposable. Disposable people are disposed of and it eventually leads to war or alternatively civil unrest, revolution and then genocide. What I think we confuse as historical male disposability in the manosphere, is actually better described as the exploitation of men. Men have historically faced exploitation to a much greater degree than disposability. For as long as civilisation has existed, society has gone to great efforts to control men and exploit male labour. If men truly had no value whatsoever and they truly were regarded as disposable, then our society would be indifferent toward men and would put no effort into controlling and exploiting them, because doing so would yield nothing of value.
There has been an unchallenged narrative in the manosphere for many years that men are biologically disposable because women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. This reductionist mindset, rests on the flimsy assumption reproduction and how many uteri a population has, is the sole or overwhelming determining factor for the continued existence of communities. This assumption does not consider the vast multitude of other requirements that must also be met to ensure a community’s survival and future existence and the essential role men have played to ensure that those other requirements are met. This reductionist narrative of glorifying the role of women in reproduction, is itself gynocentric and comes from certain dogmatic pockets of the manosphere that are simply repeating a narrative from our gynocentric culture. I have scrutinised it extensively in my writings2, because of how entrenched this narrative has become in the manosphere and because it has remained largely unquestioned for many years. It is keeping the manosphere in a stagnate holding pattern and needs to go.
I think this gynocentric narrative of the golden uterus and male disposability has reality backwards. In reality I think men are not disposable and men actually have tremendous value. In fact, I think men have so much value and society and the aristocracy have been so dependent on that value to survive and build civilisation and expand their empires, that enormous efforts have been put into controlling men and exploiting them. This exploitation has often come at the expense of men themselves and has been used to build and expand empires and nation states for the ruling class. Now before people start muttering “Marxist!”, “Communist!” etc let me be clear- Any civilisation of any kind will have some level of corruption and some level of exploitation.
Human beings are imperfect and the societal systems we create are by extension imperfect. It should be obvious by looking at past and present society, that the assertion that our culture is perfectly aligned with our biology and merely an expression of biology, simply does not have a leg to stand on. Biology does restrict culture, but culture can overshoot biology to a certain degree and aspects of it such as political ideology, can become destructive and maladaptive to evolutionary success. No biological system perfectly constrains culture to maximise evolutionary success. Evolution is not perfect, it is not intelligent design.
I am not suggesting either that human society is best described as being composed of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that exploits them. Society is a much more complex mixture than that and reality is much more grey than Marxist ideology cares to admit. I am not calling for some communist revolution. History is littered with examples of how badly that turns out. Men have certainly faced exploitation to varying degrees throughout history, but that does not mean that was the entirety of their experience.
There has certainly been some level of disregard for the well-being of men throughout history, because of the desire of the ruling elite to exploit men for their own benefit. However it has not been a complete disregard for men, like what we would see if men were truly regarded as disposable. There was some logical understanding in past society of the need to look after men, so that the value that men can provide can be harnessed and exploited. Men pressed onto ships were given vitamin C, men conscripted into armies were fed, clothed and given shelter and men working in mines were given at least some incentive to work under incredibly dangerous conditions. Even slaves on plantations or that built ancient structures, had to be adequately looked after by their masters to perform the labour they would be involuntarily forced to do. Does this make exploitation acceptable? Of course not. However there is a very dark contrast between a group that is exploited and a group that is considered disposable. It is an important distinction to make when we consider how men may have been treated historically and how men are treated today.
In the past it was known that men had to be supported to some degree and society had to help raise boys so they could perform their role. There used to be a cognitive connection in society of the need to look after men, so they could in turn look after society. Societies that flourished ensured their men were in a good enough condition to perform for society. Societies that treated men as disposable and neglected the health of their men, neglected the foundations of their own civilisation. The armies that took care of their soldiers, had the stronger and fitter men to win the war. The armies that lost the least amount of men, survived to fight and win another battle. This is the simple logic of survival and in our dangerous and volatile past such pragmatic thinking, was essential for the continuation of societies.
This is the logic that our culture has lost because of the technological and debt driven bubble of peace and prosperity we have created over the last three centuries, since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It is a bubble that insulates society from the harsh reality of survival and has led to all sorts of delusional ideologies and belief systems flourishing. This bubble has not eliminated the basic requirements to sustain civilisation, it has merely delayed the time period between the decisions and actions we make today as a society and the future consequences for those actions and decisions. The bubble creates a temporal buffer that allows society to lose perceptual awareness of the connection between action and consequence and reality itself. The consequences will arrive, but when they do it will be the accumulation of consequences from decades of reckless and delusional decision making. That’s the danger. It is a danger that COVID-19 has given us just a little inkling of what to expect, if we keep ignoring basic realities about the nature of the world we live in and the nature of ourselves as a species, as a society and as individuals.
To repeat I am not suggesting men have had it good for centuries. The exploitation of men was a significant trend in historical society, particularly in the lower classes. Society has placed enormous amounts of effort into controlling men and regulating how men perceive themselves and other men. Men are sold a lie from birth that they can only be considered “a man” and have a place in society, if they perform as human doings. This is what drives precarious manhood3. This cultural message is the carrot and the stick that society uses to keep men in line and keep the machinery of male exploitation going.
Be a gentleman, do your duty, be a man and if you don’t do your duty here is a white feather for you! All of this is psychological blackmail to shame men into their own exploitation. Keeping men ignorant of their own intrinsic value as human beings and beating into them from birth that their masculine value is externally derived, is the key mechanism that society depends on to control men. This form of control works so well because human beings are herd animals and we like to conform to the group to belong and form affiliations. Men that don’t toe the line are ostracised from their community. Remember that men are raised in an environment with this social programming and social pressure to conform to “what a man is”, from the earliest years of their life.
Despite all of these social pressures, men have still fought against their own exploitation. The development of our legal system and the concept of people having “rights” have all followed from men rising up against authoritarianism in one form or another and to their own exploitation. Men have fought revolutions and wars over their own exploitation. The past is a mixture of society giving men the bare minimum concern for their well-being and men pushing back and demanding better treatment from society. In some cases society has treated men fairly and in some cases society has treated men poorly. Often it has been men in the lower classes of society that have been treated the worst and the remainder of men have faced a mixture of fair and exploitative treatment. The lower classes of men have been the invisible workers and the invisible homeless of our societies. They are the men the ruling aristocracy have been able to most effectively exploit, because they are the most powerless in our society to do anything about it. They were the ones sent to the mines and to the trenches during war in the millions.
It would be wrong to describe the system exploiting poor men as the feminist “patriarchy”. This is not a system that privileges men because they are men. Men were only given a partial reprieve from exploitation if they were wealthy and even then they were exposed to unfair treatment relative to women of the same class because they were men. A clear example of this can be seen with the Titanic. Even women in third class had a better chance of survival4 than men in first class. In the case of the Titanic we do have a historical incidence of male disposability. When the logic of survival no longer demands that looking after men is conducive to enhancing the survival of a group and men are living in a culture of male exploitation that regards them as human doings and not as human beings, then men predictably will face disposability when society sees no use for them and has a reduced concept of them as human beings.
Historical incidences of male disposability did occur, but outside of war these incidents were exceptional and often noted in our history for the exceptions that they were. Examples like the Titanic do illustrate though, that the discrimination men faced cannot be entirely attributed to class and was at least partly the result of simply being male. The feminist concepts of “male privilege” and “the patriarchy”, simply fly in the face of history. Men were not privileged to die on the Titanic or die in the numerous wars fought over history.
Gynocentrism Is A Sex Based Form Of Exploitation
Aristocratic women have played a key role over the centuries5 in developing and codifying into the culture, a system of male exploitation to serve women at the expense of men. We call it gynocentrism6. Gynocentrism first emerged 900 years ago and it is not surprising it first originated in the aristocracy. As we know power corrupts and the female aristocracy, like their male counterparts, enjoyed considerable power over society. Gynocentrism spread so effectively throughout society, partly because it came from people of influence and also because there was already some form of male exploitation in society (particularly among the vast numbers of poor peasants). It is predictable that even today, the worst forms of gynocentrism are promoted by the upper echelons of society and felt the worst by the lower rungs of society. Of course gynocentrism exists at all levels of society, but the general pattern that is observed is what I have just described.
Men have fought against all forms of exploitation throughout history, but have been relatively silent when it comes to gynocentrism. The reason for this is because men are raised from birth with another big lie- Men have all the power in relation to women and women are powerless in relation to men. This is the myth Dr. Warren Farrell debunked in his masterpiece, The Myth Of Male Power7. Men are agents, women are damsels in distress. That is the narrative feminism rests on and that narrative is ultimately dependent on the myth of male power deeply embedded in our culture.
Feminist ideology depends on maintaining a narrative of female victimhood and male agency. Any mainstream acknowledgement of female power over men and any scrutiny of it, is not permitted in our gynocentric culture. Men don’t want to do hear about it and women don’t want to hear about it (for the most part). Society is uncomfortable confronting the power women have over men and the consequences of that power. Why? Deep down society has a problem holding women responsible for what they do to men. Why? Holding women responsible for what they do to men, would require society to consider men as human beings first and that would undermine the whole societal system of male exploitation.
As I mentioned earlier, men are told a lie from birth that their whole worth is externally derived from how well they perform as a human doing. Men are especially judged and evaluated as well by women on how well they perform as human doings. Women will not date losers or men they perceive to be “weak”. Women don’t generally prefer dating men that earn less than they do, despite all of this mantra about female empowerment. This lie that men are human doings and the social pressure associated with it, demands that men must see themselves as powerful and as agents to protect their own sense of self-worth. Human doings can’t be permitted to be in the vulnerable and powerless position, otherwise their capacity to “do” is questioned. So when you consider these two lies men are told from birth and are socially programmed to follow, we can predict men will be blind to their own exploitation when it comes in the form of gynocentrism. Men will recognise fascism and fight against it, but not feminist fascism in dress.
Men are told from birth by our culture that they have all the power and are told a narrative men have always held the power and are responsible for everything bad that has ever happened. Men are taught to associate power with positions of authority and men see that men do indeed hold all of the positions of authority. So predictably from all of this social programming, men in society form a perception that men have all the power and women are the weaker sex that need to be protected and cared for. Men cannot see themselves in a position of less power in relation to women, because they have not been raised to identify such situations and because their sense of self-worth and finding a partner depends on constantly maintaining a mindset that they are agents with power. Adding to these two dynamics, we then have chivalry playing on men’s desire to perform to earn externally derived worth from women and society. Despite what people may think chivalry is alive and well in the present day and has just taken a different form to what we observed in the past. We identify modern day chivalry in the manosphere as “simping”.
Men do not recognise gynocentrism as a form of exploitation, because men’s sense of self views the exploitive dynamic of gynocentrism as a source of pride rather than a source shame. Men willingly go along with their own gynocentric exploitation because that’s what they think “a man” does. To summarise it is the concept of chivalry, how men’s self-worth is constructed and men’s perception of power, that prevents men from seeing their own gynocentric exploitation. If business partnerships resembled modern marriage, no man would form a business partnership. To paraphrase Dr. Warren Farrell from the Myth of Male Power, men are taught that earning money something else spends while they die sooner is “power”. Men are blind to how they are being exploited, because of the three factors I have identified.
Yes biology is certainly at play and I will have more to say on that in my further writings. However biology alone does not result in gynocentrism. Gynocentrism is just one pathological manifestation of biology, like murder, racism and every other human vice. Culture is not purely an extension of biology, but a product of a continuous feedback loop between the environment and biology. Culture can become corrupted with certain pathological elements and those pathological aspects of our culture can hijack our psychological drives in maladaptive ways. Paul Elam and Peter Wright have both discussed how gynocentrism can grow from superresponses to superstimuli in Chasing The Dragon8 and Slaying the Dragon9. Certain pathological elements can arise in our culture, when certain environmental conditions persist for long periods. These pathological aspects of culture, can short-circuit our base biological drives and gynocentrism is one of them.
Gynocentrism can in a way be considered as a type of “mind virus” or germ, like what evolutionary psychologist Prof. Gad Saad describes in his new book, “The Parasitic Mind”10 and what I discussed in The Normalisation of Gynocentrism11. When men’s perception of power, self-worth and responsibilities in relation to the opposite sex are distorted in the way that they are, men cannot psychologically protect themselves from the cultural pathology of gynocentrism. It is analogous to the immune system failing to recognise a parasitic infection.
Remember that men are conditioned from birth to form a distorted cognitive and perceptual framework around power, self-worth and responsibility when it comes to their interactions with the opposite sex. This social programming has been going on for centuries now, from generation to generation. When you consider the social pressure on men to maintain this blue pill perception, from our institutions, from our culture and from their peers and that this programming is all men are exposed to from birth, it is like coming out of the matrix and just as hard to do.
Like what Morpheus said to Neo about people in the matrix, many men will fight to protect the system that exploits them. Without an identifiable and attractive alternative to forming their own sense of self-worth, many will resist any challenge to their gynocentric programming and even then it is an uphill battle. When men are dependent on gynocentric social programming to maintain their sense of self-worth, they will fight against any challenge to gynocentrism out of psychological self-defence. That’s the hurdle men have to overcome to adopt a red pill perception of the world. That’s why unlike other forms of exploitation, many men fail to challenge gynocentrism and actually fight for it. Men’s sense of self-worth is tied up in gynocentrism, because of those three factors I spoke of earlier and all of the biological buttons they press.
When these factors are combined with a narrative and an image cultivated in our gynocentric culture, that masks female vice and magnifies female virtue at every turn and conversely does the complete opposite in relation to men, we have the recipe for the blind acceptance of the gynocentric exploitation of men. It is the deification of women and the demonisation of men. Women are wonderful, women are powerless but divine, men are human doings and men must act like “men” and be chivalrous and rise above their “animal state”. That is the gynocentric message in our culture. True female power (not feminist female empowerment nonsense) is not only largely unacknowledged in our culture that views women as perpetual victims, even when female power is recognised in society, the image of female innocence cloaks any female abuse directed at men from receiving any significant degree of societal attention and condemnation.
That is the cultural milieu that male exploitation grows in and why it is so hard to combat.
Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) did a video recently titled, “ONLY Patriarchy Builds Nations * / & Other Uncomfortable Truths”1. The video raised a number of pertinent factors to consider in what makes developed civilisations sustainable and in this article I will provide my thoughts on that and where Western society went wrong. As the societal consequences from decades of feminism become more and more apparent, there is a push in some corners of society for a return to gynocentric traditionalism2. The answer to feminism is not returning to promoting gynocentric traditionalism, by encouraging chivalry and infantilising women. Gynocentric traditionalism allowed feminism to gain traction in the first place. We got to where we are because we treat men as expendable and we do not hold women accountable for their actions and treat them like they are children. These dysfunctional gynocentric cultural values, have allowed the feminist trojan horse to take over society and have led to the marginalisation of men and boys. This marginalisation of men and boys, will eventually trigger socioeconomic collapse, or the “Fempocalypse” as Karen Straughan coined it3.
As BPS’s video addresses, there is an obvious need for the population of a country to reproduce and developed nations are at risk of dying out because of fertility rates falling below replacement levels. However I would add that investment in the survival of civilisation is just as important. There is no point breeding if there is no properly functioning civilisation, economy and infrastructure etc to support the survival of the population. Men are required for that to a much larger degree than women and always have been. Men are responsible for designing, innovating, building, maintaining, running and leading civilisation and no amount of feminist social engineering over the last 50 years has changed that. Indeed in one of BPS’s other videos4, he cites research on how only men pay taxes and how this covers what women as a group take out of the system. He is not the only one to point that out either. Even female consumer spending is substantially fuelled by income earned from their male partners and the result of male dominated industries and male driven economic activity and taxes, ensuring the viability of the female dominated service sector and public sector. There is much less money for women to spend and welfare to use, without men participating in the economy.
Like the low fertility rate, a silent time bomb is growing every year from the decades of neglect of boys in the education system and the epidemic of fatherlessness. We can see from the plethora of research available, the enormous costs of fatherlessness5 and the boy crisis in education6. These problems are going to have serious economic, financial and social consequences in the coming decades. Male unemployment and crime will skyrocket. These problems will eventually implode our economies into a depression, governments will default as fewer men will be in a position to pay taxes and social cohesion will erode from widespread crime, poverty, broken families and substance abuse. Society will come apart at the seams socially and economically.
We have seen what happens to societies when large numbers of men become disenfranchised. It does not end well for the society in question. Revolutions and civil war originate from such conditions and it is something to be avoided. Our civilisation runs because of men. If even one percent of men walked away from society for a day, we would have serious problems. If all men walked away from society for one day, it would collapse. Men are not expendable. It is quite the opposite and we are going to pay an enormous price as a society, if we fail to acknowledge men actually do have value. Feminism, the epidemic of fatherlessness and the boy crisis in education, have all grown in large part precisely because we treat men as expendable and do not care about the consequences that comes from marginalising men and boys. To treat men as expendable is to treat civilisation as expendable. Without healthy, productive and well-adjusted men that can make use of their potential, there is no future for civilisation. As I have mentioned before, even if we see men as machines, we understand the need to look after those machines to keep them working for us. If you don’t replace the oil in your car, it won’t last very long. Men are not machines, men are human beings. Looking after them properly requires more than basic parental investment. Men and boys must be treated with respect and compassion.
MGTOW is about men living life in their own way and refusing to be expendable. That is a good thing. Why? Because men have value to society and if men value themselves then they protect society and themselves from wasteful sacrifice of male potential. Men going their own way is not antithetical to civilisation. It is quite the opposite. Western civilisation was based around recognising the rights and freedoms of the individual for very good reasons. It is what made the West the success it became. Valuing individuality and respecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, is the basis of a free market economy and a free society. It generates tremendous economic prosperity and drives scientific and social progress and innovation. These Western principles of valuing individuality and protecting individual rights and freedoms, is a very MGTOW concept. It is the group identity of the feminists and the far left, that is antithetical to MGTOW and advanced civilisation. Men naturally contribute to civilisation without coercion. It is literally in our DNA to invent, build, explore, discover, maintain, repair, protect and provide. We find it naturally fulfilling, we do it without coercion.
What MGTOW is about, is applying men’s natural gifts and desires to do these things in ways that are authentic to the man. If anything, MGTOW boosts the prosperity of society by preventing the huge waste that comes with treating men as disposable and preventing men from being exploited and used by a parasitic, corrupt and unsustainable gynocentric social system. MGTOW can instead freely apply their gifts and abilities in ways that are genuinely positive for society and for themselves (These are not automatically mutually exclusive things). There are countless men throughout history that have contributed to the advancement of their society enormously and did not get married or have children. Sir Isaac Newton, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Nikola Tesla, Ludwig van Beethoven and Adam Smith, are just a few of these men. Their scientific discoveries, intellectual and social contributions and technological breakthroughs, still have lasting impacts many years after their deaths on Western civilisation and the world. Getting married and breeding offspring is not the only contributing factor to the continuation of civilisation. Contributions to the scientific and technological knowledge base and intellectual capital and culture of civilisation, can be just as important and arguably be an even greater factor in ensuring the longevity of civilisation.
If we are going to give women equal rights as a society, then they must be held equally accountable. Otherwise it creates an imbalance that destroys society. Having reciprocity between the sexes is critical not just for individual relationships, but also for society. Treating men as expendable, provides no resistance to groups like feminists emerging and treading on men’s rights and marginalising men and boys. When men are regarded as expendable and you give women equal rights with no accountability, it does not take a genius to predict feminist groups will emerge and take advantage of that and they have.
By marginalising men and boys and treating them as expendable, you also reduce fertility rates below replacement levels. When fewer and fewer men have the finances and work status to meet the hypergamous expectations of women, thanks to the impacts of growing up in fatherless households, the boy crisis in education being unaddressed for decades and feminist initiatives like female hiring quotas, fewer and fewer children will be produced. When men are treated as expendable and put through the divorce and family court extortion and exploitation pipeline and women have no obligation to be accountable in relationships and roughly half of marriages end in divorce (the majority of which are initiated by women), many men will understandably start deciding not to marry and have families.
If we want a sustainable and prosperous society, we must recognise the value of men and boys and stop treating them as expendable. We must hold women equally accountable to men and encourage individuality over groupthink and identity politics. The parasitic feminist welfare state has to go too, which is something Stefan Molyneux has recently spoken about7. Like a parasite, it feeds off male taxpayers and supports lack of accountability from women (particularly from single mothers) and eventually destroys society. If you regard men as expendable and don’t hold women accountable, such a parasitic system will emerge. These dysfunctional values must go if we want civilisation to continue.
At the base of these dysfunctional values, is a belief in chivalry and the purity and superiority of women. Despite decades of feminism, chivalry is alive and well in our culture and in the corridors of power. I am not talking about men paying for dinners or opening doors for women. That type of chivalry is small potatoes compared to what we have today. I am talking about the widespread preferential treatment shown toward women by our governments, legal system, education system, health system, academia, media and culture, on the basis they are “vulnerable”, “victimised” women of the patriarchy and are in need of protection from “oppressive”, “privileged” men and thus deserve special treatment. Our modern feminist culture, is merely a modernised iteration of the same chivalrous tradition found in earlier gynocentric traditionalist cultures over past centuries.
Gynocentric Traditionalism Is Driven By Chivalry:
The core element of gynocentric traditionalism is chivalry. Chivalry is a tradition of male service to benefit women without reciprocity. It places women above men. Chivalry is a practice that takes advantage of men’s protective instincts and uses them to serve women under the guise women are the supposedly “weaker” sex. It is a tradition that encourages one standard of accountability for men and a lower standard of accountability for women toward the opposite sex. Women might be physically weaker than men, but the last time I checked they have all the same rights and privileges men do in Western society and some people make solid arguments they actually have more. Women are quite capable of being just as vicious verbally and socially as any man and many would probably argue they are more capable. Women can destroy a man’s life merely with an accusation in the post metoo# era, with no proof or legal due process required. Women are also quite capable of being physically violent and are especially adept at using the state and the legal system as a weapon of coercion on partners, husbands and fathers. Indeed it has been a principle driver of mainstream ideological feminism, to warp our legal system and shape government policy to marginalise men for the benefit of women.
Women are not the fragile powerless snowflakes some people would have men believe. Chivalry has emboldened and enabled feminist women, to rapidly warp our social norms, legal system, political system and mainstream media etc to elevate women above men. Women and girls enjoy a multi-billion dollar international feminist empire that puts their interests ahead of everything else in numerous sectors of Western society. This exclusive support for women and girls pervades the mainstream media, academia, legal system and education system, politics, private industry, government policy and public health, just to name a few areas. We even have entire government departments devoted to women and girls. There is no comparable set of organisations or level of support for men and boys. Predictably, women and girls are excelling at every level of education over men and boys and doing quite well in the workforce relative to men (especially for those under 30 years old).
I think I speak for a lot of men and boys when I say we are getting sick and tired of women and girls pretending they are weak and vulnerable creatures, when there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary. The social power women wield in society is enormous and chivalry has done nothing but enable that power to go unchecked for decades, if not centuries. Chivalry is a bigoted tradition that enabled the demonisation of men and boys in our culture. Our mainstream media and political system is awash with feminist women spreading hateful messages about men, boys and masculinity. If women in politics or in the mainstream media want to make bigoted generalisations about the opposite sex, then shielding them from the consequences with chivalry is not the answer. All it does is keep the cycle of demonising the male half of the population growing and growing without opposition. If you make bigoted remarks about the opposite sex, then you are not the victim and that suddenly does not change when the person making the bigoted remarks happens to be female. Chivalry does not have a place in a modern society where women have equal rights and freedoms to that of men. If you make bigoted remarks against men, you do not get to play the victim because the men around you respond in a manner you do not approve of.
Almost a decade ago Miranda Devine discussed a concept called, “Female Entitlement Mentality”8. It takes a sense of entitlement to expect men to behave like gentlemen toward women that act like bigots. Indeed Peter Wright wrote an article9 discussing a research study showing the link between entitlement in women and their disposition to support chivalry in men. Women have no place lecturing men about acting like gentlemen, when feminist academics write articles in the Washington Post titled, “Why can’t we hate men?”10. It is time for women to get off their pedestal and start taking accountability for their own words and behaviour. If you want men to be respectful toward you, then be respectful toward them. Two thousand years ago, a man called Jesus spoke of a simple concept to treat others the way you would like to be treated.
I certainly think women have it in them to empathise with men and accept accountability for their own choices, behaviour and words toward men. Karen Straughan’s own blog is called, “owning your shit”11. The name says it all regarding accountability. There are plenty of other examples of women displaying these qualities I have come across both online and in my personal life. A more recent example for instance popped up on my YouTube feed over the weekend. Her name is Sydney Watson. Here are two videos of hers for people to look at regarding recent events in Australia concerning men and feminism, link12 and link13. Of course there are the Honey Badgers, Janice Fiamengo and numerous other women.
I am not buying the idea women can’t overcome gynocentrism, any more than the false assumption men cannot overcome gynocentrism. Sure there are challenges, but gynocentism can be overcome provided it is recognised as a problem by society and a pathology that should be discouraged. As I explained in my article on normalising gynocentrism14, gynocentrism is so common because we have normalised it. Encouraging women that go against the gynocentric grain of the culture and holding women and girls accountable for their words and actions toward men and boys, would be a key step in the right direction in reducing gynocentrism in society. We most likely are never going to completely eliminate gynocentrism to absolute zero, just as we will never completely eliminate obesity. We will always have a residual level of pathological behaviour in society because human beings are imperfect. However we can reduce gynocentrism by a considerable degree from its present levels and make it far less common and a fringe behaviour rather than a normal behaviour in society. We have the behavioural control to do that as discussed in my earlier article, but only if we recognise gynocentrism for the pathological set of behaviours it is and we make an effort to reduce it.
Suggesting that feminism is the source of all men’s issues is short-sighted. Feminism grew from our past culture of gynocentric traditionalism and feminists have used chivalry and their victim ideology and revision of history, to pull the strings of the men in power for decades to get what they want. Without gynocentric traditionalism, there would be no feminism. Gynocentrism runs through both gynocentric traditionalism and feminism and is the real basis of the preferential treatment of women at the expense of the marginalisation of men.
Chivalry Is Antithetical To Freedom:
Dr. Warren Farrell had a famous saying, “women can’t hear what men do not say”. As long as men remain silent for fear of offending women, absolutely nothing is going to change and that silence will contribute to gynocentrism remaining normalised in the culture. So start speaking your mind to women if you are a man and stop self-censoring, because it is about time men found their voice. That is why A Voice For Men exists. Use the platform. Calling men and women out on their gynocentric bullshit is not spreading hate, it is generating powerful and badly needed cultural change and demanding an end to hypocrisy and sexist bigotry. People need to recognise that we are entering a stage where freedom of speech is now being undermined. Now is the time to speak while you still can. There is an authoritarian push from the left side of our political spectrum, to silence any dissent against them. It is a form of oppression and we must fight against it.
If this trend of censorship continues, then it may become illegal to even question feminist ideology, or even question any aspect of gynocentric behaviour by women or men. Chivalry at its modern extreme end, is antithetical to freedom of speech. Quashing dissenting speech in the name of protecting women, is a slippery slope that leads right to totalitarianism by a feminist authoritarian state. Once freedom of speech is lost, then the rest of our freedoms and basic rights soon vanish. If we reach that threshold and we are dangerously close to it, then the sun will set on our civilisation and what will follow will be a totalitarian dark age followed by collapse and then anarchy. We need to be speaking out now and protecting our freedom to do so while we still can.
An Examination And Case Study Of The Gynocentric Bias In Reporting Sex Differences:
To illustrate the gynocentric bias in scientific research and the impact it has on society, I would like to go through a case study of what I am talking about in detail. There is now a plethora of research and data showing an adult male advantage in general intelligence (men have a higher average IQ of roughly 3-5 IQ points). Despite this reality, this large body of research and its findings are ignored and kept from the public by academic gatekeepers. Don’t believe me? Watch this presentation26. The truth is inconvenient and runs against the gynocentric narrative, so the research is ignored. That is the gynocentric filter operating in science. Males are not “allowed” to have any ability of value to a greater degree than women and reporting such a thing is sexist blasphemy. Of course there is no problem in reporting strengths women have relative to men though. That gets you published, earns you a plum academic position and appearances on television.
In addition to the cited presentation, people can read through this journal publication32 for even more information on the male advantage in general intelligence. The publication contains multiple journal articles that cover the positions of multiple intelligence researchers on the male advantage in general intelligence (experts from the field were invited to publish their papers for the publication to address the subject in question). Richard Lynn points out importantly in his presentation I cited earlier, that despite the plethora of research now available showing a male advantage in intelligence, academia continues to present a narrative to the public and in textbooks that there is no sex difference.
As Lynn explains in his presentation, the 3-5 IQ point male advantage in general intelligence, can have big effects on the representation of men and women at the upper ranges of IQ. Small differences in the average intelligence of the sexes, can have large effects at the tails of the distributions of intelligence. There are roughly 5 men for every woman with an IQ over 130 and 10 men for every woman with an IQ over 145, when there is a male advantage in intelligence of 3.9 IQ points. This is exactly the pattern observed in the population at the upper ranges of IQ and why there are so many more male geniuses than female geniuses in society. Lynn went on further to explain that the difference in intelligence between the sexes, can thus help explain the difference in representation between the sexes in the higher level occupations of society that require a high IQ. He also suggested this may help explain the gender disparity in representation in the sciences as well.
This male advantage in general intelligence has now been reported many times in numerous papers, by multiple researchers in multiple countries independently of each other and using a variety of different intelligence tests and measures of IQ. When the same IQ advantage in favour of males is consistently observed numerous times by multiple researchers and using different tests and measures of IQ, it cannot simply be ignored and considered an aberration. Here are two papers from different researchers both reporting a male intelligence advantage in g (or general mental ability) in the United States- linked here33 and here34. The studies show a male IQ advantage in g and also in full scale IQ. There are many other research papers from other countries (and also more from the US) reporting the same male IQ advantage. Some of these papers are cited in the journal publication linked earlier if people wish to read through further studies.
Some scientists in the journal publication I cited earlier did not entirely agree men had a greater general intelligence than women in their articles, such as- Roberto Colom and James Flynn. Other researchers agreed that a male advantage in general intelligence exists and have reported this observation in their own research and also in their papers published in the journal publication concerned (although to caution a scientific consensus does not make something factually correct, just highly probable). Richard Lynn responded and addressed both Roberto Colom’s and James Flynn’s criticisms at the end of the journal publication I cited.
Since then Roberto Colom along with his other colleagues, has actually recently published research35 finding a male advantage in general intelligence as measured by g of 5 IQ points. As for James Flynn, even he says his research36 does not show a female advantage in IQ despite the media distorting his research to promote the women are superior narrative. Richard Lynn in his response to Flynn, provided a number of research studies showing a male advantage in IQ in modern developed countries and from recent observations of current populations. The two papers I cited earlier from the US were published in 2012 and 2016 and Roberto Colom’s study from Spain was published in 2019. All three studies show a male IQ advantage in modern developed nations and from recent observations of current populations. The results of all 3 studies were statistically significant and had good sample sizes. There are many other recently published studies from modern developed nations showing the same male advantage in current populations. The male advantage in general intelligence is not a blip, it is not an aberration, it has not disappeared and it is not disappearing. It continues to be reported independently by multiple researchers (including previous researchers now, that were initially sceptical) and remains consistent.
As Richard Lynn has pointed out, men do have larger brains than women (the difference is not huge, but it is substantive and significant) and this can explain at least some of the male advantage in IQ. The brain size difference between the sexes and the known correlation between brain size and IQ, does actually predict the size of the 3-5 IQ point male advantage in intelligence that is observed. Claims that brain size is correlated with intelligence are not incorrect. What is incorrect to assert, is that brain size alone determines intelligence. The two positions are not one and the same and yet that does not stop disingenuous people from conflating the two positions. Controlling for other factors, people with larger brains do have a higher general intelligence. Comparing human brains to larger brains in other species like whales and then asserting there is no link between brain size and intelligence, is nonsensical when the species that are compared have a vastly different brain structure. The sexes do have different brains, but they are not as different as a human brain and a whale brain in terms of structure. It is worth stating now, that none these realities make women inferior to men. Intelligence it is not the sole metric of human worth or ability.
The male advantage in general intelligence is consistently found across racial37 and other demographic criteria38 and also across multiple countries, continents and both developed (OECD) and non-developed economies. As I mentioned, the male advantage in general intelligence is not based on one isolated academic paper, but a plethora of research. The denial of the data and research showing the higher intelligence of males by academic gatekeepers, is the same gynocentric pattern we see with the denial of the data and research on domestic violence by feminists and our institutions. In both cases such research is generally condemned as being pseudoscience, when in fact it is actually academia itself practicing pseudoscience by wilfully denying facts that do not conform to a particular ideological point of view.
It is one thing for one researcher to report these realities and quite another reality for multiple researchers in multiple countries to independently report the same findings. Are they all pseudoscientists involved in a grand patriarchal conspiracy to put women down, or are we really dealing with a gynocentric institutional bias against inconvenient facts? What is more likely in this day and age, where even saying there are two biological sexes in academia can now get you fired? Civilisation unfortunately has a history of condemning people (and sometimes executing them) that challenge long-held and pre-existing views, especially during hysterical social periods and environments- like university campuses in the West in the present day. Many universities now resemble institutions of higher indoctrination39 rather than institutions of higher learning. Condemnation of certain researchers and academic witch-hunts does not make the researchers wrong, no matter how hard ideologues attack them.
I will grant that this research is uncomfortable to accept, however it is worth noting the large overlap between the sexes in the general intelligence IQ distribution (some women are more intelligent than some men and some men are more intelligent than some women) and that each sex has their own unique contribution to human intellectual and creative capital. Intelligence is not the only contributor to human intellect and creativity. Cognitive biases can make smart people think and behave stupidity and life experience, personality and acquired knowledge also impacts human intellect and creativity. So I am by no means suggesting everything women have to say and do is somehow less valuable than what men contribute.
Women do have cognitive strengths of their own in certain aspects of emotional intelligence, social cognition, memory and in certain aspects of verbal ability and perceptual speed (The speed that someone can complete relatively simple perceptual tasks, like matching words to pictures. In some tests of perceptual speed that are more verbally oriented women do better and in other tests of perceptual speed that are more spatially oriented men do better.). As with male advantages, there is also considerable overlap between men and women where female advantages exist.
The reason I am writing about this specific subject, is because of the glee that the feminist media reports women and girls outperforming men and boys in education and the ease with which they will automatically assert women and girls are smarter than men and boys. This regular pattern by our media of promoting female superiority, has been going on for decades now and is distorting the societal perception of men and women in a highly destructive manner for both sexes. The women are wonderful effect40 is a real phenomenon and does impact how sex difference research is presented to the public in the media and within academia itself, as Christina Hoff Sommers exposed in her video41. Reporting a female advantage in a given area earns you praise from the establishment and from society. Reporting a male advantage makes someone a misogynist, especially if it comes from a man and it is about cognitive advantages men have over women. I respect the opposite sex enough not to come to the conclusion that men are superior to women, when looking at sex differences. Unfortunately it appears the same cannot be said in reverse in this gynocentric culture.
We live in a world that keeps telling men and boys they are stupid, simply because they do not perform as well as women and girls in an education system designed to prioritise female learning at the expense of male learning. Claims men and boys are stupid and slogans like “the future is female”42, lie in stark contrast to the reality that men run society and have discovered, built and invented the vast majority of the science and technology society runs on. There is a gynocentric disconnect with reality that badly needs correction. One has to really wonder why a supposedly “superior” and “smarter” female sex, would need an education system that prioritises their needs over men and boys and affirmative action and preferential hiring policies to promote women over men, just to reach parity with males. Even with the massive assistance and preferential treatment given to women and girls in education and in the workplace, the supposedly “superior” female sex still can’t overtake men in patents for inventions, Nobel prizes and representation at corporate board level, in politics and scientific research etc and the list goes on.
One has to really wonder how much of these claims of supposed female intellectual superiority because “grades”, actually have any substance to them. So let me make a few remarks to set the record straight about sex differences in cognition. Grades are not solely determined by intellectual ability, especially when the education system is stacked against boys. Effort and motivation effects grades and many boys are not motivated to put in the effort to academically achieve, in an education system that sees them as toxic and defective.
Even when boys perform as well as girls on standardised tests, boys are graded lower than girls in their actual schoolwork. This grade discrimination against boys has been reported in multiple studies and has been shown to impact boys future education. See this study43 and this study44 for discussion. There are many other studies reporting the same pattern of grading bias against boys. A common theme from the research, seems to be that boy’s grades are penalised as a result of boys not being as engaged and behaviourally compliant as girls in class. Boys are not receiving lower grades because of lower academic performance. They are receiving lower grades because the teachers have a grading bias against boys due to their lower engagement in class and less compliant behaviour.
Why would boys not be as engaged or as behaviourally compliant as girls in a feminised school environment where their learning needs and interests are neglected and girls are held up as the gold standard? It is such a mystery! Now we drug boys in school, because they cannot sit still in a school environment that tells them they are defective. I would not be able to sit still either and would want out of the gynocentric asylum! Boys and men are marginalised from kindergarten to postgraduate education. Despite the reality women and girls have surpassed men and boys in education for decades now, all of the affirmative action, policies and programs, are still overwhelmingly focused on women and girls in education. Our education system is obsessed with closing the gender gap in STEM. In contrast our education system has no interest in addressing the general academic achievement gap between girls and boys, or the massive gender gap in reading and the low male participation in the humanities, medicine and in the teaching profession itself etc.
Women and girls are surpassing men and boys at every level of education, but the stop the presses! We must focus all of our attention in education on increasing female STEM participation. That is gynocentric madness. At the same time this is occurring, men and boys are forced to sit through classes at school and at university, where they are told how not to be rapists and domestic violence abusers. Young men and boys are lectured to in class about toxic masculinity and the false historical narrative of male privilege and female oppression.
We wonder why men and boys are disengaging from education when they attend class and the subject of discussion is bringing about a matriarchy and castrating men and boys. This has actually happened45 by the way. My full respect for the students that objected to this lunacy in class in the linked video. Just imagine the uproar from feminists and our society for a moment, if male teachers asked students to discuss bringing about an oppressive patriarchy in the West and the class began discussing mutilating female genitals as a means to control women and girls. Imagine for the moment the impact such an environment would have on the attitudes of female students toward the education system. Would they be engaged? Would they be compliant and behave well in class? Would they be motivated to put in the effort at school?
This is the environment men and boys are learning in, so reflect on that when you consider boys and their lower academic performance relative to girls. Whilst boys are bored, disengaged and unmotivated from having their learning needs and interests neglected by our feminised education system, they are being told how toxic and inferior men and boys46 are in class. I would encourage people to read through the link I just cited and the account of the boy that experienced this misandric school environment first-hand and the impact that had on his academic performance. I will quote a passage of his account from the linked article:
“We were taught, at such a young age, all of the atrocities western men had committed against everyone else. We were literally, I’m not exaggerating here, taught to be ashamed of ourselves and of our gender culture. Girls were taught how great the suffragettes were and that without them they’d still be under the tyranny of evil men.
I remember a particular class about this in history. The female teachers and female students were all laughing at the stupidity of boys and men. I remember the female teacher pointing out “all the men had to fight wars, while women didn’t, but it was always men that started the wars,” while the girls all laughed. I remember looking around at all the boys in my class just sitting there, quietly, blank stares on their faces, saying nothing. Then it hit me like a silver bullet. I was doing the same as them: nothing.
However, after having years of political correctness and self-shame pumped into me by this so called education system, I had no knowledge of how to even discredit them. Everything they said seemed true. If it wasn’t for my father teaching me about the great men of our past at a young age, I actually think I’d be another sad fool indoctrinated into feminist ideology.”46
There are two parts in that passage that have stuck with me for years. The first part- “We were taught, at such a young age”. Do people have any idea the long-term damage that does to men’s perception of themselves, to be given the message from the school system as a child that they are inferior, whilst their female peers laugh at them. I am going to call this for what it is- This is child abuse and this is brainwashing and feminism and gynocentrism in our education system are behind all of it. Then we wonder why boys are falling behind girls in education and we do absolutely nothing to address it. Instead we talk about how women and girls are “smarter” and how girls “mature earlier”. Anything to use sex differences to rationalise away the problem and justify neglecting boys. That right there, is the gynocentric use of sex differences by feminists and our gynocentric institutions and culture.
The second part of the passage that stayed with me is this- “If it wasn’t for my father teaching me about the great men of our past at a young age, I actually think I’d be another sad fool indoctrinated into feminist ideology”. This is why I make no apologies for spending a good chunk of this article and a good chunk of my series on gynocentrism, setting the record straight on male value and male strengths. Men and boys deserve it and men and boys need it. Notice how he mentioned the importance of his father in that statement. That is why feminism is at war with fathers. That is why feminism does not want adult men around children. They want to indoctrinate our children and psychologically castrate boys.
How many boys are now deprived of fathers? How many boys without a father are struggling in education? Reflect on the statistics in light of the young man’s account. Men and boys have been brainwashed to think they are inferior and expendable, when in reality this society would not last a day without them. As Tom Golden pointed out in a video47, this is the same type of brainwashing the Communist Chinese used. Men and boys are telling us in their own words the effect this environment is having on them and on their male peers. That is why the video by Andy Man, “Who taught you to hate yourself”48 is my favourite video. Watch the video and share it with your sons and other men. It is beautiful and I don’t say that lightly. Time for society to take a shot of wake the fuck up and swallow some red pills.
We know that when general intelligence is actually directly measured, it is men that have the advantage. The male advantage in general intelligence is consistently observed after the age of 16 and some male advantage is frequently seen at earlier ages of adolescence. During childhood a male advantage in IQ can also be observed sometimes. In the other cases, no sex difference in intelligence is observed in childhood favouring boys or girls. These observations are consistent with Richard Lynn’s developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence.
Even Roberto Colom who was initially somewhat critical of Richard Lynn’s position, has reported in his subsequent research35 support for Lynn’s developmental theory. This was in addition to Roberto finding a male advantage in general intelligence of 5 IQ points in his study. There are numerous other studies supporting the developmental theory, in addition to Lynn’s own research and Colom’s study. The reason for this observed pattern in sex differences in IQ, is because of the slower maturity of boys. Boys brains are still developing, just like their muscles, while their female counterparts are finishing puberty. Like sex differences in physical strength, boys have to fully mature first before sex differences in intelligence emerge.
The notion that boys maturing more slowly makes them intellectually inferior to girls is nonsense. Even with the slightly slower rate of maturity of boys (boys are about 1-2 years behind girls of the same age prior to 16), boys are observed to either have the same IQ as their female counterparts of the same age, or have a higher IQ. As boys and girls mature, the male IQ advantage emerges and grows as the sexes approach adulthood. If we are going to argue earlier maturity makes girls “better” than boys, then perhaps we should start saying dogs, cats and monkeys are “better” than humans because they mature earlier. Higher intelligence in adulthood, is associated with a slower rate of development and later maturity. It takes more time to develop extra muscle and extra intelligence, just as it takes more time to build a skyscraper in comparison to a small office building.
In addition to the male advantage in general intelligence, men have other cognitive, psychological and physical strengths over women. Men have greater spatial ability, mathematical reasoning (Whilst there is no sex difference in basic arithmetic, there is a sex difference in the higher-level ability of mathematical reasoning. Despite what some media outlets report, males are better at maths.), mechanical reasoning, pattern recognition and systems thinking capacity than women. Men also score higher than women on psychometric tests assessing general knowledge comprehension and have faster reaction times than women. There are more male cognitive advantages I could cite, but that is the general outline.
In terms of other male psychological and physical advantages, men have a greater willingness to take risks, score higher on emotional stability (a personality trait) and demonstrate a greater ability to perform under both physical and psychological stress. Men make up the bulk of our geniuses, those with high IQ’s and inventors etc. Men do have greater physical strength and general fitness than women and even now such an obvious reality is becoming controversial to assert. Again I could go through a much bigger list of advantages men possess relative to women, but the point I am trying to make is that men do have strengths women lack and not just in the physical domain.
Why does any of this even need to be stated? For the last 50 years it has become socially taboo to acknowledge any strength men have relative to women. In the same period of time, it has become not only socially acceptable, but encouraged to promote a narrative women are superior to men. This social, cultural and institutional milieu of female superiority, feminism and gynocentrism, is all some generations of men and women have known for their entire lives and this needs to be corrected. A society that regards men as toxic, defective, expendable and inferior, does not have long before it collapses in on itself.
Men and boys are not stupid and women and girls are not smarter. The lower academic performance of men and boys in primary education through to tertiary education, is not the result of men and boys being less intelligent than women and girls. It is worth noting though, that even if there was a supposed sex difference in intelligence favouring girls, it would still be far too small to explain the large gulf in academic performance between the sexes and the chasm in university enrollment between men and women. Men and boys and their needs and interests are marginalised in the education system and that is a fact. I would invite people to watch this lecture49 from education professional Dr. James Brown, on the bias against men and boys in education and to read Dr. Warren Farrell’s book on The Boy Crisis50. There is a systemic gynocentric and feminist driven bias against men and boys in our education system and there has been for decades. You cannot expect men and boys to perform well in a system that views them as a problem and as inferior.
Sex Differences Are Not An Argument To Support Female Or Male Superiority:
I could keep going tit for tat citing a male advantage to every claim a female supremacist would make about women being superior to men. However ultimately claims of female or male supremacy rest on solely focusing on the strengths of one sex and the weaknesses of the other sex. It is tunnel vision. There is never serious consideration of the weaknesses of the supposedly superior sex (like ignoring the greater susceptibility of women to autoimmune disease) and the strengths of the supposedly inferior sex. It is delusional to ignore half of reality and claim women are superior to men (just as it is to claim men are superior to women and ignore female advantages).
Some of the sex differences undoubtedly have at least some environmental component to them, but there is a biological component to sex differences and that includes sex differences in cognition. The biological advantages that each sex may have relative to the other, does not make one sex “superior” to the other in a general sense. Making such a general remark about the sexes is vague and nebulous and has no real practical application beyond justifying bigotry and it actually causes a great deal of harm. Claims of male superiority or female superiority are subjective value judgments for bigots and not objective fact. A person can acknowledge sex differences without claiming one sex is superior to the other sex. By presenting this information I am not suggesting men are superior to women and I am certainly not suggesting we should discriminate against women in favour of men based on these sex differences. In contrast, those promoting female superiority do not share this view and rely on sex differences to justify discrimination against men.
It is important that we understand that the sex differences that do exist, are the result of a coevolutionary path that men and women have taken together. These male and female advantages have developed in an evolutionary context in which both sexes lived and worked together to perpetuate society and the genome. The sex differences are meant to complement one another. Some people find that wishy washy, but the reality is the long developmental period of our offspring, combined with our large brains and social behaviour, required the sexes to interact with each other beyond just simple copulation. Yes some degree of inter-sexual conflict can and does occur (no biological system is completely perfect), but that does not mean the sexes have not cooperated with each other and worked together at all (no biological system that has lasted is completely flawed either). If it were not for men and women working together, human society would have died out thousands of years ago or we would still be in trees.
How The Manosphere Has Bought Into Gynocentric Lies About Male Biological Expendability And Greater Female Biological Value:
Gynocentrism distorts the presentation of sex difference research to the public and even within academia itself. There is very little scrutiny of any research claiming a female advantage in some area (no matter how small the sample size is or how poor the methodology used). In contrast there are massive efforts put into scrutinising and silencing any research reporting a male advantage in any area of value. There are bold and highly questionable claims made by some scientists (not all), about women being more biologically valuable than men and men more expendable and these claims are never properly scrutinised. There is junk science like Briffault’s law and pseudoscientific claims humans are naturally matriarchal and if only we could be more like Bonobos and women ran the world we would all live in peace. People will believe such nonsense if they hear it from a scientist, because they think what they are hearing has a factual basis to it. The problem is that so many people do not bother to check what is being said and many do not even know how to scrutinise the scientific literature. This allows gynocentric ideas to be promoted as legitimate science, when they are anything but.
What happens when science becomes so corrupted by gynocentrism, that facts are omitted and distorted to craft a narrative men are biologically expendable and women are more valuable? People believe it. Even many people in the manosphere and men believe it. So this belief then becomes held as some unquestioned biological axiom and never scrutinised, even by the manosphere. People do not notice what has been left out of what they were told. People do not realise the facts that were not considered in arriving at such a conclusion. People do not realise that the manipulation of such information to control the societal perception of men and women, controls the behaviour of men and women toward each other and toward members of the same sex.
It is in the interests of our gynocentric institutions to promote a narrative that men are biologically expendable and women are more biologically valuable. All that is required for this manipulation to work, is for people not to question what they presented with and not critically examine the research or arguments presented. Corrupted science is in many ways the perfect vehicle to spread such a deeply flawed and bigoted idea and have it widely accepted in society as some biological law of nature.
The manosphere has fallen into the trap of thinking that blindly embracing sex difference research without scrutiny, is somehow more reflective of reality because of their perception feminists assert and emphasise environment influence (which is to a degree correct, but not entirely the case). They have been blind to the gynocentrism lurking within science itself. As a result, certain gynocentric ideas have propagated in the manosphere without any resistance or critical examination. These include junk concepts like- Briffault’s law, men being biologically disposable and women having the greater biological value and the persistence of a community all coming down to the female rate limiting factor of reproduction and rare eggs etc. There is a big difference between acknowledging society exploits men and treats them as disposable and believing men are actually biologically disposable. There is a big difference between recognising that women influence society and relationships and believing women control all the conditions of society. There is a big difference between recognising the importance of reproduction to a community and believing that is the ultimate factor in determining the preservation of a community. None of these important distinctions have been discussed in the manosphere and that needs to change.
People in the manosphere need to question sex difference research and ridiculous claims that men are biologically expendable and women are more valuable because uterus and rare eggs/plentiful sperm etc, like they do the feminist wage gap and the feminist revision of the historical record etc. It is in the interests of the gynocentric gatekeepers in the sciences, to promote a narrative that men are expendable and women are valuable and that women are superior and men are inferior. I cannot repeat that enough because of the extent to which corrupted science has been used to brainwash people.
Unfortunately significant portions of the manosphere have fallen for this kind of manipulation of science, by only being presented with half the facts when it comes to asserting false claims of male expendability and greater female value etc. People have accepted the lie that men are expendable and biologically less than, without recognising that the science they are reading from is impacted from the very same gynocentric bias that permeates the rest of society. The influence of gynocentrism and feminism in framing how science on the sexes and biological sex differences is presented to the public, is not a new phenomenon. This extends back decades and has distorted our general understanding of sex differences to at least some degree.
Consider the science you are told about regarding the sexes with caution and critique all of it like you would a feminist study. There is a gynocentric agenda controlling what gets reported and presented regarding sex differences and the sexes in general and what does not. Is all of science corrupted? Of course not. Not all of history and humanities is corrupted either, but feminism has corrupted a significant chunk of the disciplines and science is no exception.
As with all forms of manipulation, it is on closer inspection that manipulation is revealed. When people give simple overviews of obviously complex multifactorial phenomenon (like feminists explaining the gender wage gap as due solely to discrimination, or people arguing gynocentrism occurs because men are biologically expendable due to women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction), that should be a major red flag for people that the picture presented is most likely incomplete and wrong.
A new paradigm in explaining gynocentrism is required. The work of Peter Wright and Paul Elam in Chasing The Dragon51 and Slaying The Dragon52, was a big step in the right direction. However far more needs to be done. Later in this series, I will present a multifactorial model on gynocentrism. Biology is involved, culture is involved and technology is involved. Gynocentrism is an emergent53 phenomenon arising from the combined effects of multiple factors. We need to be mindful that gynocentric programming can get in the way of properly understanding the problem we are dealing with. Like Neo who realises he is in the Matrix and has taken the red pill but still thinks he is breathing air when he fights Morpheus and must still deprogram, men still need to collectively realise that the gynocentric lie of supposed biological male expendability is not real. It is all part of the same gynocentric illusion to exploit men and keep men ignorant of their own intrinsic value and resigned to their own marginalisation.
The tunnel vision explanation that gynocentrism is all about the uterus and reproduction, is itself a product of gynocentrism warping the mind. It is a narrative to control and exploit men. Time to see the forest through the trees and let go of it.
Time to fully deprogram from gynocentrism. Drop the false gynocentric fatalism of believing in male biological disposability and embrace your real intrinsic male value.
How Sex Differences Are Used To Propagate A False Narrative That Men Are Inferior And Expendable:
The manipulation of men does rely on framing sex differences to support a narrative men are inferior to women and that men are biologically expendable. There is a misplaced belief in the manosphere that feminism takes the position that the sexes are the same and that any sex differences that exist are due to socialisation. This is wrong. Feminists are quite happy to emphasise sex differences if it is to women’s social advantage, or helps support a narrative in female superiority. The manosphere needs to carefully evaluate claims of innate sex differences and not just assume there is no gynocentric agenda behind those in the media and academia that promote such claims. The feminist infestation in our academic institutions and mainstream media is extensive these days.
Feminists are quite happy to point out the greater physical aggression of men and erroneously associate it all back to testosterone and argue male violence is innate. This is despite the abundant research showing that aggression in men does not originate from testosterone and that testosterone can actually result in selfless acts. Please watch this short but informative video20 from accomplished behavioural scientist Prof. Sapolsky and this documentary21, on what the research actually shows on the effects of testosterone. Testosterone does not make men violent brutes.
Testosterone acts as a behavioural amplifier and drives men to seek status. The male sex hormone does not actually cause aggression and violence. Testosterone amplifies aggression and violent tendencies that have already been previously triggered by other processes in the brain by the environment under certain contexts. Even then this amplification depends on prior social learning and also the interplay with other hormones and biochemical processes. In contrast testosterone can also promote selfless acts. In reality testosterone amplifies both good and bad aspects of human behaviour to drive men to acquire status. At one extreme you have men like Jesus Christ and at the other extreme you have Adolf Hitler. People cannot acknowledge the worst in men and ignore the good and then claim they are accurately representing men (as feminists do). Testosterone is not toxic and neither are men. Men are human beings and like women they can be good, bad and everything in between.
A society that treats men as disposable utilities and with no compassion and ignores boys that are physically and sexually abused (including by adult women that abuse boys), will produce male violence and violent men. This will direct testosterone to amplify negative behaviours, rather than positive behaviours. How we treat men and boys and their well-being, has far more to do with male aggression and violence than testosterone. A major contradiction society has with male violence that feminists fail to acknowledge, is that we are actually quite happy for men to be violent as long as it serves societies needs and protects women. We have forced men through conscription to fight each other in wars and then feminists blame men for being violent in wars men were forced to participate in. This is despite the fact millions of men had no choice in the matter.
I also note feminists are silent on the indirect violence women initiate by getting men to be violent for them (like women hiring hitmen to murder their husband’s, which actually happens more often than people think) and the psychological and social violence of women (women and girls often bully each other this way and it can drive other girls to suicide). The misuse of the legal system as a weapon in divorce and family court to marginalise countless fathers and alienate children from their dads, is also a frequent form of female violence in society that is not identified as the violence that it is.
Feminists are also silent on the physical violence of women in intimate partner relationships. This is despite clear research findings22 that female violence is actually a substantial fraction of domestic violence and that women are actually the majority of perpetrators when only one partner is violent in the relationship. This feminist pattern of selectivity with facts, is not limited to violence and aggression. Feminists are quite happy to embrace biological sex differences when transgenderism threatens the exclusivity of female privileges and ignore these same biological sex differences when they are inconvenient. Bigots are selective in the facts they acknowledge and the manosphere needs to recognise that feminism is absolutely okay with emphasising sex differences to pedestalise women.
People need to recognise that for the last fifty years and particularly the last thirty years, feminism has been able to heavily influence our media, academia and educational institutions with little resistance and shape the public perception of how we see men and women. Feminism has not been arguing men and women are the same. Feminists have been arguing women are superior to men. The culture has been saturated with the following messages for decades: Mothers are brilliant and dads are bumbling fools. Women are peaceful and men are violent. Men are inherent rapists and domestic violence abusers and women are their victims. Adult men are potential pedophiles that cannot be left around children, adult women are always safe around kids. The examples go on like this. Feminism has relentlessly pushed the message that women are better than men and contributed to these bigoted beliefs forming. It is only in areas where it is to the benefit of women to support sameness, that feminists argue the sexes are identical.
Many boys have now been raised with no father and educated in a gynocentric school system and exposed to a gynocentric culture, in which they are told men are obsolete, the future is female and boys are stupid. That is going to impact how boys see themselves and other men in relation to women and not for the better. We can see the impact of this mass brainwashing on society just by asking people on the street like this man did23. Society has been manipulated to perceive women as being above men and that does influence how society treats men relative to women and how men treat themselves in relation to women (especially the younger generations of men, that have known nothing but a consistent cultural message that they are inferior because they are male).
How Gynocentrism Distorts Our Understanding Of The Science Of Sex Differences:
People think that feminism and gynocentrism in academia have not impacted the sciences- They have. Human sex difference biology, psychology and evolution is presented to society through a gynocentric lens. Yet the reality that a gynocentric bias operates in science like it does in the rest of society, does not appear to have been acknowledged by some people in the manosphere quoting questionable research, concepts (like Briffault’s law), books and news articles presenting science on sex differences.
Gynocentrism in the coverage of sex difference science exists. That is why you get books from scientists preaching female superiority such as, The Natural Superiority Of Women24 and Women After All25. It is why you get the willful denial of inconvenient research in academia on sex differences in intelligence26, greater male variability and male genius27 and on single motherhood and the importance of fatherhood28, that does not go with the gynocentric narrative. Stating facts that do not support the view women are superior to men, does not then make someone a male supremacist that supports male superiority. However that is exactly how such researchers are framed in supposedly objective academic circles, when they bring up facts that run against gynocentrism. These same academic thought police, don’t seem too fussed about half-baked arguments women are superior to men though.
So rest assured the gynocentric bias in wider society, is also present in the sciences concerning research on sex differences. Men are persuaded by facts and logic and so gynocentric academics crafting a narrative of male inferiority and supposed male biological expendability, by using cherry picked science and omitting inconvenient facts without acknowledgement29, is a great way to control the male mind and maintain the narrative women are superior to men in the wider culture. As I have written about, our institutions have a vested interest in keeping men down and thriving off their exploitation. Manipulating sex difference research to promote a message in academia and the media that men are genetically defective, inferior and biologically expendable, is a means to persuade people that gynocentric bigotry has some justification and rational basis to it.
It is all about framing facts to paint a desired picture and omitting facts that are inconvenient. Just as in the performance of a magic trick, or the mainstream media editing interview footage to suit an agenda, the manipulation of scientific information to persuade people to accept a narrative in female superiority, requires proper framing so that people do not notice what is not written about and what is left out. This is especially effective if your audience is interested in science and yet does not have much formal knowledge of science and cannot critically evaluate the positions presented or notice what is omitted and ignored (which is a great deal for those making sophist and pseudoscientific arguments to support a narrative of female superiority).
Is the entire scientific community like this? No. However there is a significant gynocentric influence within the scientific community in maintaining the gynocentric narrative that women are valuable and superior and men are expendable and inferior. Some of it is unintentional and just a result of years of gynocentric programming that everyone including scientists have been shaped by. When you are taught to perceive and interpret things a certain way from birth and your gynocentric colleagues validate preconceived assumptions about men and women, that will affect how you conduct research and how you draw conclusions. Such a gynocentric bias applies even for scientists supposedly pursuing objective truth.
Certain cohorts of the scientific community do police how science is presented to the public and make sure it is kept within the gynocentric Overton window of approved discourse. Just look at the example on greater male variability and male genius I cited earlier in this article. Janice Fiamengo has also discussed in a recent video30 , the alarming feminist gatekeeping and thought policing going on in the hard sciences at major universities. I would highly encourage people to watch Janice’s video, it will shock you. The reality is there is feminist authoritarian oversight present in the sciences at universities. The feminist control of academia and academic research, is not just confined to the humanities. I can cite multiple examples of researchers being silenced for going outside the gynocentric Overton window and the authoritarian feminist control of science. These are not isolated incidents, it is a pervasive problem.
There is some level of institutional gynocentric bias in scientific research and there are academics that harbour and espouse such views as maleness being a birth defect31. Just imagine for the moment if an academic dared to suggest being female was a birth defect, or that females were the simpler less enhanced sex. What do people think the reaction would be? Again the common thread with such claims of female superiority, is that those promoting it present only half the facts on sex differences that are convenient (and omit the other half of the facts that are inconvenient) to promoting their narrative.
In part 3 of this article I will examine a case study of gynocentric bias in scientific research, where I think the manosphere has gone wrong with discussing sex differences and what we can do to correct things. I will then present my final thoughts on this subject.
Moving Beyond A False Gynocentric Understanding Of Biology:
As I have discussed in previous articles, there is a widely held belief in our gynocentric culture and even in the manosphere, that women are more biologically valuable than men because they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction and men are supposedly expendable. I have explained in great detail why this is not the case in the following articles and have covered every common argument that is used to justify this false and factually incorrect claim:
This claim is pervasive and is the foundation of the core belief in female superiority that drives gynocentrism in our culture. That is why I have written so much about it. Maintaining the lie that men are expendable and only women are valuable in the culture, is critical to maintaining gynocentrism. The claim of greater female biological value, is sometimes used to explain the origins of gynocentrism and even justify gynocentrism in society. Ironically this claim is actually a product of gynocentrism itself. In reality the two sexes have equal biological value, but biological value manifests itself differently in each sex. In women biological value is generally more focused on reproductive output and in men biological value is generally more focused on survival output. Of course there is considerable overlap (the sexes are more alike than different7) between the sexes and exceptions, but that is the general pattern.
There are some people that erroneously suggest that sexual selection is greater than natural selection and therefore reproduction is more important than survival. This is factually incorrect and can be debunked quite easily. If an organism does not survive long enough, it either does not reproduce or does not reproduce at a frequency that preserves its lineage, or its offspring die and the lineage dies with them. There is an equilibrium between sexual selection and natural selection. If the fitness benefits of sexual selection of a particular trait, are outweighed by the fitness costs of that trait arising from reduced survival, then natural selection will override sexual selection.
It is correct that certain traits can arise in a species that may enhance reproduction at the cost of reduced survival, but this can only develop to a certain degree (and the reverse can occur too where survival is enhanced at the cost of reproduction, in circumstances where the net fitness benefit of survival is greater). Positive feedback loops in sexual selection can occur, this is sometimes identified as Fisherian runaway selection8. However eventually such a process terminates when costs to survival become too high and natural selection pressure begins to exceed sexual selection pressure. In a species where this does not occur soon enough, a species will become extinct (like the Irish Elk). Over billions of years, evolution has eliminated species that reproduced at the expense of their own survival in an unsustainable manner. Sexual selection and reproduction are not biological absolutes that exist in a vacuum. Natural selection can override sexual selection and impacts on survival can be more important to evolutionary success than impacts on reproduction.
Each sex has its own optimal life history strategy to propagate the genome. There is overlap between the sexes, but there are also differences. One key difference between males and females, arises from the greater evolutionary success for males in taking on high risk and high effort challenges and hardships, that have a high return or benefit. A man that risks his life to earn social status or acquire resources, may win big and this may greatly increase his mating opportunities and the frequency with which he passes on his genes. Women thanks to their uteri, are limited to reproducing much more slowly and also incur a cost or risk to their primary reproductive function from taking on such risky hardships.
This basic sex difference, is just one of the reasons why men more so than women, are prepared to take on risks and challenges and engage in hardships. It is also one of the key reasons why men are less able to elicit support and protection from society and why women are more capable in doing so. Taking on risks and hardships requires self-reliance and independence from the support and protection from society. Developing traits that elicit support and protection from society, is at least to some degree (but not in an absolute sense) incompatible with male life history strategy. It is not a supposedly greater biological value of women that is behind society providing greater support and protection to women, it is a difference in the manner in which males and females optimise their evolutionary success that has in part led to this difference in societal concern.
We do have a predisposition9 to show greater concern for female well-being in certain contexts. That it is a reality and it has nothing to do with women being biologically more valuable than men. Eliciting support and protection from society is a strength that women possess in greater abundance than men, because it is more aligned with women’s life history strategy. A certain underlying biological bias toward supporting and protecting women over men does exist. It is important to remember though as I cited before, that whilst sex differences exist, the sexes are more similar than they are different. Both sexes for instance have evolved and display neotenous features. Our sexual dimorphism is intermediate and not huge like some other animals. So whilst an underlying bias to support and protect women over men may exist, it is not necessarily a huge chasm like sex differences in many other species. It is also important to recall as I mentioned in the normalisation of gynocentrism10, that human civilisation has arisen from a capacity to make intelligent decisions and control and where necessary inhibit our instinctual impulses. The biases and impulses that drive gynocentric behaviour can be controlled and overcome to a substantial degree.
We can overcome our biases as a society provided that:
We are aware of them.
We recognise the need to address them as beneficial and worthwhile to our society.
We introduce social and legal measures into our culture and society to keep them in check.
We recognise and counter efforts to undermine those social and legal measures (like addressing attacks on due process and freedom of speech).
Racism has a biological basis to it, as politically incorrect and as troubling as that sounds. Humans are tribalistic by nature and we have in-groups and out-groups. However we have made efforts to address racism in our culture, in our legal system and in our institutions. We are not slaves to innate biological sexism or racism, with no capacity to change our behaviour. We had slavery and legally and socially sanctioned discrimination in the West for hundreds of years based on racist bigotry and we overcame that. What change seems impossible in the present, actually is not so impossible. Slaves thought the same thing centuries ago and look where we are now.
In my previous article6, I mentioned that ironically in some ways feminism has actually demonstrated our capacity to override biology. Feminism has created large numbers of childless women, whose lineage will die with them. Where feminism has taken hold, many societies are pursuing a path that is in contravention to our biological imperative and the populations are failing to replace themselves and continue their lineages. Whilst culture is indeed informed by biology, it is not completely and absolutely restricted by it. Culture also can and does shape biology to some degree (read these articles here11 and here12).
Part of the evolutionary advantage of culture, is to extend behaviour to a certain degree beyond the current evolved biological envelope and allow radical adaptation. Such radical adaptation is not possible if culture is completely unable to go beyond biological predispositions. This is why we can get things like feminism emerging in human society. It is why we can overcome our tribalistic tendencies and overcome racism. It is why we don’t have a society where it is a free-for-all and survival of the fittest. It why we are able invest in activities that are so abstract and distant from the biological activities directly related to genome propagation.
I am not suggesting that there is no biological basis to gynocentrism. What I am suggesting is that the biological basis to gynocentrism does exist and has nothing to do with women being more valuable than men and more to do with the positive and negative effects of our evolved sex differences that arose from each sex having a different strategy in passing on their genes. I am suggesting that whilst certain biases have a partial biological basis to them, like our bias toward female neoteny, we can still manage and overcome these biases. I am not suggesting we can completely eliminate gynocentrism, I am suggesting we can substantially reduce it. Just as we cannot completely eliminate racism, we can and have been able to substantially reduce it. Slavery is no longer a mainstream practice in the West as it was for centuries. Hanging people of a particular skin colour from a tree is not socially or legally acceptable either and racism is not socially or legally sanctioned in society. These are all massive leaps forward that we have taken and positive leaps. Pockets of racism exist, but racism is no longer normalised throughout mainstream society. We can do the same with gynocentrism.
The fatalistic thread of the manosphere, is not achieving anything except keeping men in a perpetual state of learned helplessness. Men are valuable and men do matter. As I mentioned at the start of this article, gynocentrism is based on the core belief women are superior to men. The belief in female superiority ultimately rests on the unquestioned axiom women are biologically valuable and men are biologically expendable, because women have a uterus and give birth and men do not. Propagating this lie is a part of normalising gynocentrism in our culture and is the foundational justification that is relied upon when gynocentric double standards are challenged.
Convincing men that they are expendable with this fictitious lie and using sophistry and twisted interpretations of biology to change men’s perception of themselves from a human being to a human doing, is a core means through which men are controlled in society. When men see themselves as expendable, then they willingly go along with their own exploitation. Even when they do not, men with this perception will not support any organised resistance to the exploitation and marginalisation of men because they perceive it as futile. The gynocentric programming has done its job in such cases- Men become paralysed in a mental prison of learned helplessness.
The notion that females determine all the conditions of the animal kingdom (or Briffault’s Law13), is part of this programming and demonstrably false. Women are not omnipotent. Rape gangs exist, female sex slaves exist, female genital mutilation occurs, the murder and abortion of female infants occurs, arranged marriage exists, millions of Jewish women were exterminated along with men in death camps and the genuine marginisalisation of women exists in parts of Africa and the Middle East (and no I am not talking about Iran). Even in highly traditional theocratic cultures like Iran, where both men and women are restricted, women cannot do as they please. Don’t believe me? Watch this documentary14 on women and divorce in Iran. Women do not call the shots in Iran and neither do men, the theocrats and the family do. Plus one for a restrictive culture and minus one for female omnipotence. Even in the West women do not always get their way. Trump got elected despite feminists and even the democrats don’t entirely follow female interests. These are not just exceptions to the rule, there are too many exceptions to count. These are chasms that cannot be explained with such an absolutist, monolithic and simplistic so-called “law”.
In dating and relationships we can see men that pump and dump women wanting marriage, or men that opt out of relationships entirely and go their own way. I have often heard women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are far more selective when it comes to getting married and having a relationship than they are with sex. Women might only prefer the top twenty percent of men, but those same men have little incentive or desire to settle down with them. These men have an abundance of women that want them and many men in the top twenty percent can and do simply pump and dump them.
At the same time, whilst women are complaining about where all the good men went and men not earning enough and pretending like feminism has nothing to do with it, less and less men are interested in marriage and relationships. Men are becoming aware of the bias in divorce and family court and steering clear of marriage. They are also steering clear of certain women in the metoo# climate and domestic violence climate and refusing to be alone with female co-workers or mentor them. Then there is the wall, where women over 35 experience a sharp drop in their sexual mating value in contrast to the rising sexual mating value of their male counterparts. So no, women do not control every aspect of dating, relationships and how the sexes interact in the workplace. Ultimately women cannot force men to do anything and men do act at least to some degree on their own self-interest. There are too many exceptions to make the generalisation women control everything. They do not.
There is a big difference in suggesting women influence society and taking the absolutist position women control all the conditions of the animal kingdom and by extension society. Do women control every political and economic decision made by our governments? Did women cause Trump to launch an attack on an Iranian general? Did women tell the US government to bail out the banks? The reason modern evolutionary biology does not cite Briffault’s Law as a “law” or established theory, is because the facts and evidence do not support the absolutist position of female omnipotence it rests on. Evolutionary biology and psychology recognise female mate choice exists, but they also recognise male mate choice exists too and that other factors unrelated to female influence, also influence the conditions of society.
Gynocentrism And The Psychological Manipulation Of Men:
Like the Earth not being the centre of the solar system or universe and the Earth not being flat, modern 21st century science recognises that it is a bit more complicated than women being at the centre of everything. Why does such an outdated and questionable concept like Briffault’s Law gain traction within sizeable communities of the manosphere? Men have been programmed from birth to see female approval as the mark of their worth. Mothers, sisters, female teachers, the wider culture and their female friends and partners, all inform men that their worth is tied to living up to whatever women’s preferred definition of what a man is. That’s why. It is another form of manipulation and control. In my previous article6 I wrote about precarious manhood and the social pressure on men to prove they are a “real man” and cited a video15 on the subject by Tom Golden. What was the “white feather”16 during World War One? What are messages like “The End Of Men”17 in the modern day? All methods to condition male identity around female approval and use precarious manhood to control men.
Naturally men have developed a perception from this programming, where they see women as the centre of the universe. This is the programming they have received their whole lives from every corner of society. That’s where this thinking comes from and the manosphere is not immune to sliding into this fatalistic line of thinking that women are the centre of everything. It is why junk concepts like Briffault’s Law still gain traction even in the manosphere. So when men like myself start writing about the fact that females do not control all the conditions of human society, some men in the manosphere perceive it as a denial of their lived experience and of their twisted and seriously flawed understanding of biological reality (which they almost never scrutinise).
It is your lived experience, it is my lived experience and the experience of every man in this gynocentric culture. I do not deny that. However even a casual observation of society shows Briffault’s law to be false. Women do not control all the conditions of society. It ain’t that simple. The fact men are conditioned from birth to assign their worth to what they do and think of themselves as expendable, does not then make them an expendable human doing any more than conditioning a human being to act like a dog makes them a dog. All it proves is that you can control how people perceive themselves by using social approval and operant conditioning. It just highlights how powerful the effects of social and psychological manipulation can be, especially when done from a young age on the target group (men and boys in this case). People are social learners and we are a social species and are susceptible to manipulation (especially when that is all we are exposed to from birth).
Men need to recognise the extent to which the lies they have been told about themselves influence their perception of themselves and of reality. Female omnipotence and male expendability are illusions our gynocentric culture uses to control men. Whilst the Myth of Male Power18 was an excellent book, an equally important book is The Manipulated Man19 by Esther Vilar. How do you convince the physically stronger sex to subordinate themselves to the physically weaker sex? Manipulation. That is the nature of the mechanism of control over men at work. How do institutions and governments exploit men whilst simultaneously relying on men to operate the system of their own exploitation? Manipulation.