Arranged marriage was common place for most of human history in many cultures and still is prevalent in many traditional cultures today. Arranged marriage has been observed to be the dominant form of marriage in hunter-gather communities.
A comprehensive anthropological survey found that arranged marriage was the dominant form of marriage in approximately 85% of a sample of 190 hunter-gatherer societies around the world and only mild levels of polygyny were observed in most of those cultures1,2. The high frequency of arranged marriage in the majority of hunter-gather communities in the present day, in past societies over thousands of years of history and in present day traditional cultures, has prompted scientists to undertake genetic analysis of our ancestors to reconstruct marital systems.
Based on phylogenetic analysis19 using data from present day hunter-gatherers and mitochondrial DNA, it was concluded that arranged marriage has had a substantive prevalence and impact in these communities since the migration of humans out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago. The analysis also found that low levels of polygyny was most likely the state of ancestral marriage in past hunter-gatherer communities. It has been shown20 as well with arranged marriage, that parental control on selecting a partner for marriage is particularly strong for parents of daughters and that fathers have a greater influence than mothers in choosing a suitable partner.
This same paper which again looked at 190 hunter-gatherer communities, also stated that we may be overestimating female mate choice on sexual selection and underestimating the influence of parental mate choice on human evolution during our prehistory2. The study reports that whilst parents consult with their offspring, consent from their sons and daughters is usually not required and they usually comply with their parent’s choice2,3. Furthermore, virtually all reproduction in these communities was found to occur whilst a woman is married2.
We can see numerous examples of patriarchal influence by fathers in arranged marriage practices across many cultures throughout history. It is not just limited to modern hunter-gatherer communities. Another study4 examining arranged marriage across 543 different ethnographies around the world, found that parents and their offspring in all areas of the world were very frequently in vast disagreement on the choice of partner and on the relevant traits of the right partner. The parental choice of mate often strongly disagreed with the offspring’s choice of mate. The authors note that sometimes extreme methods were used to enforce the choice of mate.
These realities are part of the truths behind the half-truth of feminist patriarchy theory. Female mate choice has not been some dominant force exclusively dictating the social structure of society. The jokes about fathers with their baseball bats sizing up their daughters’ partners, comes from a long history of parents and particularly fathers regulating who their daughters mate with.
Of course it would be correct to point out that male mate choice has also been curtailed to a somewhat lesser degree by the same system of arranged marriage. Before the advent of modernity and the luxury of modern technology, what was good for the prospects of families has often been regarded as more important than the wishes of the bride and groom. Marriage was used to form alliances and this no doubt had a direct benefit on social cohesion, resource sharing and ultimately the propagation of genes for familial lineages over multiple generations and for multiple kin.
What Is Good For The Genes And Society Vs Pedestalising Women
There is a common misconception that what is good for women is good for the propagation of the genome and society. That pedestalising women is interchangeable with maximising the copies of the genome a lineage leaves behind and the survival of society. The reality is far more complicated. This misunderstanding leads to incorrect and frankly bizarre assertions that women are in a biological sense more valuable than men. That a population can only survive if women are protected and prioritised above all other concerns.
The truth is that whilst women have an important reproductive role in giving birth and caring for small infants, this function is merely one activity in a vast web of activities that have to occur for genes to be successfully passed on from one generation to the next. A community can have as many women as it pleases and as many children as it likes and the reality is that it will all amount to precisely nothing in evolutionary terms if basic survival requirements are not addressed. The reality is that the reproductive role of women whilst important, is no more important than many other activities and hardly the overwhelming priority it is presented as.
Gynocentrism is by its very nature a one-dimensional fixation on female well-being. It is an absolute and unconditional pedestalisation of women. All other priorities and needs for society are secondary. The myopic fixation on prioritising female well-being above all else, is actually detrimental to the continuation of a society and passing on the genes. Society is sustained through a complex balancing of priorities. The continuation of the genome itself similarly relies on a complex balancing of priorities.
Life history theory[1] sets out in detail how life strategically allocates finite time, energy and resources towards various activities in an optimal balance. Reproduction and mating are merely two activities. There are dozens of other activities life spends more time, energy and resources on. Some organisms like insects and bacteria have a fast life history strategy, invest little in survival and development and reproduce hundreds or even thousands of offspring. Other species like humans and large vertebrates, have a slow life history strategy and invest substantially more in their own survival and development and reproduce comparatively few offspring.
Humans are a social species and require a complex social system to perpetuate themselves. This social system fundamentally requires a balancing of priorities. The survival of society and also our genetic survival, depends on achieving the correct balance. Gynocentrism destroys this balance. The plummeting fertility rate in developed countries and its connection with gynocentrism has been discussed before by Paul Elam and Peter Wright in their video Chasing The Dragon.[2]
When society puts men down to lift women up, family formation and fertility rates plummet. That is what the hard data tells us. The economic and social conditions for society also begin to decline (as we can see from the effects of fatherlessness and the boy crisis in education for example) and this in turn directly impacts the reproductive prospects of future generations and their children. That is the gynocentric death spiral for society.
I don’t expect this article to change the minds of gynocentric acolytes that insist on propagating the idea that pedestalising women is what nature intended. I expect the consequences of gynocentrism to eventually destroy the societies that produced it. This article hopefully will make it easier for some to understand why society is in decline in part as a result of gynocentrism.
Karen Straughan did an excellent video[3] a decade ago on how our gynocentric society will slowly destroy itself. It is not just the social and economic effects that she discussed we have to worry about, it is now the substantive demographic shortfall in births combined with these effects that spell death for society. A population with a lack of youth cannot sustain an aging population and ultimately replace the people it loses.
A gynocentric culture is a culture of death, not a culture of life. In the end societies that pedestalise women die out.
Gynocentrism is not an evolutionary adaptive set of behaviours. It does not increase the prospects of society or the number of copies of the genome, it reduces them. If gynocentrism were adaptive you would expect this insanely gynocentric culture to be bursting at the seams with children and record fertility rates and yet we see the opposite. If gynocentrism is so adaptive, where are all the babies?
If gynocentrism were adaptive we would see record social and economic progress completely independent of debt from empowering women and marginalising men and yet we see the opposite. We see stagnation, decline, crashes and bubbles from fake financial growth and an ever increasing reliance on debt year by year. If gynocentrism were adaptive we should see obvious indications of that in our gynocentric culture and yet we do not.
Gynocentrism by its nature is unconditional and absolute, it will always inevitably grow to the very extremes until the society that produced it collapses under the weight of it. Gynocentrism is like cancer, it is a pathological growth that disrupts the functional balance of society.
Just consider the negative net social and economic impact of modern divorce and family court on family formation and on the fertility rate of current adults and also the children coming from broken families. Consider the chilling effect of metoo# on relationship formation and the net effect of the boy crisis in education impacting the future prospects of men and women in finding suitable partners to have children, maintain stable relationships and raise children.
It may take decades or centuries, but in the end gynocentrism destroys the foundations of the societies that give rise to it. The family itself is sacrificed for gynocentrism, one of the very building blocks of civilisation. In the past civilisation collapsed faster from other destructive forces before gynocentrism itself could contribute to the implosion. Technology has prolonged the decline of civilisation to such a degree that now social factors like gynocentrism, are directly contributing to the demographic implosion and fragmentation of society.
Gynocentrism Versus Ancestral Pragmatism
Conflating gynocentrism with the protection of women in circumstances where they are objectively in greater danger and are objectively more vulnerable, demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of what gynocentrism is. When you protect women over men merely because they are women, when you prioritise their well-being merely because they are women, then that is gynocentrism.
When you prioritise women’s protection and well-being because they are objectively in greater need of that protection and concern, then it is the physical reality of the situation steering the decision and not some deluded notion women are somehow more deserving of our concern simply because they are women. This same objective reasoning can guide the reverse prioritisation of male well-being where it is warranted.
This simple distinction is what so many fail to grasp. In my article on Diagnosing Gynocentrism[4], I discussed this important distinction in detail. I gave the example of a woman seriously injured in a car accident and the man being only mildly injured. Is it gynocentrism to help the woman first? No. Would it be if the man were seriously injured and the woman only mildly injured? Yes. Note the difference. So when we go back and examine our prehistory and start projecting what we are observing in our modern gynocentric culture back onto the past, we might want to consider the blind psychological fixation on women that drives gynocentrism.
It is certainly the case that in our past there have been numerous instances where women have been objectively in greater need of protection than men given our physical sex differences and the harsh environment’s we often lived in. It is also the case though that such societies could not afford to inefficiently allocate time, energy and resources in such a way as to pedestalise women. The social concern for women in other words had to be contingent on it being for the greater good of the community and grounded in the priority to survive. Blindly pedestalising women wastes time, energy and resources that many past communities had in short supply.
Ultimately it was the greater good of the community and the drive to survive rather than a myopic concern for female well-being, that drove much of the customs and practices seen in our prehistoric past and past civilization’s. That reality is also the case in respect of many of the traditions and laws regarding the roles of men and women in past societies.
It was out of pragmatism in the face of a harsh environment before modern technology rather than blind gynocentrism, that resulted in women in certain instances garnering greater protection than men and men being assigned to more physically dangerous and demanding tasks like war. I am not suggesting such a division was ideal, I am suggesting that out of survival and what actually worked such divisions were undertaken.
Sometimes it was to women’s advantage and other times it was to men’s advantage. We can argue which sex had it worse for hours, but the reality these divisions were not made to favour one sex over the other, or pedestalise women or men, they were made to keep society going and keep people alive.
No society can last without having the greater good of the society and the survival of society in mind as the ultimate check on the misallocation of time, energy and resources. Gynocentrism is a product of a culture that has abandoned such a fundamental balance and that is why inevitably gynocentrism is in part a driver of the collapse of society itself.
Gynocentrism does not prioritise the greater good or the survival of society first, it prioritises female self-interest and well-being at all costs, absolutely and without compromise. The future of society be dammed! The slogan, “The future is female” might as well say the future is death. There are eventually no people and a collapsed society in such a future, based on the data we have and the demographic and socioeconomic trends we are observing.
Male Sacrifice Alone Is Not Evidence Of Gynocentrism
Related to the conflation of gynocentrism with the greater good, is the notion that sacrifice is the sole domain of men and that such sacrifice is somehow proof men are disposable. Disposability infers that men are of little value and are easily replaced. Disposable items are considered disposable for that very reason. Again the reality is far more complex than suggesting men are biologically disposable because they sacrifice their lives and therefore gynocentrism is adaptive.
A male that reproduces and survives will reproduce more than a male that reproduces and then dies. The male that survives to reproduce multiple times will always be at an evolutionary advantage compared to the male that reproduces once and then dies or dies and does not reproduce at all. Over time the man that survives dominates the gene pool. The simple reality is that sacrifice is incidental to men passing on their genes rather than a requirement and that men losing their lives, is a cost that the forces of natural selection select against and minimise.
Yes sexual selection on males does occur and yes that can select for men to adopt traits and behaviours that improve their reproductive fitness at the expense of their long-term survival. However even under sexual selection, males that evolve variations on traits that maintain the same reproductive fitness without incurring the cost of reduced survival, will be at an evolutionary advantage.
Males that get the same job done at a lower cost to themselves, win the evolutionary race. It is basic efficiency that is selected for even under sexual selection. It is not only just whether you reproduce or not that matters, but how efficiently you pass on your genes. Ultimately sacrifice whether it is attributed to sexual selection or not, is an evolutionary cost that selection attempts to minimise even under sexual selection pressures.
Sexual selection does not have to come at the cost of reduced survival for sexual selection to produce traits that the other sex selects for. Males and females can develop traits through sexual selection that have no effect on survival at all or even enhance survival.
Contrary to popular opinion, sexual selection does not override natural selection in the sense of eliminating it, sexual selection is present alongside natural selection. Sexually attractive traits matter little if males with them fail to survive to reproduce or males that survive longer outbreed males with such traits. Ultimately the two forces of selection are in a certain dynamic equilibrium with each other and the eventual evolutionary solution can be the development of traits that satisfy both evolutionary forces or that find the optimal balance between them.
Comparing the forces of sexual selection on human males with male insects etc is fraught with issues. There is a very big difference between the selective dynamics at work on organisms like insects with relatively short lifespans and developmental periods compared to the human male and that demonstrate much higher levels of sexual dimorphism than humans.
Drawing long bows with associating examples of male insects and peacocks with human males is emblematic of the problem of bio-gynocentrism[5] selectively framing biology through a gynocentric lens to support a preconceived narrative and omitting inconvenient facts that do not support such a narrative.
Sexual selection in humans is not just limited to males either, there are numerous examples of sexual selection acting on human females too. Some of these examples actually can reduce female survival and increase their fertility, just as sexual selection does sometimes in males. Of course that won’t be discussed by ideologues set on arguing men serving women is what nature intended, because it does not fit the narrative.
Sacrifice itself is not indicative of disposability either. Valuable people and valuable things can be sacrificed. In fact sometimes the most valuable people sacrifice the most for society and their sacrifice has an impact that lasts centuries and in some cases thousands of years.
Men and males more broadly, are often highly selective on whether and precisely when and how they risk their own lives. If men are biologically programmed to just drop what they are doing, risk their own safety and help a random female stranger, why is it that when they don’t there seems to be a need in our gynocentric culture to socially reinforce this expectation on men and speak up when they don’t throw themselves in harms way? Seems kind of odd to me!
Where was the gynocentric instinct recently on the New York subway[6] for example? Gynocentrism is not hardwired in our brains, it is socially learned and socially enforced and we have clear examples in our society of precisely where that social enforcement is coming from! Gynocentrism plays on biological drives and manipulates them, it is not itself a hardwired instinct. It is rather amusing to see the aggrieved entitlement[7] that gynocentrism produces when it is denied, as more and more men are slowly waking up to the lopsided gynocentric dynamic in society and refusing to go along with it.
Truly disposable creatures in contrast to human males, exercise little discretion when it comes self-sacrifice. They are not picky. There is no thinking involved in such self-sacrifice from creatures that are truly disposable, just reflexive biological processes from relatively simple forms of life that invest very little in their own survival, have short lifespans and quickly and easily replace themselves.
Society, families and partners lose a great deal socially and economically when men die. It also takes decades to replace them and raise the next generation of men. Losing men has a cost and marginalising men has a cost. A considerable cost. Losing too many men and marginalising men, has the effect of destroying societies primary capacity to support its own survival and long-term prosperity.
Consider the multitude of activities men have undertaken in our prehistory right up until the present day. Consider the net result of losing substantial numbers of men needlessly. Consider the net effect of our society marginalising whole generations of men. It is not a coincidence that our economies have increasingly relied on unsustainable levels of debt to keep them going at the same time men have been increasingly marginalised in society.
Societies that make the most of their men and minimise the wasteful loss of men, will outperform societies that don’t. Armies that lose less men win the wars. Sacrifice cannot always be avoided, acknowledgment of such a reality does not mean avoidably losing men needlessly is something our society can accept or sustain.
It is worth noting that sacrifice is not purely the domain of males either. Females do indeed sacrifice for their offspring and do die in the process of reproducing on occasion. Death in childbirth was significantly more frequent up until relatively recently and long-term physical complications even more so. Mothers dying in the process of looking after their children and protecting them were not uncommon either.
Not every female has to live for their offspring to survive. The offspring can be cared for by the rest of the community and by other women if they are still in infancy, if the mother dies after birth or whilst the children are young. Pregnancy does not have to be perfect either. If most women live to give birth a certain incidence of death can persist and it has despite millions of years of evolution and selection.
Not every female even has to live to reproduce for a community to replace itself, just the bare minimum number of women that is required need to survive. Women like men can sacrifice themselves for their community in ways that go beyond giving birth to children and caring for small infants. Inclusive fitness[8] applies to women as well and not just men.
Women like men can further their genetic interests by protecting and looking after related kin and genetically similar individuals in their community. Women like men can further their genetic interests by contributing to society in ways that improve its prosperity without reproducing and this can directly improve conditions for their relatives and genetically similar individuals and thereby improve women’s reproductive success indirectly. Women can contribute in these ways, die in the process and still pass on their genes without reproducing themselves, just as men can. Sacrifice is not the sole domain of men.
The Reductive Lens Of Gynocentrism
The problem with gynocentrism is that it is by its nature reductive. Everything comes down to the female and pedestalising the female. Gynocentrism can distort people’s perception and understanding of biology itself. That is bio-gynocentrism. People can look at a group of whales or primates and see males on the outside and females and their offspring on the inside and conclude that is gynocentrism. No other explanation enters their minds.
The possibility that males might be on the perimeter not because they are less valuable, but because it best serves their genetic interests to protect their territory or guard against male rivals, is not considered. Even when such explanations are considered, they are ironically further explained as proof men are guarding the more valuable female as opposed to the possibility men are doing so for their own direct genetic benefit and nothing more.
Any further discussion is a waste of time. For the acolytes of bio-gynocentrism the female and reproduction is everything and they cannot be convinced otherwise. The gynocentric brainwashing by our culture is complete. Insect analogies are applied to humans and female mate choice is spoken of with an almost religious zeal and hyped up as some omnipotent force. The plethora of evidence and biology[9],[10],[11] demonstrating human males are a bit more complicated than male insects and that male mate choice, female intrasexual competition and mutual mate choice in humans is highly significant, is either ignored or downplayed.
It has never dawned on them that there is evidence all around us on what happens to genetic success when gynocentrism pervades the culture. The population does not breed and it dies away. That is the fate of our society if trends continue.
Gynocentrism Is Maladaptive
Gynocentrism is a maladaptive expression of our biology, it reduces reproductive success and the number of copies of the genes the community leaves behind. It destroys civilisation. Look at any modern developed nation that pedestalises female interests above all else, it is the same pattern. We did not evolve for gynocentrism to be some biological norm and that evidence again is all around us.
Sadly I think it will take the collapse of society for future generations to come to this realisation and how dysfunctional gynocentrism truly is. Females are merely one component in a much broader biological system that perpetuates itself. That applies especially to humans. Female well-being is hardly everything. Time to see the forest through the trees. We can treat women fairly and respectfully without deifying them.
Bio-gynocentrism was first coined by Vernon Meigs in his article The Eight Traits Of A Bio-gynocentrist1, to describe people who resort to twisted interpretations of human biology and evolution to justify the practice of male chivalry and the pedestalisation of women in our gynocentric culture. Bio-gynocentrism attempts to rationalise gynocentrism as what nature intended and therefore an ideal to aspire to. Bio-gynocentrism is an example of the naturalistic fallacy and the fallacy of appealing to nature2.
Bio-gynocentrism is based on the underlying assumption that because something that favours women is perceived to have a biological basis to it and be good for women, it must therefore be good for society and what is optimal for society. This is despite numerous examples where traits and behaviours that have a biological or evolutionary basis to them, actually produce dysfunctional and also evolutionary maladaptive outcomes. The instinctual forces driving addiction and obesity in the modern world and our superresponses to supernormal stimuli3, are such examples where our evolved biology can express itself in exaggerated and maladaptive ways. The psychology of gynocentrism itself shares a great degree of similarity with addiction and is one example of a dysfunctional superresponse to superstimuli4.
Expanding on Vernon Meigs article, I would define bio-gynocentrism more broadly as the selective interpretation of scientific research in the biological sciences through a gynocentric lens that favours women, omits information to the contrary and consequently is disconnected from broader reality. Bio-gynocentrism is in essence the women are wonderful effect5 expressing itself in the interpretation and dissemination of scientific research on human biology and evolution.
Bio-gynocentrism is quite prolific not just from the commentary of scientific research in the mainstream media and social media, but also within academia itself. Gynocentrism is fundamentally a bias in human perception and behavior that favours women over men. Bio-gynocentrism is one of the ways gynocentrism manifests itself in skewing our perception of reality and is a form of gamma bias6. Bio-gynocentrism can be observed7 when looking at how people respond to research on sex differences and can be identified and critiqued even when examining work8 within the supposedly objective scientific community itself. Bio-gynocentrism is also reflected in the general attitudes held in society about men and women9 and their perceived strengths.
There are two main examples of bio-gynocentrism and they overlap considerably.
1. Arguments put forward by female supremacists that women are inherently biologically superior to men10. They often cherry-pick and spin facts about sex differences in genetics and scholastic achievement for example to convey a narrative that supports their conclusion that women are superior and then casually omit or downplay the vast quantity of information that does not support their preconceived conclusion of female superiority.
A classic example of this can be seen from an excellent critique by one learned reviewer11 of a book12 making the absurdly broad generalisation that women are genetically superior to men. Books like this from bio-gynocentrists in academia are common. They are examples of the women are wonderful effect in academia undermining the objectivity of scientific research.
The male sex that produced the works of Einstein, Newton, Shakespeare and Beethoven, invented the aeroplane, discovered and harnessed electricity, split the atom and landed on the moon, is regarded as inferior by bio-gynocentrists. Like horses with blinders on, bio-gynocentrists are incapable of objectively assessing human biology without becoming fixated on satisfying their desire to pedestalise women and developing tunnel vision.
Beliefs in the supposed inherent superiority of women, are often based on extreme and simplistic generalisations like other forms of bigotry. Briffault’s law is another example of such a generalisation, which is based on the implied assumption of female social omnipotence (see articles where I debunk that myth here13 and here14).
2. Arguments put forward by female supremacists and gynocentric traditionalists, that women are more valuable than men because women are supposedly more important to the continuation of the community as a result of being the rate limiting factor of reproduction. These arguments are collectively called the golden uterus dogma.
Reducing The Complexity Of Human Biology Down To Goddess Worship
On the surface these simplistic biogynocentric arguments appear to make logical sense. However, on closer examination the arguments are actually highly reductive and omit many important facts as a consequence of the selective cherry-picking of scientific information and the skewed evaluation of the information that is reported. Like the feminist position on the gender wage gap, bio-gynocentrism dramatically simplifies complex multivariate aspects of biology and evolution and in the process grossly mischaracterises them.
For example, whilst the female role in reproduction is important, the golden uterus argument fails to adequately consider the importance of the male role in ensuring the continued survival of the community so that people can reproduce in the first place and also raise any resultant offspring to sexual maturity. Such a reductive overemphasis on reproduction, also ignores the limited carrying capacity of the environment to sustain high rates of reproduction and the reality that our species has a slow rate of reproduction in comparison to other forms of life and did not evolve to place enormous importance on reproduction.
Adherents of the golden uterus dogma will argue that a population that loses most of its women will struggle to replace itself, but then fail to differentiate such an extreme reality from the more common reality that populations generally have a surplus number of women beyond the critical minimum amount required and can actually tolerate a significant loss of women. These sycophants of the golden uterus, also fail to consider that a population that loses most of its men will struggle to survive and may not live long enough to even have a chance at replacing itself or ensure enough offspring live to adulthood.
The golden uterus argument for gynocentrism, also begs the question why do we protect women over 40 whom have limited or zero prospects of giving birth to healthy live offspring? The reality is the golden uterus dogma is not just a weak rationalisation for gynocentrism, it is also a weak explanation for its pervasiveness in society.
There many other factors and details beyond what I have raised here which the golden uterus argument omits (please refer to this article15 for more information). Unsurprisingly, it is the enormous level of detail and nuance in human biology and evolution that bio-gynocentrism fails to take into consideration, which ultimately undermines its validity in a way that is fatal and unrecoverable.
As I have discussed before in previous articles, bio-gynocentrism is an example of categorical thinking16 which Prof. Sapolsky described in his first lecture on behavioural biology citing numerous horrific examples of it involving prominent scientists in the 20th century. When we oversimplify and overgeneralise complex biological systems like human biology, we can make horrific mistakes. When we don’t recognise what led to our mistakes, we are destined to repeat those mistakes.
We should stop and pause on the implications of applying a biogynocentric perspective on human behaviour and biology and the consequences that will flow from it. The same thinking behind bio-gynocentrism, is the same type of lazy thinking behind the scientific racism and eugenics observed in the early 20th century. Bio-gynocentrism is just a different flavour of the same backward thinking.
Bio-gynocentrism fails to account for the fact that human males and females are part of one biological system that replicates itself. Both the human male and human female are equally essential components to that system. The male and the female have coevolved to perform different, but complementary and equally important roles in the propagation of the genome.
We cannot consider the relative strengths of women or men, without considering how they are interlinked with the strengths of the other sex. Neither sex alone can perform their biological role in a way that leads to the propagation of the genome and the continuation of the community, without the other sex adequately performing their biological role.
The evolutionary dynamics of Fishers principle17 generates an equal parental investment in producing male and female offspring and this focuses the forces of natural selection and sexual selection to drive a sexually interdependent coevolution in which both males and females share equal importance toward the propagation of the genome. There is a selective pressure to select against imbalances where the propagation of the genome is more dependent on one sex than the other and where the dynamics of Fishers principle operates and drives equal parental investment in the production of male and female offspring.
Over many tens of millions of years of evolution within the constraints of Fishers principle, our lineage has produced a male and female sex that are both equally valuable to the propagation of the genome. It cannot be any other way when there is a natural force driving equal parental investment in male and female offspring and a distinct evolutionary disadvantage in relying too heavily on one sex, especially over timescales of tens of millions of years.
Consider the reasoning behind diversifying a market portfolio to minimise risk, or the old adage to not put all your eggs in one basket. Being overly reliant on one half of the population to continue the community and propagate the genome from an evolutionary perspective, represents a significant risk and a cost that over long timescales of tens of millions of years would have been selected against under evolutionary pressures.
Natural selection and sexual selection would have favoured males that contributed equally to the burden of supporting the community and the propagation of the genome. That is precisely what we see when we examine male traits and observe male behaviour in our species and the multitude of ways men have kept the community and their children alive both directly and indirectly in prehistoric times and right up until the modern day.
If men walked off the job for one day today, many people would die. If men walked away from their tribe many tens of thousands of years ago for one day, there may not have been a tribe left to return to. These are the realities our gynocentric culture and bio-gynocentrists will never acknowledge or fully appreciate.
The reality is that if the female role in reproduction truly had the level of importance bio-gynocentrists place in it, then all life on this planet would reproduce asexually. If bio-gynocentrists were right, producing males and sexually reproducing would be too costly and wasteful. If bio-gynocentrists were right, then where sexual reproduction did emerge, any species would strictly be comprised of hermaphrodites since having half the population unable to give birth to offspring would again be too costly and wasteful.
Bio-gynocentrism does not leave any room to consider the biological value the male sex might provide to the continuation of a population and a species. It does not permit any consideration of how a male biological role might actually be extremely adaptive and drive evolution to favour a sex that does not give birth and instead contributes to the propagation of a species in other ways. Socially contributing to community survival may actually have greater value than simply gestating offspring and lactating and feeding small infants, especially in harsh climates and scarce habitats.
One has to simply ask why women do more than just gestate and feed offspring when supporting their community, to see the short sightedness in overemphasising the female role in pregnancy and looking after infants. These are certainly important activities for a community to perpetuate its existence, but so are many of the activities related to community survival that men predominantly do. The golden uterus is simply not as important as bio-gynocentrists assert it is and that reality is glaringly obvious when considering hunter-gatherer communities in harsh environments, past civilisations and the challenges they faced and also modern civilisation.
Pedestalising Women Is Not For The Greater Good Of Society Or Science
The greater good of the community is also often conflated with prioritising what is best for women thanks to bio-gynocentrism. This is despite ample evidence that when a society prioritises the female sex over other interests, it routinely neglects to address matters of great importance and also the well-being of the very men civilisation is dependent on to sustain itself.
The reality is that when a society puts men down to lift women up, fertility rates plummet as a result of courtship, relationships, marriage and family formation being undermined. When a society puts men down to lift women up, fatherlessness becomes widespread and so does the serious social and economic consequences that flow from that. When a society puts men down to lift women up, it undermines its economic productivity and its primary source of innovation because it is predominantly men driving essential sectors supporting GDP and consumer spending, inventing new technology and making major discoveries and contributing the bulk of tax revenue.
When a society puts men down to lift women up, it compromises its own national security and safety, as crime goes up and civil unrest becomes more frequent from directionless young men and external threats become harder to challenge from a weakened society that has marginalised and disincentivised it’s male protectors and armed forces.
Gynocentric cultures are cultures of death and not cultures of life. They do not replace themselves and they do not socially, economically or militarily sustain themselves. Karen Straughan called the process of decline from gynocentrism the Fempocalypse18. The long process of decline and the slow gradual collapse of society from gynocentrism in tandem with other destructive forces in our culture, has already begun. Gynocentric cultures of death rely on endless debt and migration to stave off their inevitable decline, but eventually they socially and economically implode from within and are overtaken by cultures that do have a functional non-gynocentric social balance between the sexes.
Bio-gynocentrism reduces our understanding of human biology and evolution by selectively omitting facts, evidence and perspectives that do not support a position that females are inherently superior or more valuable than males. Bio-gynocentrism hijacks legitimate biological science and research and converts them into gynocentric dogma that has more in common with a new age religion of female worship than actual science. Pedestalising women is not for the greater good of society or science.
This is a response to a video1 by Colttaine regarding Briffault’s law. I would encourage people to watch Paul Elam and Peter Wright’s video2 on this subject and then watch the response video from Colttaine. People can also read my previous articles here3 and here4 on Briffault’s law as well. I don’t have an issue with Colttaine personally, what I have an issue with is ideological dogma posing as science and the arrogant narrow-minded thinking behind it. With my past scientific background, I cannot just sit back and say nothing on this subject and surrender to the groupthink surrounding Briffault’s law.
Absolutism And Categorical Thinking
This is how Briffault’s law is written when it is discussed in the manosphere:
“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” 5,6
Firstly it is not a logical fallacy to argue that Briffault’s law is inconsistent with genuine red pill philosophy and men going their own way. Briffault’s law is written in absolute terms. Females we are told5,6, control all the conditions of the animal family. Not some of the conditions, not in general and not on average. As if this absolute meaning was not clear enough, Colttaine has said Briffault did not go far enough and that “women control all the conditions period”7. People can watch his entire video where he said that, it was not taken by Paul and Peter out of context. His commentary on Briffault’s law is about as absolute as you can get.
Briffault’s law is routinely presented from pockets of the manosphere that promote it as an absolute law of nature. It is not written or conveyed with any exceptions or limitations, just with extensions describing female opportunism. Female omnipotence is written into the very basis of this so-called law of nature and it is reasonable from how the law is written and presented, for someone to form the view that this law is to be taken as an absolute rule.
It has taken Paul and Peter Wright’s video for Colttaine to make a response video and explicitly state that Briffault’s law should not be taken as an absolute law of nature. If we all agree on that, then the law itself needs to be either dismissed, reworded or elaborated on because it is written in absolute terms without any further clarification. More importantly it should have never been conveyed to men in such absolute terms in the first place and the people questioning the absolute nature of the wording of the law should not be derided for it.
Briffault’s “law” was, in any case, aimed explicitly at non-human animals as confirmed by Briffault in the same passage, saying “There is, in fact, no analogy between the animal family and the patriarchal human family. The former is entirely the product of the female’s instincts, and she, not the male, is the head.” -citation, The Mothers6. How about we consider the context of what Briffault was actually saying, instead of spinning it to mean something else.
Even the generalisation Briffault assigns exclusively to animals is highly questionable, given the numerous examples in the animal kingdom of male social dominance and its influence on animal behaviour and evolution. We should also consider monogamous species where both sexes invest in offspring like humans do and other species where the sex roles are reversed and it is the males primarily investing in offspring and selecting mates while the females put in the bulk of mating effort. Life is extremely diverse and applying generalisations about animal behaviour can have limited application.
The reality is that you cannot on the one hand argue that men can go their own way and rise above our gynocentric culture and on the other hand argue women control all the conditions of society. By definition women would control the very psychological condition of all males absolutely, if Briffault’s law was operating as it is written and conveyed. Briffault’s law leaves no room for male choice or for men to exercise any power over their own lives. The only logical fallacy here is the delusion Briffault’s law is red pill knowledge and not just an overly simplistic and outdated statement referring to animals from a book saturated with gynocentric bias and written almost a century ago when biology and psychology were still in their infancy as scientific disciplines!
Colttaine at least has the intelligence to concede that Briffault’s law is not an actual scientific law of nature. Excellent! Then we should stop calling it a law. It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the universal acknowledgment of the law of gravity with the acceptance of Briffault’s law. We have centuries of scientific theory and empirical evidence for gravity.
Briffault’s law is not even close to the standard of proof we have for gravity. Gravity is also the weakest of the fundamental forces and our basic equations for gravity recognise that it is not an absolute force and it has a quantifiable strength. In contrast, Briffault’s law acknowledges no limitation to the degree of female influence in society and its adherents instead double down and tell us the law does not go far enough in conveying the degree of female social omnipotence.
Just as the force of gravity at the center of a black hole does not resemble the force of gravity across the entire universe, neither does the claim of women controlling all the conditions of society accurately reflect reality. Anyone with a functioning brain that is not infected with ideology and dogma, can conclude that we live in a complex world where neither sex alone really has complete control over all or even most of the conditions of society.
Not even as a general rule is it the case that women or men on average control the conditions of society. As gynocentric as our culture is, society is not some monolithic matriarchy where women call all of the shots. When we consider history and the third world, the lack of female omnipotence is even more stark and more apparent.
Feminist patriarchy theory makes exactly the same mistakes as Briffault’s law when making broad generalisations of civilisation and history. These sorts of simplistic descriptions of society tend to breakdown when you look at society and history in detail. Just as patriarchy theory is presented like it is an actual testable scientific theory (which it is not), Briffault’s law has a false cloak of legitimacy embedded in its name with the use of the word “law”. Both ideas frame society in fairly black and white categorical terms. This is what Prof. Sapolsky called in his first lecture on behavioural biology, “categorical thinking”8.
Adherents of both sets of ideas suffer from serious confirmation bias and selectively rely upon facts and evidence they think support their perspectives and omit inconvenient facts and evidence that do not. They make bold leaps and interpretations of the evidence and facts they present and then confuse their interpretations as the actual evidence itself. Their twisted interpretation of science is not evidence, it is sophistry warping legitimate research to convey nonsense.
Contrary to Colttaine’s opinion, we can’t just simply ignore the gynocentric bias of Briffault and his upbringing, because this bias may have impacted what sort of research and arguments he put forward and what he omitted. Sapolsky went through numerous examples in his first lecture on how the ideological leanings and biases of certain prominent scientists, led to the propagation of half-baked theories throughout the early 20th century in Briffault’s time. Many of these theories have subsequently been disproven and had terrible outcomes.
Colttaine has argued9 men are mentally and physically superior to women. Perhaps he should read anthropologist Ashley Montagu’s book, The Natural Superiority Of Women10 and the one-sided reporting of the scientific research Montagu cites, if as per his video Colttaine truly thinks we should just focus on the validity of the arguments, facts and evidence people present and not give any consideration to the biases or prejudices of a scientist and consequently not be alerted to look for the research and evidence they may omit in their work.
I don’t think we should just ignore the clear gynocentric bias evident in Briffault’s work or his mother issues. The lives and upbringing of people affect how they think, how they conduct research and report information and the conclusions they draw about the world. That includes scientists and especially applies to scientists like Briffault from the early 20th century that were working in disciplines still in their infancy!
There is a reason there are often conflict of interest statements in scientific papers. Unfortunately the evidence in studies and the conclusions that are derived from the evidence collected, can be distorted by bias and prejudice. Evidence or studies can be omitted from papers and literature reviews, or even rigged or fabricated. There have been plenty of examples of that in science throughout history and also in the present day. Even entire fields can ignore legitimate science because of deeply engrained biases in that area of research.
For the record neither sex is in an overall sense superior, both sexes have their own sets of evolved strengths and weaknesses. That reality has not stopped people with a strong prejudice doing selective reviews of the scientific literature and arguing otherwise though. Female supremacists will argue women are superior citing women’s greater immune system, lower susceptibility to X-linked chromosomal diseases and higher academic achievement and ignore or dismiss everything else. Male supremacists will cite men’s greater physical strength, aerobic fitness and the IQ literature reporting a higher average male IQ and ignore or dismiss everything else.
Neither group dispassionately reviews the whole picture, which clearly shows a mixture of the two extremes with neither sex really being superior in an overall sense to the other. Claims of one sex being superior to the other, are classical examples of what categorical thinking leads to. Science is only as scientific as the level of impartiality of scientists will permit. Sometimes unfortunately what we get as a result of bias and prejudice from researchers, is junk science rather than actual science.
You have to really sit back and wonder about the mindset of someone arguing men are mentally and physically superior to women in one video and then arguing in other videos how something as gynocentric and female supremacist as Briffault’s law is generally valid and a useful explanation for male and female behaviour!
I had planned to cite a plethora of research debunking this ridiculous notion that we should regard females in our society as omnipotent. Whilst I have cited some of the research I had originally planned to discuss in this article which I will get to later, I gave it further thought and realised the futility of spending weeks writing a much larger article and going through all of the research I actually have.
I cannot convince people that have made up their mind and subscribed to dogma. I cannot convince people who religiously believe those with a pussy make all of the rules that this is not the case, any more than I can convince someone who believes in flat Earth that the Earth is indeed round. All I can do is appeal to the basic reason and commonsense of those people that still have an open mind on the subject.
The reality is that men set the boundaries they will accept and if men start with the belief that women essentially control all the conditions of society, then the logical result of that absolute belief is learned helplessness. That is not an opinion, it is just basic logic and what would be expected to occur in a social environment where Briffault’s law is perceived to operate. What other eventual conclusion could men reach with such an absolute statement?
Unfortunately some men do, to a degree, develop a form of learned helplessness from such beliefs, just as many feminists develop a mentality of perpetual victimhood from patriarchy theory. Could it be perhaps that the truth might be somewhere in the middle between Briffault’s law and patriarchy theory? No that is heresy to the ideologues!
Not adhering to Briffault’s law does not mean you deny gynocentrism exists. Gynocentrism is indeed a powerful force, but it is not absolute and it is not unassailable. I have been quite emphatic about that fact in my writing (again see links here3 and here4). Other forces in our society can and do influence the direction of society and the actions of governments, corporations and the behaviour of the public. Gynocentrism often has very little relevance to decision making in a number of domains and there are numerous examples of this.
It is hardly the case that women control all of the conditions of our society, or men as a group for that matter! It is also the case that gynocentrism itself is often used for purposes other than women’s interests. Corporations have enjoyed enormous financial gain from funding feminism and ensuring both sexes are working like rats on a treadmill and consuming. Was that funding all because corporations were genuinely concerned for women, or was it because they wanted to drive female consumer spending and virtue signal ultimately for financial interests? Let us get real here.
Some societies in different places of the world and at different times in history are very gynocentric and some have relatively little or no gynocentrism. Even in very gynocentric societies, there are often pockets of such societies which are devoid of gynocentrism. Gynocentrism can also be overridden by more powerful forces, and there are plenty of examples of that also. One example out of the many I could cite, has been the recent feminist and traditionalist temper tantrums over the establishment endorsements of transwomen participating in women’s sports, and the crackdown on gynocentric transphobia.
Despite these gynocentric protests, the advance of transwomen into women’s spaces, along with the deplatforming and silencing of transphobic feminists holding a gynocentric agenda continues. Gynocentrism is a powerful force in society, but let us not emulate the feminist fantasy that the social influence of the opposite sex is the sole or primary determinant for the current state of our society!
Not even as some generalisation or average is Briffault’s law even remotely correct of human societies. The state of society and the conditions within society, are far more complicated than a simplistic concept like Briffault’s law or patriarchy theory can accurately predict. At the end of this article, I will propose an alternative principle to Briffault’s law which I think is far more accurate and useful for men.
Male Mate Choice Is Not Trivial
Not a single scientist cites Briffault’s law as a valid theory or a law of nature. That also includes the prominent scientists Colttaine refers to with pictures of them in his video. It is widely recognized11 in the scientific community that male mate choice exists and plays a substantial role in human behaviour. Contrary to what Colttaine suggests, male mate choice is not just exercised primarily by a handful of the top men in a tribe. Most hunter-gatherer societies as I will discuss later, are only mildly polygynous and most of the women in these societies are actually in monogamous relationships with men. Most men in general exercise some substantive level of male mate choice and place some significant level of sexual selection pressure on women.
Whilst we can argue about the relative degree of choosiness of mates by men and women, the reality is that male mate choice does impact the social dynamics between the sexes. Female intrasexual competition in our species exists, so does female jealousy with respect to mates and so does the sexual selection of females by males. We can measure the effects of male mate choice on social behaviour and observe the signs of its influence on female biology and psychology. Often we underestimate rather than overestimate these effects because they are different from what we see in males. The more covert form of relational aggression between women vs the more overt physical aggression between men is one example of this.
The influence of male mate choice is not trivial or something that is dwarfed by female mate choice. The evidence of its impact is of high significance to explaining female behaviour and biology. It is certainly the case that when we look at short-term mating females are more choosey than males, although that difference is quite small relative to the sex difference in height. However, male mate choice increases dramatically when we start talking about long-term mating dynamics and relationships, where males become a lot more choosey than they are with casual sex.
The papers by Prof. Steve Stewart-Williams (linked here12, here13 and here14) which Colttaine flippantly dismisses, are hardly obscure articles. They have been cited many times and the papers themselves cite numerous studies from the fields of evolutionary psychology, anthropology and the wider life sciences. The papers are not referring to a single study or to a single set of evidence, and that is clear if you actually read them. The author has more than adequately addressed criticism of his original paper in his follow up article13.
Essentially as Stewart-Williams successfully argues, there is no actual disagreement with his original paper and the wider literature on the significance of sex differences (which is what most of the criticism was directed at). Just because the psychological sex differences in humans are relatively small compared to our physical sex differences and the sexual dimorphism of other animals, does not then mean they have no importance and Stewart-Williams never argued otherwise.
Aside from that, the popularity of a paper or an area of research does not make it any less accurate. There was a time not long ago, when most people in the scientific community did not believe in plate tectonics or even the theory of evolution. Our scientific understanding is constantly evolving and our present understanding of biology should not be taken as unquestioned dogma. I would have thought this would have been learnt from the pandemic and how off the mark some of our early modelling was.
Hyper Female Hypergamy And Hookup Culture
Online dating websites and the skew we see in finding a match on some of those sites between males vs females, is not just purely a function of female hypergamy. Modernity and the access we now have thanks to social media, has had the effect of amplifying many underlying psychological drives. That would also include the pattern of hypergamy we see in women. What we are observing to a degree, is a form of hyper female hypergamy.
On top of that, we have an education system and a work environment that discriminates against men and boys and preferences women and girls. The logical end result of that is fewer men meeting the same levels of income and employment relative to women than they did decades ago. Women want men to earn more money than them and then at the same time demand we close the gender wage gap and implement quotas in the workplace for women. The point I am making, is that the mate choice mismatch we are observing is not exactly entirely a result of innate female hypergamy.
Our modern environment is behind a lot of it. Just consider the effect of birth control alone on female sexual behaviour and the long run effect that has on female mate choice and dating. We are way beyond talking about just natural levels of female hypergamy being able to explain the disparity between men and women on dating sites where it concerns the level of choosiness of mates.
One has to also point out the reality as well that quite a few of these dating websites are just used by people to garner attention and have casual sex, rather than make serious attempts to find an actual person for a relationship. We know the relative choosiness of the sexes is considerably more similar where it concerns long-term mate selection for relationships.
Many men looking for relationships and that have actual standards, are not using the websites Colttaine refers to in his video. The pool of men using those sites and arguably the pool of women also, are not necessarily representative of the wider population. Many men are not even looking anymore for a relationship and have pulled out of dating entirely because what is on offer from women is simply not good enough.
That leaves a skewed pool of men with lower standards still looking on these sites, many of whom are not attractive to women for the same reasons their standards for women are so low. Often the men are just looking for a casual fling on these sites, not an actual relationship and so are less choosey.
In contrast many of the women using these sites are doing so primarily for attention and often overvalue themselves without ever realising that is why they are single and on these sites in the first place. I would exercise some caution in just automatically assuming we can generalise data from these dating websites onto the general population.
Many young men are actually single now by choice. They want to be single when they look at what is on offer and many of them do not even know MGTOW exists. Men are figuring it all out without even knowing about MGTOW. For every incel there are 10 men opting out of dating and enjoying the bachelor lifestyle. Then women complain in the media about where all the good men went.
All the modern hookup culture and hyper female hypergamy does in the long run, is concentrate the power in the dating market into the hands of alpha male Chads. Women chase these men and expect them to enter into a relationship with them and eventually marry them. The alpha Chads have no interest in this and have their casual fling with them and then go onto the next woman.
Sure, it can certainly backfire for these alpha Chads and I certainly would not recommend having a rotating buffet of female partners with all of the risks involved. However for women chasing these men, they waste all of their time chasing them in their twenties, then want to settle down with them in their thirties and get to their forties and then wonder why they are still single. Meanwhile the alpha Chads are out with their younger female counterparts! See how that works? They reap what they sow. Tom Leykis laughs and talks about this pattern all of the time.
Our Ancestral Heritage
As for the genetic research Colttaine cites allegedly claiming twice as many women passed on their genes compared to men in our prehistoric past and the implied assertion that this automatically means female mate choice was fierce, male competition for mates was high and on average only 1 man reproduced for every 2 women (or at times 17 women for every 1 man), modelling can be wrong. We have seen how wrong modelling can be during the pandemic and from past research claiming the Y chromosome was going to eventually disappear. Much to the ire of radical feminists, the claim that the Y chromosome was disappearing was later shown to be wrong15,16, and I would encourage people to do their own research on the claims about how lethal COVID was at the start of the pandemic and what it actually turned out to be.
This sort of analysis that Colttaine cites of our prehistoric past is tentative at best and needs to be regarded with at least some level of caution. Modelling our ancestral past from 10,000s of years ago with genetic data is difficult and fraught with issues. We cannot go back in a time machine and verify the results of the modelling. What we can directly observe though is modern hunter-gather communities, specifically the marriage practices in those cultures and also in societies around the world both in the present day and throughout history, and our relative levels of sexual dimorphism. We can also consider other genetic research which has been done which appears to be more consistent with actual field observations.
I notice Colttaine had a picture of Sapolsky in his video. I would suggest people watch Sapolsky’s second lecture17 on behavioural evolution from 1:19:00-1:36.14. He clearly states our current knowledge on where humans fall on the spectrum of sexual dimorphism and mating when it comes to monogamy and pair bonding vs polygamy and tournament mating- “We’re right in the middle”.
As Sapolsky explains, even in polygynous cultures there is only mild polygamy going on and the majority of people are in monogamous relationships. In modern monogamous societies many of us usually have more than one partner over the course of our lives and lifelong monogamy where a person has only one sexual partner is fairly rare. However we normally only have one partner at a time in such societies. Yes of course there is some level of cheating, but it is generally not something most men or women will socially accept, and neither will many cultures accept such behaviour without exacting punishments, often leading all the way to death.
As Sapolsky clearly explains in the lecture, whilst we are not purely a monogamous species, we are not a tournament species like Baboons either where only a handful of males mate with the majority of females. That is a good thing too, civilisation would not have formed with that level of male intrasexual aggression.
Other genetic analysis (the research is linked here18 and here33)of our prehistoric ancestors, suggests that the numbers of ancestral females to males breeding was indeed somewhat skewed in favour of females, but generally at the lower end of estimates from other research. It was found that the breeding ratios of ancestral females to males from different regions of the world, were still within the range of monogamous societies and do overlap with polygynous societies as well to an extent18. Humans are a bit of a mixture, but we are not strongly polygynous.
As the scientist’s papers discuss, based on all of the available evidence and the body of scientific literature, humans are quote, “mildly polygynous or monogamous with polygynous tendencies”18, 33. The findings from the researcher’s genetic analysis, was in agreement with the wider literature that humans are indeed mildly polygynous. The authors go on to explain a range of demographic factors that can affect estimates of the breeding ratio of females to males other than just the levels of polygyny, such as sex biased migration, sex differences in generation time and also population bottlenecks18.
Less than 20% of males in 87% of 190 surveyed hunter-gatherer societies existing in the present day, have been reported to be married polygynously19,20. Similar observations have been recorded from previous anthropological studies, with less than 5% of men in half of societies identified as polygynous having more than one spouse21,22. Even in polygynous societies the reproductive variance of males and females can be very similar and this is in part due to the reality that most marriages in polygynous societies are actually monogamous21,22.
One detailed analysis23of 36 hunter-gather communities, reported a mean average across all 36 societies of 20% of married women being in polygynous marriages with 12% of the married men, approximately 80% of marriages being monogamous and 11% of men being single. The median figures for polygyny from the communities observed in the study was even less than these mean averages and there was also considerable variation in the levels of polygyny observed.
The bottom line is that based on direct observation of present day hunter-gatherer communities that most likely resemble our prehistoric ancestors, the claim that only 1 man reproduced for every 2 women is not what we observe on average in such communities and furthermore such generalisations ignore the considerable variation we see in the levels of polygyny.
If we compare the relatively low levels of sexual dimorphism in humans to the sexual dimorphism of primates that are tournament species, where only a handful of males reproduce with the majority of females, the difference in sexual dimorphism is quite stark. Humans do not show the typical level of sexual dimorphism we see in primates that exhibit a tournament form of mating.
The high levels of sexual dimorphism observed in such species are not just restricted to specific traits like muscle mass or levels of body fat, they are found in broad overall differences in overall physical form like body weight. The body size sexual dimorphism in humans by body weight just to cite one example is only 1.15 (human males are 15% heavier than females on average), compared to 2 or more for our far more polygynous Gorilla counterparts24. The sexual dimorphism of humans in body size is closer to monogamous Gibbons whom are at 1.07 in body size sexual dimorphism24.
The conclusion that only a handful of men reproduced with the majority of women over our evolutionary history, is at odds with the hard physical evidence of our relatively modest levels of sexual dimorphism, other genetic analysis and our direct observations of hunter-gatherer communities and traditional societies in the present day.
It is certainly still possible though, that the model allegedly supporting the claim we are descended from twice as many women as men is correct. Even if that is the case, overall each sex as a group has contributed exactly the same share of DNA to our present genome. The female share may come from more ancestral females, but the males had a higher contribution to our current genome per individual ancestral male than any ancestral female did individually.
It could be that there are other explanations other than the implied assertion males were socially excluded from mating by choosey women. An assertion that the research Colttaine cites does not entirely make, if at all. As alluded to earlier, demographic factors such as war and disease, sex differences in lifespan and speed of sexual maturity, the migration of primarily men into new environments, or conversely the movement of primarily women, could even at modest levels over long time spans of tens of thousands of years, result in a large skew in the numbers of female vs male ancestors passing on their genes to the present day. Just think of how even modest levels of compound interest can result in a large increase in debt after a sufficient period of time.
There could be genetic factors at play as well that explain the relatively lower numbers of male ancestors. The genes on the Y chromosome are highly conserved because even a minor mutation can result in infertility. It might be that over tens of thousands of years only a handful of Y chromosome lineages made it to the present without incurring a mutation resulting in infertility. It could also be the case that Y chromosomes facilitating more fertile sperm production, began to dominate the gene pool and displace other less fertile Y chromosome lineages over such a long evolutionary timescale.
What I have just suggested has in fact been put forward25 as one key explanation for why relatively less ancestral male DNA has made it to the present and why the Y chromosome has reduced genetic diversity. Deleterious mutations that make some males infertile, leading to high levels of purifying selection on the Y chromosome and beneficial mutations that increase fertility in other males, may explain the pattern we observe. Over long evolutionary timescales of tens of thousands of years, high levels of selection on the Y chromosome combined with demographic forces, may result in a handful of male ancestors dominating the future gene pool. Rather than simply more females mating than males due mate choosiness, genetic and demographic forces may be at work.
Unfortunately because such explanations proposed by the scientific community do not generate the same level of gynocentric hype of claims that 1 man reproduced for every 17 women at some point thousands of years ago, they do not get as much media attention. Consequently they do not pop up on the radar of people like Colttaine. People read from such research what they want to think, even when the research does not support what they are thinking it supports. Research that generates headlines gets reported and more plausible explanations get ignored. That pattern is especially the case if the research validates the gynocentric bias of our mainstream media.
I could keep going with more alternative explanations that may explain why we have more female ancestors, but the reality is the conclusions we form about our prehistoric past are mostly conjecture. We just don’t know with any real certainty and we can’t go back in a time machine and find out. Even if only one male was reproducing for every two females, that does not automatically mean that women were calling the shots and female mate choice was the dominant force in prehistoric communities. Generally in a tournament species the alpha male is socially dominant over the harem of females he mates with, as are the males competing with each other for the alpha male’s position relative to the females in the group.
We have numerous observations of male social dominance in our primate counterparts that have a tournament mating pattern. Female mate choice is not the exclusive force driving mate selection in such instances. Male competition, itself independent of female influence, has a considerable sway in deciding which male reproduces. The males compete to become the alpha male and the alpha male then mates when and with whomever he wants. That is a generalisation of course, but an accurate description of what tournament mating in our primate counterparts looks like.
We see this in humans too where polygyny is practiced and male social dominance is often quite apparent. Polygyny is not exactly by default a predictor of gynocentrism. Extremely patriarchal societies can practice polygyny and the harems of women in such cultures are treated not far above being chattel. The feminist fiction of course is that such a dynamic then represents all of human civilisation in general throughout history and in the present day and that all men have known is privilege and not their own extreme hardships and injustices.
Arranged marriage was common place for most of human history in many cultures and still is prevalent in many traditional cultures today. Arranged marriage has been observed to be the dominant form of marriage in hunter-gather communities. A comprehensive anthropological survey, found that arranged marriage was the dominant form of marriage in approximately 85% of a sample of 190 hunter-gatherer societies around the world and only mild levels of polygyny were observed in most of those cultures19,20. The high frequency of arranged marriage in the majority of hunter-gather communities in the present day, in past societies over thousands of years of history and in present day traditional cultures, has prompted scientists to undertake genetic analysis of our ancestors to reconstruct marital systems.
Based on phylogenetic analysis19 using data from present day hunter-gatherers and mitochondrial DNA, it was concluded that arranged marriage has had a substantive prevalence and impact in these communities since the migration of humans out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago. The analysis also found that low levels of polygyny was most likely the state of ancestral marriage in past hunter-gatherer communities. It has been shown20 as well with arranged marriage, that parental control on selecting a partner for marriage is particularly strong for parents of daughters and that fathers have a greater influence than mothers in choosing a suitable partner.
This same paper which again looked at 190 hunter-gatherer communities, also stated that we may be overestimating female mate choice on sexual selection and underestimating the influence of parental mate choice on human evolution during our prehistory20. The study reports that whilst parents consult with their offspring, consent from their sons and daughters is usually not required and they usually comply with their parent’s choice20,26. Furthermore, virtually all reproduction in these communities was found to occur whilst a woman is married20.
We can see numerous examples of patriarchal influence by fathers in arranged marriage practices across many cultures throughout history. It is not just limited to modern hunter-gatherer communities. Another study27 examining arranged marriage across 543 different ethnographies around the world, found that parents and their offspring in all areas of the world were very frequently in vast disagreement on the choice of partner and on the relevant traits of the right partner. The parental choice of mate often strongly disagreed with the offspring’s choice of mate. The authors note that sometimes extreme methods were used to enforce the choice of mate.
These realities are part of the truths behind the half-truth of feminist patriarchy theory. Female mate choice has not been some dominant force exclusively dictating the social structure of society. The jokes about fathers with their baseball bats sizing up their daughters’ partners, comes from a long history of parents and particularly fathers regulating who their daughters mate with.
Of course it would be correct to point out that male mate choice has also been curtailed to a somewhat lesser degree by the same system of arranged marriage. Before the advent of modernity and the luxury of modern technology, what was good for the prospects of families has often been regarded as more important than the wishes of the bride and groom. Marriage was used to form alliances and this no doubt had a direct benefit on social cohesion, resource sharing and ultimately the propagation of genes for familial lineages over multiple generations and for multiple kin.
Briffault’s Warning
I could keep going debunking the dogmatic rubbish of Briffault’s law, but what I have written in this article and in previous articles (see this link3 and this link4) should be sufficient for people to at least question Briffault’s law and whether the arguments put forward allegedly supporting it have any merit. There is so much research I could have kept going through.
Human behaviour is incredibly complex and anyone that puts the actual effort in to review the scientific literature, can see the obvious fallacy in prescribing a universal absolute law of behaviour like Briffault’s law to human beings. Even applying basic commonsense and everyday observation of the world exposes the falsity of Briffault’s law. There is an arrogance to the type of dogmatic thinking supporting Briffault’s law and a lack of humility in acknowledging the obvious limitations in making such a bold statement about human behaviour.
Here is an alternative principle for Colttaine and like-minded individuals to consider:
Briffault’s warning-
“In a gynocentric social dynamic, the female not the male primarily influences the conditions governing the social interactions between the sexes. Where the female can derive no benefit from associating with the male, no such association exists.”5,6
That to me whilst a bit wordier than Briffault’s law, seems far more accurate than suggesting females universally control all of the conditions of humans and animals on average or absolutely. As Paul has pointed out, men have the power to set personal boundaries with women and avoid such a gynocentric social environment. Men can and are removing themselves from gynocentric social environments and institutions like modern marriage. Men are filtering out women who want a one-sided gynocentric relationship where they are pedestalised. Men are in a substantial number of instances deciding to opt out of dating entirely because of our gynocentric culture. The activities of numerous bachelor movements over centuries and millennia are a testament to men setting boundaries and asserting their preferences28,29,30,31,32.
Briffault’s warning is not a universal law of human behaviour. It is a warning to men that if you are prepared to accept a gynocentric social dynamic in your interactions with the opposite sex, then these are the consequences. Men and society are in this position because they made concessions on their personal boundaries and the principles that made our society thrive, and chose instead to pedestalise women. Now we are paying the price for that.
Beliefs like Briffault’s law serve only to push men in a direction away from taking responsibility for enforcing personal boundaries with women. It is time to wake up and throw out the trash. Notions of female omnipotence have no place in a red pill environment. Women are flawed creatures just like men and men pedestalise women at their peril.
Now I could keep going on ad infinitum back and forth in response to Colttaine after this article, but I am not going to do that. It would be a waste of my time to respond to any further Gish gallop from Colttaine. At a certain point you just have to accept that you can lead a horse to water, but you can make them drink it. The research I have gone through in this article is just the tip of the iceberg on what I can cite to support the arguments I have put forward. Reductive categorical thinking has its value to a degree, but it also stops people from seeing the forest for the trees!
This article is in response to Paul Elam and Peter Wright’s excellent recent critique[1] of Briffault’s Law. I have also critiqued Briffault’s law in my article linked here[2]. The manosphere has to have a mechanism of addressing and identifying bad ideas. Bad ideas that are not only factually incorrect, but also hold men back and negatively impact their well-being. These are ideas that must be confronted and challenged, as I have done extensively in my writings debunking the golden uterus mythology and sophistry[3]. In this article I will expand on my past critique of Briffault’s law.
Briffault’s Law is no law at all, like the medieval practice of alchemy it belongs in the bin. The research papers Paul and Peter cited (linked here[4], here[5] and here[6]) on mutual mate choice, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection, are seminal pieces of work. We may have evolved from a species with relatively high to moderate levels of sexual dimorphism many millions of years ago, but we have been on an evolutionary track over the last 500,000-1,000,000 years to evolve into a species with relatively low levels of sexual dimorphism compared to most primates and other animals.
As the evidence discussed in the papers Paul and Peter cite, we are a species where there is mutual mate choice (both sexes choose mates), competition for mates by both sexes, substantial parental investment by both sexes and widespread monogamy, long term mating and pair bonding. These characteristics have been largely the result of the requirements of our increasing brain size over evolutionary time and the longer and longer developmental period of human offspring from infancy to adulthood that has evolved over the past 500,000-1,000,000 years.
High levels of sexual dimorphism, polygyny, lack of dual parental investment, high levels of male intrasexual competition and relatively little female competition etc- modern traces of these patterns are declining artifacts of our evolution that we have been moving away from over the last 500,000-1,000,000 years. Remnants of our old evolutionary baggage are still there in our biology and behaviour, but they are a shadow of their past selves and do not hold the primacy or grip over our behaviour like they once did. New evolutionary baggage in the form of mutual mate choice, dual parental investment and competition, monogamy and long-term mating have moved into the void left behind by the decline of these old traits over the last 500,000-1,000,000 years.
Briffault’s law when applied to humans, relies on biological assumptions that we are a highly sexually dimorphic species in which only one sex competes for mates and only one sex chooses mates and that our old evolutionary baggage is still what primarily governs our behaviour in the present day. These assumptions are completely wrong and incredibly easy to disprove. Yet staunch advocates of Briffault’s law would have us believe that only men compete, only women choose and sexual selection only operates on men.
They would seriously have us ignore 500,000 to 1,000,000 years of evolution, large chunks of scientific research and evidence demonstrating mutual mate choice, dual parental investment and competition, sexual selection on both sexes (not just men), monogamy and pair bonding. They would try to convince us humans are highly sexually dimorphic and still behave like our primitive ancestors did millions of years ago, as if that was a biologically inevitable law of nature (you know the same primates that led to our cousins still living in the jungle and not walking on the moon).
The only people denying biology here are the people that are prepared to turn a blind eye to the clear evidence we are a pair bonding species, with mutual mate choice, dual parental investment, intrasexual competition and sexual selection for both sexes and relatively low levels of sexual dimorphism compared to many animals and many of our primate counterparts.
Briffault’s law is a form of what behavioural biologist Prof. Robert Sapolsky from Stanford university, in his excellent lecture series on human behaviour calls categorical thinking[7]. To a degree we have to think in categories when we analyse information to make sense of the world, but when dealing with complex biological systems this reductive thinking has its limits. When we become fixated on categories and make absolutist statements like Briffault’s law, we get trapped in categorical thinking and cannot see the forest for the trees.
Sapolsky warned in his lecture with numerous examples, the horrific consequences of such thinking throughout history. If you have not watched his lecture series, please watch it. Take it from me, it is an excellent set of lectures and also entertaining. Yes the sexes are different, but not so different that only one sex competes for mates, only one sex invests in offspring, only one sex chooses mates, only one sex faces sexual selection and only short-term mating dominates. That is fiction and not scientific fact.
In his lecture series Prof. Sapolsky quite clearly describes how we are a middle of the road species[8]. That is a species that does exhibit some level of sexual dimorphism, but that does not have the type of high sexual dimorphism like a pure tournament species does where only males compete, only women invest in offspring, only one sex chooses mates and where there is only short-term mating etc. Monogamy, dual parental investment and competition and mutual mate choice in our species, caught on so quickly precisely because it was extremely adaptive to our biology (i.e. long periods of development in our offspring demanding it).
Even in societies that are regarded as polygynous, Sapolsky states in his lecture on behavioural evolution[8], that such so-called “polygynous societies” are in reality only mildly polygynous. The majority of people in these societies are actually not polygamous at all, they are instead in monogamous long-term relationships and pair bonded. Polygyny only occurs to a limited extent in polygynous societies, sometimes for demographic reasons and other times for economic reasons as Sapolsky explains. Many of the proponents of Briffault’s law will gloss over these facts, just as they will gloss over evidence of male mate choice and the clear evidence of sexual selection pressures on females by males and female intrasexual competition for mates.
Now at this point I can almost hear the wailing about how humans are not purely monogamous either in a monogamous setting (i.e there is cheating, short term flings and serial long term relationships throughout life). That is correct, we are not absolutely monogamous. However on a scale with long term relationships, pair-bonding and monogamy on one end and short-term tournament mating and polygamy on the other end, humans are much closer to long term relationships, pair-bonding and monogamy. What we see with humans is the newer evolutionary baggage of mutual mate choice, dual parental investment, both sexes competing and monogamy etc dominating our behaviour and the older remnants of the evolutionary baggage of short-term tournament mating and polygamy playing a more minor role. That is a good thing because it has allowed civilisation to form and stopped societies from tearing themselves apart.
As the papers in the reference section below from Assoc Prof. Steve Stewart-Williams explains (cited by Paul and Peter), humans are at this point in our evolutionary journey closer to the few primate cousins who show very little or virtually no sexual dimorphism, than our cousins at the other extreme that are tournament species. We are not even intermediate in sexual dimorphism, we are somewhere between intermediate and very little sexual dimorphism in a relative sense when comparing humans to many other animals and primates. Our greatest sex differences are mainly as one would expect physical in nature, with height being one of the more obvious physical sex differences beyond basic differences in primary and secondary sex characteristics.
Many of the largest psychological sex differences as the papers from Assoc Prof. Stewart-Williams explains, are far smaller than the sex difference in height. The human sex difference in body size itself is relatively small when compared to the sex difference in body size seen in many other animals and primates. That is not to say sex differences have no significance in humans, it is just that much of the highest levels of significance of sex differences plays out more at the extremes of the distributions of traits in humans and to only a relatively minor extent in the middle. This is true to a substantial extent for physical sex differences (with a significant number of notable exceptions such as the sex difference in upper body strength) and to a very great extent for psychological sex differences.
Of greater significance is how much alike the sexes are in relation to each other overall. In many psychological traits, there is a great deal of overlap in the distributions of many traits between the sexes (see links here[9], here[10] and here[11]) and that also has practical implications. Of course there are also exceptions to the rule, but even then as explained, the larger psychological sex differences are relatively small in comparison to physical sex differences like that observed with height. Even with physical sex differences such as the sex difference in height, there is substantial overlap and we can observe this in everyday life! This is the nuance and complexity that ideas like Briffault’s law do not account for.
Even if we made the incorrect observation that humans are a purely tournament species with high levels of sexual dimorphism and where there is strictly only high levels of male intrasexual competition, and female intrasexual competition is either absent or relatively low, it does not follow that females in such species are freely choosing their own mates and dictating the conditions of their social environment. Firstly, females just like their male counterparts, are restricted by the physical environment itself and secondly, the dominant males exercise a tremendous influence over the females in many tournament species and over the system of mating and social relations in a group. Females are hardly some omnipotent force that bend nature and the males around them to their will. Where is the Briffault’s law in common situations like that in the animal kingdom?
Whilst there are many criticisms that can be made of feminism, it is certainly true that women do have legitimate issues facing them and do face oppression and violence in certain parts of the world. Where is the Briffault’s law there? Where is the female omnipotence? This is what happens with categorical thinking, people start dismissing aspects of reality that don’t fit their dogma just like many feminist ideologues do. Staunch followers of Briffault’s law have more in common with feminist ideologues than they think!
The reality is we don’t get civilisation without paternal investment in offspring by males and monogamy. These changes ensure that society remains stable enough and there is sufficient investment by both sexes in their offspring, to foster the development of civilisation. We could not develop civilisation if we were a tournament species. This is one reason why enforced fatherlessness from feminist social engineering attacking fatherhood at an institutional level and the feminist corruption of our legal system to alienate children from their fathers, is so dangerous. You can read the statistics[12] on fatherlessness and its effects on society. It is not a pretty picture.
Once you switch to monogamy, dual parental investment and long term mating, mutual mate choice occurs and sexual selection and intrasexual competition is observed in both sexes and that is exactly what we observe in human society. The reality is that Briffault’s law assumes that males are not choosey, which is based on a deeply flawed assumption all forms of mating with females are short term flings and only involve the exchange of gametes. As mentioned earlier, the scientific evidence reported by Assoc Prof. Stewart-Williams shows this not to be the case at all in humans. Males do choose mates as well and females do compete with each other for mates just as men do.
We have whole swathes of men now distancing themselves from marriage and certain types of women, precisely because men are assessing the situation and choosing not to marry or be around certain women. That is male choice in the dating world right there. We have whole swathes of women complaining about this situation and about where all the good men went as a result. It does not take much of an observation to debunk Briffault’s law and this twisted view of women being omnipotent. Men walking away from the modern corrupt form of marriage, divorce and family court is just one example of where Briffault’s law fails, but I can cite many more examples.
In many ways Briffault’s law is the manospherian equivalent of patriarchy theory and the feminist notion men have all the power. Both are held up as an unquestioned dogma by their relevant followers and have an almost religious following that is impervious to reason and facts. Both are completely wrong. Both sexes have power and influence in this society, both sexes can and do take advantage of the other and both sexes do cooperate with each other. We need to foster greater intersexual cooperation to the fullest extent possible. If not for the sake of men’s interests or women’s interests, for the sake of our children, future generations and for a society that is becoming more and more divided by the day. We don’t go anywhere but backwards as men, as women and as a society, if we let half-baked ideas like Briffault’s law and patriarchy theory spread as some sacred cow belief system. Such beliefs blind us from seeing the bigger picture and divide us.
Yes gynocentrism is a powerful and destructive force in society, but it is not an unassailable omnipotent force like what Briffault’s law would have people believe. There are also other powerful forces as well at work in society that can and do override gynocentrism. That even applies to our Western culture which is significantly gynocentric. It is obvious just looking at society with a cursory glance, that women (even ranting and raving feminists) do not always get their way and conditions in society are not determined solely by women. Briffault’s law speaks of female omnipotence in absolutes and so does its ardent followers, just like feminists do with patriarchy theory and male privilege. This is at odds with reality and with science.
In closing, I can think of nothing more gynocentric than a belief like Briffault’s law that women control all of the conditions of social interaction and men are merely their pawns. Briffault’s law is a self-defeating belief that is not only factually incorrect, it holds men back, just as patriarchy theory does with women. It is an absolutist worldview that when followed to its logical conclusion, leads to men giving up on themselves and society, especially when it comes to their interactions with women. Any solid and healthy philosophy to assist men has to be based on the premise that men should base their beliefs on facts, not on fiction, and develop a worldview to maximise their well-being instead of fostering a mindset of learned helplessness.
Briffault’s law is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only leads to the death of the male self and eventually by extension, if it causes enough social damage to men, the death of society. There is nothing red pill about it, it is a gynocentric black pill of death.
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.
In Conclusion
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.