Please read part one¹ of this article before continuing.

By Peter Ryan

Bateman’s Principle, Male Competition And The Intrinsic Value Of Men

Bateman’s principle² and male competition are sometimes considered to be indicative that men have little or no intrinsic value relative to women and must compete with other men to earn value. Bateman’s principle simply describes that there will be a greater variance in reproductive success among males, as a result of females being the rate limiting factor of reproduction and higher male intrasexual competition. There are a number of problems with the argument. Bateman’s principle and male competition mean that men are less valuable than women and must compete to earn any value.

Firstly this argument ignores the basic requirement to compete- An individual must have the traits to compete successfully and derive some measure of success from competing (that does not necessarily mean being at the very top). These traits have biological value because they lead to evolutionary success. Competition is merely a strategy employed to harness value that already lies within men. A man that truly has no biological value whatsoever, lacks the traits to successfully compete or any traits that lead to evolutionary success. There is a reason why testosterone in men drives status-seeking behaviour and why men are generally more behaviourally active (especially physically) than women on average and boys cannot sit still and be docile like girls in classrooms.

Testosterone drives men to harness the value they possess within themselves through engaging in some type of activity and often that is through some form of rule-based competition. A society without competition is an economically and socially stagnant society on the decline. Modern civilisation simply would not have emerged without competition and the progress it drives. Evolution itself is based on some form of competition, whether it is between two alleles of a gene facing some selection pressure or two individuals. Our species would not exist without competition and women also compete. Feminists may want to think about those realities before they consider labelling male competition, the “patriarchy” (also known as the economy), testosterone and masculinity as toxic, dangerous and bad.

The notion that men must compete to earn value, is analogous to suggesting a Ferrari must be driven to have value or that women must fall pregnant to have value. Some relevant form of value from possessing useful traits that are intrinsic to the individual male, is required for that male to successfully compete in the first place. Competition is not something men do to earn value, it is something men do to harness their intrinsic value and earn resources and status from using it. A talented athlete or business professional competes on the field or in the economy, to make use of their abilities and acquire resources and status in exchange for their efforts. Status and resources are downstream from the intrinsic value within men and are a product of the intrinsic value men possess.

Men generally on average gain more from competition than women do in an evolutionary sense. Males can produce far greater numbers of offspring with far greater numbers of opposite sex partners than females can. Men gain far more from competition than women do, for the simple reason they do not have to gestate for nine months and can consequently reap the mating opportunities arising from successful competition to a much higher degree. Bateman’s principle is not about men being less valuable than women, it is about recognising the inverse relationship between intrasexual competition and the level of reproductive investment. The sex that can reproduce at the lowest cost, gains the most from competition. Bateman’s principle reflects two different forms of value- Value that is harnessed in higher efforts made in reproductive investment and value that is harnessed in higher efforts made in investment in competition. They are inversely related because there is a trade-off between investment in reproduction and engaging in activities related to competition. Females on average invest more in reproduction and males on average invest more in competition (of course there is overlap and these are just average differences).

Whilst there is certainly some empirical support for Bateman’s principle in the scientific community, the research and data is not entirely supportive of it (see this link³ and this link⁴ for more information), including when it comes to humans⁵. It is also worth noting that female intrasexual competition does exist and so does male mate choice and paternal investment in children (fatherhood). All three are often underestimated or forgotten entirely in such discussions about intrasexual competition and male and female mating dynamics. Just because female intrasexual competition exhibits lower levels of physical aggression than male intrasexual competition, does not automatically mean that it is then far less intense. Female intrasexual competition exhibits considerably more social and psychological aggression than male intrasexual competition. Women do compete with each other and they can be just as vicious as men in doing so, but they go about it socially and psychologically and thus it can fly right under the radar of society and even researchers.

Male competition is also not entirely under the control of female mate choice either and a considerable degree it is shaped by males themselves (the same is true for female competition). This reality is much to the chagrin of feminists no doubt, control freaks that they are and is most likely the real basis of their problem with the “patriarchy”.  It is also worth pointing out that competition is not the only strategy that men employ to harness their value and fulfil their lives. Innovation and creativity are other methods men utilise and they do not always have to involve competition. Some of our greatest inventions have come from men that developed technology completely outside of the scope of the competitive marketplace and often these male inventions create entirely new marketplaces and new arenas for competition.

As with most aspects of human biology, Bateman’s principle and male competition is just one factor among many that drive human behaviour. This explains why the data and research is not entirely supportive of the premise these factors alone explain human mating behaviour. Bateman’s principle and male competition are not the all-encompassing phenomena they are made out to be, by those that want to spin and twist these evolutionary concepts to mean men have less value and must compete for women to earn value. Such sophistry is certainly useful though to our gynocentric society to try to rationalise and justify blatant bigotry, when men dare to question their concept of self-worth and challenge the gynocentric zeitgeist. It is a blue pill that is painted red, to try and get the red pill men plugged back into the matrix while they think they are awake.

Such ideas are present in the manosphere to some degree unfortunately and must be confronted because it is a subversive way to get men to accept gynocentrism as a fact of life that cannot be challenged and keep men boxed in. Even Roosh V⁶ can see the folly in pedestalising the female, harping on like a simp about “male disposability” as if it is biologically set and fixed like the cosmological constant and the stupidity in reducing the biological value of men and women down solely to reproduction. Even the pickup artist community can see how the mantra about “male disposability” as if men are actually biologically disposable, is a trap that holds men back. There are subversive people who will claim to be red pilled or antifeminist, that will use such gynocentric sophistry to keep men from seeing the whole truth. The truth about the value of men is very dangerous in our gynocentric culture, because gynocentrism requires lies and deception to be constantly reinforced and protected (more on that later).

Rare Eggs And Plentiful Sperm

Associated with the appeal to Bateman’s principle by reproductive reductionists, is the mantra of “plentiful sperm and rare eggs” and that sperm is “cheap” and eggs are “expensive”. Like Bateman’s principle, the research³ does not entirely support this argument. Men must produce millions of sperm for one round of fertilisation. So really a proper comparison of relative reproductive investment in gametes between males and females, is the female investment in one egg versus the male investment in millions of sperm per fertilisation event. Adding to that, is the reality that semen has components that are expensive to produce as the linked article on the research discusses.

However let us assume even with all of that considered, that females still invest more in producing gametes than males. The underlying assumption is that this is indicative of males having lower biological value than females and that males are easily replaceable. These differences in the number and expenditure in gametes between males and females, are the result of differences in reproductive function rather than biological value. Males produce large numbers of individually cheap sperm, because there is a competitive advantage gained in doing so and this is especially the case when considering phenomena like sperm competition⁷. Females simply cannot gain from doing the same, because they have a much higher reproductive investment in producing offspring thanks to gestation and have a much lower ceiling on their total reproductive output. Consequently females focus on producing fewer and more individually expensive gametes. The differences in reproductive function drives different sexual selection pressures on males and females and this drives the differences we see in the form and number of gametes. The differences in the gametes or anisogamy⁸, does not reflect differences in biological value.

Reproduction Is Not The Rate Limiting Factor For Existence

This notion men are replaceable because sperm is plentiful, assumes that the only thing males contribute to their offspring and community is sperm and that the biological value of males and females is solely derived from reproduction. I have debunked this ridiculously narrow view at length in my previous writings linked here⁹, here¹⁰ and here¹¹. Try running civilisation or even a primitive tribal community solely off maximising reproduction and ignore the numerous activities related to survival and caring for offspring and your society will perish. As previously discussed, females might be the rate limiting factor of reproduction, but males are the rate limiting factor of survival.

Some argue that societies can get by without any male contribution to community survival. This is may indeed be the case in some specific instances (and not the case in many other instances) where you have abundant resources, relative safety, no real male advantage in provision and protection in the given environment relative to females and male contribution is not required etc. However there is a difference though between barely surviving or just reasonably subsisting, versus the community actually thriving. A community in a particular environment may indeed survive without any help from men, but it certainly will have a far greater chance of thriving, prospering and surviving, if both halves of the population are contributing. There is a massive selective advantage for a society to harness both sexes and not just rely on one sex. The reality is that even in instances where men are not required for community survival, women get pregnant, lactate and care for small infants. This reality does mean that men will invariably be in the unique position of being fully available to support society in ways women are not able to. This fact will apply regardless as to what environment society finds itself in and whether or not any natural male advantage exists to survive in that environment.

Feminists can howl and moan about this biological reality all they like, but until there is artificial uteri I do not see that changing. Even if we take away every natural male advantage we know of (all of their physical strength, spatial ability, mechanical aptitude, mathematical reasoning, willingness to take risks/lower risk aversion etc), males are always going to be in a better position to support society outside of producing children, because they do not get pregnant. We can keep ignoring this reality to our own detriment, but ultimately any society that ignores reality pays the price. I think it also worth noting that there are many environments on this planet that are scarce, hazardous and where societies are heavily dependent on men for their survival and would cease to exist without men, even if men were not required for reproduction. Our own Western societies would fall apart in days without men and possibly descend into anarchy in hours.

The same logic behind arguing society can survive without men provided a minimum amount are retained for reproductive purposes, can be employed to say the same about women. Society can get by with lower numbers of women as well. Society can get by without the female contribution to survival and with the bare minimum number of women required to replace itself (No I am not suggesting getting rid women for the neurotic feminist gotcha brigade that may read this and likewise men should not be gotten rid of either. We are human beings that have a right to exist.). We can theoretically run society off the bare minimum number of males and females required to replace the population and ensure there is sufficient genetic diversity and provision and protection available. In some environments that may require more males than females and in other environments more females than males. That does not mean such numbers would be optimal to sustain the community though, they would just reflect the bare minimum required for continuation of the community.

The actual numbers of males and females that are optimal for allowing a community to sustain itself and thrive, is also going to vary from environment to environment and those numbers will likely vary over time with changing conditions. In many environments and time periods it may be more advantageous to have greater numbers of males around and in other environments the opposite may hold true. However over time and in general, neither sex can be more crucial to the species than the other. As discussed in part one of this article, across evolutionary timescales and overall, males and females contribute equally to evolutionary success and all of the activities required to sustaining their communities that are associated with that (not necessarily in each activity, but in totality). This is because Fishers principle ensures equal investment in males and females and consequently a roughly 1:1 ratio in the population.

Over time any over-reliance on one sex over the other for community reproduction and survival and by extension evolutionary success, will be counterbalanced by sexual selection on the sex that is least required. There will be a sexual selective pressure on the least required sex, to develop traits useful to the continuation of the community and genome. Eventually such a selection pressure would equalise the reliance on the two sexes for continuation of the genome and the community. Of course this is not the only driver of sexual selection on men and women and there are many other factors that can drive sexual selection. However when an over-reliance on one sex to perpetuate the genes emerges, this can and does drive a sexual selective pressure on the least required sex to develop traits of equivalent value to the other sex in terms of perpetuating the community and the genome.  Any asymmetry in value (or reliance) between the sexes is temporary and simply is not sustainable in the long term over evolutionary timescales, for the reasons I discussed in the previous part of this article. Depending on one sex more than the other puts the genes, the community and the species at a disadvantage when Fishers principle prevails. There is a clear selective advantage to ensuring both sexes pull their weight when the genome is forced to invest in them equally and that neither sex is overly depended on. It is less costly and less risky.

The mistake that is often made in failing to understand the reality of the consequences of Fisherian dynamics, is conflating biological sameness with biological equivalence in value. The two sexes can be different, but still biologically equal in evolutionary terms. If females really were more biologically valuable than men because of their uterus and men really were biologically disposable, then there would be no manosphere and society would not even resemble what we have today. We may even still be small mammals living in forests producing large litters of offspring.

Such a fundamental aspect of human biology would simply prevent any drive to question gynocentrism from surfacing in men and this bias would lie too deep in our biology for any exception to the rule to emerge. In fact such as an aspect of biology would have halted human evolution long before we developed language and civilisation. It has been the selection of traits outside of the female reproductive role that are related to survival (such as tool making), combined with paternal investment in offspring (something that distinguishes human males from many of their primate counterparts) that has led to the development of modern humans. Every year the manosphere increases in size and so does MGTOW, despite the enormous levels of gynocentric indoctrination in the schools and the censorship. This is not a fluke of nature, this is an awakening that is in its early stages. As with all awakenings in their infancy, they take time to become a mass awakening.

If Only Women Ran The World We Could Live In Huts

There is almost a cult like devotion to the myths that past human society was matriarchal and peaceful, rather than egalitarian and that men conspired to establish the “patriarchy” and it was all downhill from there. Often female fertility and motherhood form the centrepiece of these “theories” of a peaceful prehistoric matriarchal utopia. I am using the term “theory” very loosely because they resemble ideology more than proper scientific theory. Such claims are highly questionable based on the current state of knowledge about prehistory and are over reliant on inferences and assumptions and lacking in solid incontrovertible evidence (Read this book linked here¹² critiquing goddess ideology by Nathanson and Young) .

The feminist saturated field of anthropology like so many of the softer sciences in academia, has a major problem with separating ideological agenda from rigorous empiricism and the scientific method. This is only made worse by trying to make sense of a forensic puzzle on what human society tens of thousands of years ago was like and is missing many jigsaw pieces. Sophists thrive in such environments, where they can spin fragmented evidence to justify their ideology and give it an air of legitimacy. Facts and evidence are one thing, inferences made from facts and evidence are not factual. They are at best a hypothesis which is difficult to test in anthropology, or at worst such inferences are just junk science.

But let us assume those that wish to pedestalise the female sex are right on all points about our supposedly and highly questionable matriarchal past. So what? Human prehistory is one of relative stagnation and little progress. We had tens of thousands of years of nomadic existence before civilisation. Modern civilisation has been cultivated by harnessing male potential. In the words of dissident feminist Camille Paglia, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts”¹³. It has been a patrilineal and patriarchal cultures that have given rise to modern civilisation. There is a reason why the most successful, developed, safe and prosperous societies on Earth have all arisen from cultures that practice monogamy and value fatherhood and men. Once male potential was fully harnessed, the health and life expectancy for the average human being dramatically rose from our hunter-gatherer existence and we went from painting pictures on caves to walking on the moon.

Our current feminist establishment seems to think returning back to primitive tribalism and destroying marriage and attacking men and fathers is progress. The statistics on fatherlessness¹⁴ and the boy crisis¹⁵ are alarming and those two problems will eventually collapse our once prosperous societies economically and socially. My own prediction is that the Fempocalypse¹⁶ will begin in about 20 years and I anticipate society to begin unravelling in fundamental ways by 2040. The initial slow decline before the great collapse has already begun and it takes time for civilisation to decline to critical levels hence the timespan I provided. Society cannot last in it’s present form by marginalising the male half of the population that is mostly responsible for running, maintaining, building and sustaining it financially, economically and otherwise.

What remains of fallen Western society may be able to live in a third world environment (Think Venezuela in 2019 only much much worse), with extreme poverty and deprivation where men are marginalised. However it will be the societies that value men that will invariably end up surpassing the remnants of our society and running the global economy, colonising the solar system and eventually travelling to the stars. Perhaps they will record the fall of the West in their history books, as we do the fall of Rome. To put it in terms reproductive reductionists can understand, cultures that value men will give rise to societies that will replace those that do not. Putting men down to lift women up destroys the fertility rate of a society and destroys the conditions required to support large scale civilisations. Once you throw men under the bus, advanced civilisation will go with them.

Male Self-Worth And The Big Lie

“I am not the first to suggest, and I am sure I shall not be the last, that the male’s drive in work and achievement may actually be the consequence of his recognition of his biological inferiority with respect to the female’s creative capacity to conceive and create human beings. One of the ways in which the male may compensate for this biological inferiority is by work and achievement.” -Page 53, from “The Natural Superiority Of Women”¹⁷ by anthropologist Ashley Montagu.

The simple truth that men have intrinsic value has been deliberately quashed and any recognition of men’s humanity has been silenced, so that our predatory gynocentric system can exploit men. Men are regularly demonised and any attempt to discuss men having unique strengths and value, is a social taboo in society. Misandry is normalised to the point that even cutting off a man’s penis is a source of laughter for people¹⁸. Exposing men to an environment that encourages them to think of themselves as inherently valuable as human beings, is toxic to this gynocentric society. The climate of misandry and denigration of men and masculinity must be maintained, because gynocentric elements of our society rely upon it to exploit men. Men that know their worth are dangerous to the exploitative gynocentric institutions and culture in our society and men must therefore be convinced by the gynocentric culture to believe they are disposable.

Men and boys are consistently bombarded in our gynocentric culture with the messages that imply what is quoted above by Ashley Montagu (I would have to actually write a book to cover how much is wrong in that Montagu’s book). Notice there is no recognition of the male creative capacity to create life in that quote and that women have no capacity to create life without men. Notice there is no recognition of the role of fatherhood in nurturing life, or the role men play in society in making sure everyone stays alive and the creative process that entails in building and running civilisation. Notice there is no recognition that perhaps men might actually be driven to work and achieve to pursue interests they find personally fulfilling and to look after others they care for. There is no recognition that the male athlete, researcher or business professional, might be putting in the hours to fulfil personal goals and ambitions, or that the male soldier might be protecting his country for his family.

Such messages like what is reflected in Ashley Montagu’s quote, attempt to warp men’s sense of themselves and instil in their minds the ridiculous assertion that men do these things to compensate for some supposed inferiority, because they can’t get pregnant. The bottom line is there is no recognition in that quote by Montagu, that men have their own intrinsic value and have the right to decide for themselves who they are and what they do with their own lives, irrespective of whether women approve of it. That lack of recognition of the intrinsic value of men, is the fundamental basis of gynocentrism.

The exploitation of men requires that you dehumanise men and rob them of their own sense of self-worth. A man that is raised from birth to believe he has no intrinsic self-worth and must acquire his sense of self-worth as a human doing and by performing like a workhorse for the wishes of this gynocentric society and winning its approval, is a useful slave. He is the best slave because his very identity is based on being a slave and he can easily be controlled through social approval and disapproval by women and the gynocentric culture. He knows no other way to live and has no desire to. In our gynocentric system, the male slave strives to win the approval of a gynocentric social system that has no regard for his well-being beyond what is good for women and it increasingly has no regard for his well-being at all and tells him he is obsolete¹⁹. The gynocentric society tells men to frame deferring to women and serving women like they are their superiors, as “taking responsibility” and being a “man” and “manning up”. In reality it is highly irresponsible and turns men into slaves.

As I discussed in a previous article²⁰, our gynocentric system feeds off male chivalry and cannot exist without it. When I refer to chivalry I am not just talking about buying dinner and opening doors for women without reciprocity, I am talking about something much broader that is illustrated in this video example²¹. Male chivalry in the gynocentric realm, is the practice of men sacrificing their own well-being and the well-being of other men for a woman or women, partially or entirely because they are women and with no commensurate benefit given in exchange from women. Male chivalry is alive and well in this society. Despite reports to the contrary, there is no shortage of men willing to throw themselves and other men under the bus for women. That is especially the case in the realm of politics, the law and the mainstream media.

Male chivalry is based on convincing men of the big lie- That men are less valuable than women and must earn the approval of women and this gynocentric culture to have self-worth and by serving female well-being. Men are swamped in this lie and indoctrinated in it from birth. The glorification of the female uterus, pregnancy and motherhood and the denigration of the importance of fatherhood and men in general, are the central axioms that this lie is based upon if you probe its foundations. If you ask people to qualify their gynocentric belief’s, they ultimately end up relying on women giving birth and being the rate limiting factor of reproduction as their excuse and rationalisation. Men must protect women, prioritise female well-being and sacrifice themselves, because women give birth etcetera, etcetera, rinse and repeat. That is the one-track thinking of gynocentrism- To not consider the multitude of other factors required to sustain society and to not recognise that reproducing children is merely one requirement that must be met and is not automatically the most pressing factor.

The male suicide rate, fatherlessness, the gynocentric corruption of our institutions and the decline of relationships, all can be traced to men being culturally indoctrinated into thinking that deference to women as if they are men’s betters and chivalrous subservience to women, is being a man and being respectful. A man demonstrates the responsibility to set and enforce personal boundaries and values with women and not just with other men. A man treats women as his equal, not his superior or inferior. A man expects responsibility from women and has the strength to hold women accountable. He does not just hold men accountable and then put his hands up when he encounters women behaving irresponsibly, inappropriately, wrongly, violently and dangerously. A man does what is right and speaks the truth, even when women do not approve of it. A man respects himself and knows his own intrinsic self-worth and value as a human being.

Manning up is not about slaving up to women, but that is precisely what it is in this gynocentric culture. Being a man is having the strength to stand by what you believe and value and it is about standing up for yourself. Kowtowing to gynocentrism and calling that responsibility, is a mask to hide weakness and immaturity around women. It is not a strength or adult behaviour. It is the gynocentric white knights from traditionalism and feminism, that need to grow up out of their fairy tale and stop being man children living in fairy tale fantasy world.

Conclusion

I could easily go further with more and more arguments, debunking each and every facet of reproductive reductionists and why men are equally biologically valuable to women, but at some stage people need to start thinking. For some people what I have written thus far would seem obvious, but worryingly when I look at this gynocentric culture and even some pockets of the manosphere, I see a gynocentric stupor. It is truly amazing the scale of people that can be fooled by appealing to women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction to justify gynocentrism. If you have one man and ten women blah blah, rare eggs and plentiful sperm blah blah and the eyes glaze over and people nod without questioning what they are being told. People will adamantly defend the most ridiculous and absurd arguments about why gynocentrism is a biologically immutable facet of human nature and how it all comes down to the golden uterus and rare eggs and plentiful sperm. In the end it is emotion, bigotry and entitlement driving such thinking. There is not much actual thinking going on, except what is required to rationalise their pre-existing bigoted beliefs or perpetuate their own learned helplessness and fatalistic worldview.

It is time for men to think, to get off their knees and seriously consider their own intrinsic value to themselves and society. That is the first step to winning the war against gynocentrism and ensuring our society and species has a future. Later on in my articles on gynocentrism, I will discuss the nature of male value further in relation to our gynocentric culture.

References:

1. https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/gynocentrism-and-the-value-of-men-part-one/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle
3. http://theconversation.com/data-should-smash-the-biological-myth-of-promiscuous-males-and-sexually-coy-females-59665
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406825/
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/
6. https://www.rooshv.com/stop-saying-men-are-disposable
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_competition#targetText=Sperm%20competition%20is%20the%20competitive,have%20multiple%20potential%20mating%20partners

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy
9. https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/gynocentrism-and-the-golden-uterus-part-one/
10. https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/gynocentrism-and-the-golden-uterus-part-two/
11. https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/gynocentrism-and-the-value-of-men-part-one/
12. https://www.amazon.com/Sanctifying-Misandry-Goddess-Ideology-Fall-ebook/dp/B00CS5BQG2
13. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia
14. https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic?hsCtaTracking=6013fa0e-dcde-4ce0-92da-afabf6c53493%7C7168b8ab-aeba-4e14-bb34-c9fc0740b46e
15. https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Crisis-Boys-Struggling-About/dp/1942952716
16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw
17. https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Superiority-Women-5th/dp/076198982X
18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDjUjhexTQk
19. https://www.amazon.com/End-Men-Rise-Women/dp/1594488045
20. https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/perversions-of-gynocentrism/
21.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJIQE5WSCls

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

The Naturalistic Fallacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the words of Justice Jackson¹,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humans Are Not Mice or Microbes

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

By Peter Ryan

The Pedestalisation Of Female Fertility:

By Peter Ryan

Gynocentric Herd Mentality

What gives gynocentrism its social power is the power of the mob. The female mob and the army of white knights and simps at the ready to enforce the dictates of the female mob, is what holds society hostage to gynocentrism. Feminists, gynocentric female voters and their loyal male foot soldiers and white knights in politics, the legislature and policy etcetera, make sure that their gynocentric agenda rolls out and is enforced in society.  Are all women and all men herd animals that subscribe to groupthink and defer to women in every context, regardless of the circumstances? No, absolutely not. Substantial numbers of both sexes do not belong in that category and those numbers are growing every day as the grotesque face of gynocentrism becomes unmistakable in the culture.

But despite this, the reality is that a substantial fraction of the male and female population do exhibit gynocentric herd mentality. Gynocentric herd mentality as the name suggests, is the tendency in women and in men to abandon individual thought, critical thinking and moral principles and passionately form a mob around gynocentric motives, conform to gynocentric groupthink and enforce gynocentrism in society. Reason is generally not involved in driving such behaviour, which is often highly irrational, immoral, primitive and tribal in nature and driven by emotion.

Gynocentric herd mentality is not a conspiracy, it is an observable phenomenon. The female ingroup bias¹ of the population and the women are wonderful effect² are features of it and have been the subject of research by social scientists. The power of the gynocentric mob was evident in the female voting patterns during the 2018 US mid-terms³, in the aftermath of the manufactured Kavanaugh controversy. We have also seen numerous high-profile examples of gynocentric herd mentality. Here are some of them: The women’s march over the last 3 years because someone with a vagina did not become US President, the rapid transformation of the metoo# movement into a man bashing crusade and witch-hunt, the manufactured scandal and backlash by the feminist mob over the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, slogans being promoted like the “future is female” and “believe the woman” and the infamous 2012 feminist protest at Dr. Warren Farrell’s lecture on the boy crisis at the University of Toronto (one of many such disruptive protests by the feminist mob that have occurred at universities across the West). Gynocentric herd mentality is even more pronounced within politics, the media, academia and corporations etcetera than the general population and it is little wonder then why society has become so lopsided.

The Social Power Of Women

Human beings are social animals and there is a strong tendency in both sexes to obtain and maintain the social approval of peers. In our prehistory, social approval was an important factor in determining the survival and reproductive prospects of individuals, their offspring and families. Social ostracism reduced these prospects. This pattern has continued throughout history and right up until the present day. Women have a large amount of social influence in prescribing the social value of individuals and female approval and disapproval plays a large role in determining what is and is not socially permitted within a community. Maintaining female approval and avoiding disapproval from women, has been a key factor in men escaping social ostracism and therefore maintaining their position in society and by extension their survival prospects and reproductive prospects. A man that attracts the wrath of the sisterhood and gets ostracised, experiences social death and social death in primitive times often meant physical death. If he is a powerful man, he may not experience social death, but instead a loss in social rank and reputation damage which is often severe and long term. In today’s world social ostracism instigated by women, can drive men to suicide. There are men that have been falsely accused of rape, condemned by the sisterhood in their communities and lost their livelihood and standing in the community and taken their own lives. This is female power- Social power.

Much has been said about the power that men hold in society, but relatively little has been said about the power that women hold in society. Whilst male power in society is primarily physical, economical and institutional in nature, the nature of female power in society is primarily social, emotional and sexual. David Shackleton at the Canadian Association For Equality, has discussed⁴ these differences in power between the sexes in detail. Men express power through action and women express power through persuasion. Modern society readily identifies pathological expressions of male power in society and has measures in place to hold it to account. However modern society has forgotten the pathological expression of female power in society- manipulation. Society has relatively little measures in place to hold female power accountable, or women in general accountable for anything. The lack of accountability for women and girls is that low, women can rape teenage boys in some jurisdictions and receive child support for it⁵.

Women are considered in our society to be close to infallible. They can do no wrong. They are pure and innocent creatures and when they behave in a way that contradicts that image, people go rushing to find excuses for their behaviour. The reverse is seen for men, when men do wrong we hold them to account. Even when men are being abused, we hold men accountable for their behaviour. Any factors that may explain and even justify men’s behaviour is dismissed. When women do wrong, we look for reasons to excuse their behaviour so we don’t have to hold them accountable. When men do no wrong, we look for reasons to find them guilty. We have hypoagency for women and hyperagency for men.

There is an important factor at play that helps explain this lopsided dynamic. The social power of women is based upon maintaining a positive image of women. The capacity to persuade and manipulate other people, requires that people respect, trust and value what women have to say. Once women lose the respect, trust and concern of society, they cease to have most of their power. Conversely the social power of women is maximised and elevated above accountability, by cultivating and maintaining a societal attitude that women are innocent, pure, infallible beings relative to men and that women are superior to men. This is the women are wonderful effect. Without cultivating the societal belief that women are superior to men and particularly morally superior, women cannot stir up the gynocentric mob to do their bidding with zero accountability.

Given this reality, feminists and gynocentric women in the media, are predictably quite sensitive to any portrayal of women that puts them in a negative light relative to men. They are quick to silence or omit any example of women behaving badly, because it threatens to destabilise the societal belief that women are superior. Masking and hiding the darker side of women behind a carefully crafted mask of feminine vulnerability, innocence and victimhood, is key to maintaining the façade that women are morally superior to men and therefore that we should defer to women in every instance. Men also prop up this façade to win the social approval of women. This façade is the foundation of modern gynocentric female social power.

In our gynocentric culture men compete with other men like trained seals, to simp and white knight and win the social approval of the “divine” female collective in order to climb the social ladder. One of the central strategies that men employ to do that in this dysfunctional culture, is to appeal to the sense in gynocentric women that women are superior. Men even write books about female superiority. Here are two examples of this linked here⁶ and here⁷. People may also want to read this review⁸ debunking this nonsense. Not only do men help feed the societal belief in female superiority, they also excuse women from their bad behaviour so they can remain in the good graces of women and avoid female disapproval.

It would be very interesting to put such men in a hypothetical situation in which women voiced strong disappointment and disapproval toward their bigoted beliefs in female superiority and then shamed and ostracised these men for it. The cognitive dissonance maybe sufficient to break such men free of their gynocentric stupor and stop them from throwing other men under the bus to earn female approval. Essentially both men and women reinforce this belief in female superiority in the culture and the result is that questioning and criticising what women say and do becomes a social taboo. Women rise above social accountability and even legal accountablility, because sufficient numbers of men and women are stupid enough to believe in female superiority, including academics who should know better (There are plenty of idiots with doctorates, despite what people think.). This is doubly so for the men and women in politics, the media and in our learning institutions, which have become echo chambers where ideologues can promote their bigoted beliefs and worldview with little scrutiny. Due to the existing societal belief in female superiority, when gynocentric herd mentality rears its ugly head in society, there are no checks and balances to stand in its way.

Who Is Really In Charge Of Society?

Gynocentric herd mentality wields a considerable degree of power in our institutions and in politics. We have this misguided belief in society that if more men are in positions of authority, that somehow means men are in charge and will act in men’s interests at the expense of women. In reality it is the complete opposite. I have said before that modern society more closely resembles a matriarchy by proxy, than an oppressive patriarchy and that in modern society women are privileged. Women are the power behind the throne and men just have the appearance of being charge. Of course such claims taken literally are monolithic and the reality is somewhere between the two extremes. Whilst I would not argue that society is presently an absolute matriarchy, society is certainly heading in that direction before it eventually collapses socially and economically from rampant gynocentrism.

Men in politics are to at least some degree the puppets of female voters and feminist lobby groups and organisations. Politicians of course are aware of the power of the female vote. They dance to the tune of female voters and feminists and throw men under the bus with indifference quite often. Even Donald Trump bows to the gynocentric female mob to at least some degree. This was apparent in his recent state of the union address⁹, where he celebrated female employment statistics and yet was silent on the multitude of issues facing men and boys in family court, education, health and from biased workplace policies and affirmative action. Whenever he discussed an issue impacting men, like the increase in manufacturing jobs, he was careful to describe it in gender neutral terms. Whilst Donald Trump and his cabinet have done some positive things for men in the United States, it has been relatively piecemeal. Throwing bread crumbs at men, is hardly going to be sufficient to overturn the entrenched gynocentrism in our institutions, businesses, legislature, education systems and governments in any substantive and meaningful way.

Just as with politics, a similar pattern is present in corporations. The feminist mob infects the HR departments and corporate service branches of businesses and then applies pressure throughout the workplace to implement biased workplace policies and affirmative action. Where feminists cannot do this from within the organisation, they mud-sling businesses from the outside from positions they hold in the media, in politics and in law. Feminists gang up in groups and target businesses and individual executives and managers, to get their way from within businesses and from outside businesses. We saw the power of the gynocentric mob with what happened to James Damore¹⁰. Don’t conform to the mob, lose your job. The media and academia also face the same pressure from the gynocentric mob from inside and outside and there have been many examples of this.

Why don’t these men that have all of this authority say no to the gynocentric mob? Aside from the fact that chivalry is still prevalent to some degree in our culture, especially among older men in authority, these men realise that retaining the social approval of women, is critical to them maintaining their positions and getting things done. If men in positions of authority are out of step with the gynocentric mob, then they run the real risk of attracting female disapproval and losing their positions and reputation. The unassailable power of female social approval, rests in the divine value that society places on what women think and have to say and that in turn rests on an image that women are superior and the moral arbiters of what is right and just. By going along with this dynamic, men in authority reinforce the validity of the positions of the gynocentric mob. When men in authority or corporations apologise for things they should not apologise for to escape the wrath of the mob, they are validating the position of the mob and strengthening its social power to bring nonconformists into line.

It is the male aversion to female disapproval, chivalry and the male competition to win female approval, that ensures that any man in authority defers to female interests above all else and often at the expense of men and the future of society. The Myth Of Male Power¹¹ was aptly named. Our concept of male power and male oppression of women is a myth¹². A myth developed by feminists and gynocentric women to help mask female power in modern society and ensure any social manipulation by women as a group flies under the radar without scrutiny. This myth ensures that when feminist women gang up on men in positions of authority and attempt to sack them or reprimand them for daring to transgress the dictates of the feminist mob, that feminist influence is overlooked.

The Gynocentric Mob And Freedom Of Speech

We can see the power of the female collective on full display in the domain of freedom of speech. The control that women have as a group with respect to the Overton window is extreme. Offend a woman or a offend a feminist and you risk being banned on social media, attacked and doxed, losing your job and even being charged and imprisoned. In Argentina a radio host has been forced to have feminists on his show to prevent imprisonment, after he was accused of misogyny. Don’t believe it? Here is the story¹³. That is the power of the feminist mob when they gang up on someone. Of course if you write articles in mainstream media publications titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”¹⁴, or write books about men being obsolete¹⁵ and unnecessary¹⁶, or create and spread hashtags like “killallmen” or “Ibatheinmaletears”, that is to be celebrated and promoted in the mainstream media, in social media and in academia. That is how lopsided society has become.

If you dare criticise women or feminists, you risk imprisonment in some jurisdictions. But if you are an academic or in the mainstream media, you can write books about men being obsolete and men being inferior with no consequence. In fact you will be lionised by your peers as being progressive and even be invited to conferences and interviews to talk about your book. You will also be allowed to run televised debates supporting your arguments and with the outcome skewed in your favour.

Just like the mainstream media, the alternative media will bow and scrape to female approval and steer clear of triggering the wrath of the gynocentric mob. Here is a recent example of this shown in a YouTube video¹⁷ from a rising YouTube star called Isaac Butterfield. Isaac who has been highly critical of feminism, distances himself from being called a men’s rights activist in the video and then proceeds to mud-sling the men’s movement and erroneously claim that aside from family court, men pretty much have the same rights as women. I left a comment on his video as follows:

“The holier than thou mentality of these YouTubers that suddenly found men’s issues and antifeminism because it is becoming increasingly popular and now think they know what they are talking about and then turn around and lecture the group of people that have been working on these issues for decades, is getting tiresome.  The fact it is a dirty word to say you are a men’s rights activist, just demonstrates why a men’s rights movement is needed. Someone can identify as a feminist in this society, despite all of the far more numerous and deeply rooted examples of bigotry from that ideology and it will be celebrated in our institutions, schools, universities, businesses, media, legislature and politics. But don’t you men dare call yourselves men’s rights activists!

Family court is just one example of a long list of issues impacting men you clearly know nothing about. Men do not have a right to genital integrity, they have virtually no reproductive rights to speak of relative to women, they can be conscripted and drafted into war, they face legally sanctioned discrimination in employment and education thanks to affirmative action and they face relatively little effective legal protection against abuse by women even when they are children. Those are just a few examples (and there are many more) where men have far less rights. Next time research the topic you are discussing.

The fact that we cannot have an honest discussion about the issues impacting men and the fact that videos like this get produced, just goes to show you the extent that men are marginalised in society. Men are that marginalised in the culture they will self-censor and belittle other men that dare to attempt to identify with men’s rights activism. The ad hominem’s are all too predictable. The “playing it safe” strategy of armchair criticism of the culture and staying within the Overton window of socially permitted discourse, is precisely what allowed misandric feminist ideology to gain traction in the first place. It is not heroic, it is not smart and it certainly does not make you morally superior to a movement you claim to not identify as.”

I generally like Isaac’s work, but the reality is that until we can have an honest discussion about men’s issues in society and stop descending into ad hominem’s and strawmanning groups that are trying to discuss and address them, we are going to go nowhere. It does not make someone edgy or trendy to go along like a sheep attacking a group of people that dare to identify with the rights of half of the population, just because it is socially acceptable to do so. If you have solid grounds that a movement in question runs contrary to what they claim to stand for and it is a systemic deviation observable with both prominent leaders in that movement and from the movement as a whole (like feminism), then fair enough. But don’t go making the equivalence fallacy that the men’s rights movement is just the same as feminism. They are not even close to being alike.

People can do their own direct research to see the difference between feminism and the men’s movement like Cassie Jaye did¹⁸, without the mud-slinging from people like Isaac Butterfield. The gynocentric herd mentality of society, the avoidance of having an honest discussion of the issues impacting men and the avoidance of the elephant in the room- gynocentrism, has to end for the sake of society. If we want to change the dysfunctional status quo of society and avoid disaster, then we must risk offending people when we tell the truth and that includes feminists and women.

Gynocentrism And The Avoidance Of Difficult Decisions

The stranglehold that the gynocentric mob has over the Overton window is considerable and it is dangerous. One of the major factors that drives the degradation of civilisation is an avoidance in making difficult decisions. When men with influence decide to place the social approval of women above reason, evidence, morality, law and their own principles and responsibilities, the systems that society relies on to function will eventually decline and then fail. We have a society in which men with authority place the approval of women above their own responsibilities and the long-term interests of society. There is a reluctance from these men to confront reality and make the decisions that need to be made to save society from its own fempocalypse¹⁹.

Bettina Arndt recently has produced a video²⁰ calling out Jordan Peterson and other men with influence, in shying away from confronting the accountability gap between men and women. Peterson is big on responsibility, except when it comes to holding women responsible for their actions. The selective application of principles based on sex, is one indicator of gynocentrism. I certainly don’t think that Jordan is alone in that regard. There are plenty of men like Jordan with far more influence, that look the other way when it comes to the shadow side of women and put their heads in the sand and their fingers in their ears.

Women like all human beings are neither good or bad, but a combination of the two and men are no different. This is the reality of human nature. Yet in our gynocentric culture, we promote a polarised view of men and women. Women are angels and men are devils. Men are responsible and women above reproach. Men are to serve and women are to be served. Men are human doings and women are human beings. These are some of the gynocentric elements of the attitudes that this culture promotes about men and women.

It is not just influential men that have a reluctance in acknowledging the shadow side of women. Society in general is reluctant to confront this reality. For many people their worldview and their identity rests on an assumption that women are perfect and divine. There are women that cannot apologise for anything, no matter how wrong they are. There are men that cannot say no to a woman, no matter how unreasonable their demands might be. For many people it is painful to consider the possibility that women may not be so “wonderful” or “all things nice”. For many men it is only when they go through the suffering in family court, get violently assaulted by a woman, or face discrimination in the workplace or in education from feminist policy, that they take off the gynocentric rose tinted glasses and begin to question the cultural narrative they have been told about men and women.

Jordan Peterson is no different. I certainly do not wish this on Jordan or anyone for that matter, but I wonder whether Jordan and men like him would think differently if they lost their career and their freedom from a false allegation and experienced what men like Mark Pearson experienced²¹. Do we have to get to a point where influential men in their hundreds are thrown in jail based on a woman’s word alone and feminist mob justice reigns supreme, before these men will confront their own gynocentric bias? Or will society need to collapse and then descend into another dark age because society simply can’t cope with the female half of the population being held equally accountable for their actions? These are questions that we should be confronting, because if we don’t, then we can expect modern civilisation to collapse into a primitive tribal society resembling the third world. Of course that is if we are lucky enough to avoid a nuclear winter occurring from the process of social and economic implosion. An implosion that runaway gynocentrism and other factors will help eventually bring about, given enough time without any correction.

No modern and developed society can last when men and women have equal rights, but only one sex is accountable to the other. No such society can last when prioritising the well-being of one sex above the other without any corresponding reciprocity, is called equality. No such society can last when attempts to correct these imbalances are met with censorship, hostility and violence. No such society can last that refuses to acknowledge the shadow side of women. No such society can last where gynocentric herd mentality runs roughshod over the rule of law and freedom of speech. Such a society has a finite lifespan. The general reluctance in the population to accept these realities, will eventually lead to a crisis and then society will implode and then fracture into hundred’s of pieces. All of this is predictable and all of it is avoidable, if society is prepared to confront gynocentrism.

There are decisions that need to be made right now, to get society off the dangerous trajectory it is on. These decisions are not going to be popular and they are not going to be easy. This “playing it safe strategy” and “tread carefully” approach, is not going to save anyone in the long run. Let us take a simple example of what I am talking about. It is a fact that women in general are hypergamous and that women prefer men that earn more money than they do. It is a reality that women choose to work less than men and choose to work in lower paying professions to pursue their interests over earning money. It is also a reality that in many cases men are the only net taxpayers and that male economic activity remains the primary driving force of GDP and also of female consumer spending. Despite these realities, feminists have pushed for an education system and hiring policies in the workplace, that prioritise women and girls at the expense of men and boys.

The same women that ask for female hiring quotas, affirmative action and a feminised education system that prioritises women and girls learning needs over men and boys, fully expect men to have proper well paying stable employment and to earn more money than them, which these women intend to spend while they work less than their male partner. We can see throughout the West the impact all of these contradictions are having on the fertility rate, economic activity, government spending versus government debt, on the marriage and divorce rate and how it drives the increase in fatherless households, with all of the associated consequences of fatherlessness. We can see it in articles like, “Where have all the good men gone?”.

Clearly something will have to give for society to replace itself and to maintain social and economic stability and yet no one in politics will confront these realities. It is political suicide to confront reality for fear of offending women, thanks to gynocentric herd mentality. It is political suicide to dare to suggest we should reform the education system, remove affirmative action policies and reform divorce and family courts. Feminism sees to it that any politician that puts forward such reforms, will be framed as a misogynist in the mainstream media and many female voters will buy that narrative hook, line and sinker.

This is what happens when a society puts women’s feelings above reason and responsibility. Political decision making on important and critical reforms that are essential to keeping civilisation afloat, becomes paralysed. The end result of failing to take appropriate steps over a long enough period of time is societal collapse. Society has to choose between short term pain in the present and risking hurt feelings, or experiencing far greater suffering in the future. We can only kick the can down the road for so long. Part of the reluctance that society has in confronting gynocentrism, is the fear of making women angry. The female ingroup bias is instrumental in driving this fear. The looming wrath of the gynocentric mob and feminist cliques in the workplace, in politics, in academia, in social groups and in wider society, is a coercive force in our society that must never be mentioned, for to even speak of it is forbidden. But it is there. Every man and woman is acutely aware of what I am talking about.

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned

In our gynocentric society the looming threat of female anger and outrage is a powerful and guiding influence not just for men in positions of authority, but in relationships and in social settings within the community. Sayings like, “Happy wife, happy life” and “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, are examples of the prevailing expectation of men to not displease women and to tread carefully. The reason these sayings exist, is because women are not held accountable for their aggression and that goes especially toward men²².

This fact was explicitly illustrated recently to millions of people in my country on an Australian TV show called Married At First Sight. We had a woman berating, belittling and abusing²³ a man on multiple occasions on a major national television network at dinner time in front of children. This is despite numerous government funded ads²⁴ on television in Australia, showing men berating women in exactly the same way as on the show and it being called domestic violence. Only when the man called her a “cunt” after copping a week of abuse, was there a reaction²⁵ and that reaction was focused on chastising the man for his comments.

Women are not held accountable for their aggression in relationships or in wider society. So when angry feminist mobs form, which often happens on university campuses when someone comes to talk that does not fit the feminist Overton window of approved ideas and speech, the aggressive behaviour of the mob is predictably out of control. How many violent and disruptive feminist protests have we seen on university campuses across the West over the last 5 years alone? Too many for me to recollect. Feminists and gynocentric women are fully aware there are little or no consequences for their aggression. That is why someone like Madonna can talk about blowing up the White House²⁶ in front of thousands of people at the women’s march in 2017, without experiencing any serious or significant consequences for her comments and actions.

The fury of the gynocentric female mob and their white knight enforcers, is most evident when a man is accused of sexual assault by a woman. If a woman points a finger at a man, a substantial number of women will side with the woman, believe everything they say and condemn the man without a shred of evidence being required. If a woman points a finger at a man, a substantial number of men will side with the woman, believe everything they say and be at the ready to beat the shit out of the man without a shred of evidence being required. Ordinary people stampede like mindless wildebeest over men and even children, when they hear the call of gynocentrism. The metoo# movement has grown to the size it has because of gynocentric herd mentality.

Think about how much male violence has its roots in female manipulation. How many fights between men have involved a woman spreading lies about a man and getting other men to attack him for her protection and for her honour, over the centuries and in the present day? How many fights between men have started from women cheating on their partner? Think of the Lady Macbeth’s of history and the amount of men that have died from their manipulation. It would be interesting to find out the male death toll from female manipulation.

The Darker Side Of Women

Much is said about men misusing their physical power to abuse and control women, but little is said about women misusing their social power to abuse and control men. The documented female ingroup bias in our society is also barely acknowledged, if at all. Esther Vilar has written about female manipulation of men in her book, “The Manipulated Man”²⁷. Karen Straughan has discussed the tyranny of female hypoagency²⁸ and Alison Tieman has discussed the use of threat narratives and victimhood by women, to bully other women²⁹ and men³⁰. Such behaviour is not new, it has been around for centuries. But feminists have worked very hard to ensure that any discussion of female power and the pathological expressions of that power, are not discussed or addressed in the modern age. Feigning female vulnerability has been a core tactic of feminists and gynocentric women, to hide female power in plain sight and keep it cloaked. As Dr. Warren Farrell has stated, “Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.”

Esther Vilar herself, was the subject of numerous attacks by feminists and it is little wonder given the fact that the core strategies of feminism have relied on a number of the very things she discussed in her book. Exposing female manipulation to public scrutiny, is like exposing a vampire to sunlight. Manipulation only works when it remains invisible to the manipulated and feminists do their best to keep female manipulation of men at the relational and societal level invisible and out of the field of public perception.

One of the reasons why feminism has been so effective, is because it’s influence can escape scrutiny. Feminism did not march an army down the streets, seize control of government buildings and violently overthrow the government. Feminism has successfully implemented a bloodless coup of multiple countries through the infiltration of our institutions, the subversion and social manipulation of them from within and by instigating internal and external pressure through stirring up mobs of angry women and white knights. It is through manipulation rather than physical force, that feminism has succeeded in taking over our societies.

Whilst I have addressed a number of the failing’s men have which have contributed to the gynocentric mob mentality in society, it is of course the case that a number of failings in women have contributed to it as well. In our prehistory our environment was harsh and unforgiving. Whilst men could potentially survive on their own as individuals to some degree without the tribe, this was much less the case for women. With considerably less physical strength and overall fitness, individual women especially with young offspring, would have had far less survival prospects going it alone than men. Being part of a tribe and forming female coalitions to care for each other and nurture young, has considerable advantages for women and has been a part of prehistoric, historical and modern societies. It is not really surprising then, that women have a tendency to form an ingroup bias given this reality.

However that does not mean that women are incapable of thinking as individuals or disagreeing with group consensus. It is certainly possible and indeed what is required to dissolve the gynocentric mob. Individuality in women requires women to think for themselves and regard themselves as agents in society with the capacity to influence the world around them and value themselves as individuals ahead of valuing themselves as females. The feminist control of the mainstream media and academia, has been a key factor in ensuring sufficient numbers of women are indoctrinated with the feminist worldview and succumb to gynocentric herd mentality. Janice Fiamengo has talked about this and how universities have been turned into “institutions of higher indoctrination”³¹.

Feminism has done everything it can to make sure women perceive themselves as helpless, disempowered and victimised and to make women feel as fearful, angry, bitter and resentful as possible toward men. Alison Tieman has discussed how feminism uses threat narratives³² to develop and cultivate this mentality in women and in the population in general. All of this encourages women to seek refuge in numbers for safety, provision and well-being and to put female group identity above individuality.

Rising Above The Gynocentric Mob

Supporting women that encourage other women to see themselves as empowered individuals ahead of being female (A shout out to the Honey Badgers!), supporting women that fight against the feminist threat narratives of male oppression, rape culture and rampant male violence etc and supporting women that promote a message that men are women’s partners and not the enemy, is how we break the back of gynocentric tribalism. Once women awaken to what feminism has done to them and join men as partners, it is game over for feminism. I am looking forward to the day when women eat feminists alive for what they have done. It is coming. Hell hath no fury indeed! Women have been used as pawns to further an agenda for power hungry women and when the penny drops for women, the shitstorm that will envelope feminists will be of epic proportions.

Encouraging men and boys to stand up for their principles and to act authentically and speak honestly over female social approval and disapproval and not to self-censor, will also be equally important. Abandoning the tradition of chivalry and teaching men to stand their ground with women and hold women accountable for how they treat them, will be essential. Men going their own way³³ is all about that. Men that value themselves and are prepared to draw a line in the sand and stand up for themselves and for other men when confronted with gynocentrism, is precisely what this society so desperately needs right now.

Having an honest conversation with boys about how to identify female abuse, which is often more psychological and social in nature and teaching boys how to protect themselves from it in childhood and adulthood, will also be important, given that our society pretends female abuse and bad women do not exist. Telling boys the honest truth that not all women and girls are sugar and spice and that like all human beings there are good and bad women, is the way forward.

Removing the feminist influence in our institutions, particularly in the universities and introducing new measures and strengthening existing measures in our political system, media, academia and legislature to safeguard against gynocentric herd mentality, will be essential as well. Freedom of speech and the rule of law is under siege by the gynocentric mob. Freedom of speech, due process, the presumption of innocence and legal impartiality, are under threat and they need to be strengthened now more than ever. The more territory society loses with respect to freedom of speech and the rule of law, the closer society gets to a totalitarian state, revolt and then eventual collapse.

The most important change that will have to occur though, is our attitude toward women and girls. Women and girls are not higher divine beings that are infallible. They are human beings and like all human beings they have a dark side and are capable of and commit all of the same vices men do. There are some immoral acts men commit more frequently, but there are also immoral acts that women commit more frequently. We often fail as a society to recognise female abuse, ostracism, rumour mongering and manipulation, because they are psychological and social in nature and not physical. Female bullying and psychological abuse, can often go on for years without being noticed and can drive men and women to suicide. With have seen with a number of high-profile rape cases and the number of young men suing their colleges from false allegations, that women can and do lie about sexual assault. Even in the physical realm, women are far more violent than society believes they are. The research on domestic violence bears that out. See this link³⁴ for more information.

Society needs to abandon this attitude women are a superior class of human being. To suggest that women are capable of the greatest evils and horrendous violence is not hyperbole. Female Hanz Fritzl’s do exist and they abuse girls as well as boys, such as this example³⁵. There were sadistic female SS guards that did horrible and cruel things to prisoners and got sexually aroused by it, such as this example³⁶. Quite a sick bitch that example. There are many more examples of extreme cruelty and depravity by women I can cite, but you might need a bucket to throw up in. Like with domestic violence, the expression of evil in women is more common than people think it is and that includes female pedophilia³⁷.

Acknowledging these realities does not mean women are inferior to men or more evil than men. That is just as wrong as suggesting women are superior and more virtuous. We are talking about the dark side of human nature, not female nature or male nature. We are kidding ourselves as a society, if we think that we can ignore the darker side of human nature when it expresses itself in women. This blind spot does not just impact men and boys, it impacts women and girls as well, who often get physically and sexually abused by such women.

Feminists and the gynocentric men and women in our society, would rather let women continue to murder, assault, rape and sexually torture and abuse children and adults, by shielding women from social and legal accountability, than acknowledge that women are capable of being just as evil as men. They would rather wilfully ignore the fact women can commit acts of evil as heinous and abhorrent as any man and do so far more frequently than society believes is the case.

No one wins from ignoring evil in women. In the end civilisation is based on checks and balances. If the female half of society are not held accountable, then the worst parts of human nature will increasingly express themselves in women and provide fertile ground for evil to flourish in women. Expect the worst in women to be expressed with increasing frequency and severity in the coming years, thanks to feminism and gynocentrism. In the words of Lord Acton, “Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. If society continues to turn a blind eye to the darker side of women and persists in maintaining a belief that women are divine infallible beings, then it will pay the ultimate price- its own destruction. The imbalance will ensure nothing less. All society has to do to prevent that, is abandon the childish belief women are angels and recognise women as human beings, with all the flaws of human beings.

I am almost certain somebody that reads this will say, “but not all women”…..That is right, not all women are devils. Not all men are devils either. But just as not all men are angels, not all women are angels. Let me reframe the “not all women” line. Not all women should be respected, just as not all men should be respected, not all women should be trusted, just as not all men should be trusted, not all women are saints and not all men are serial rapists and murderers just waiting outside a woman’s apartment to assault them.

Both sexes are capable of terrible evil and amazing good. The belief in female superiority is the core factor behind the gynocentric herd mentality in society. If enough people were prepared to question and criticise women when they behaved improperly and not just blindly believe and respect all women simply because they are women, then half the gynocentric bullshit that is slowly destroying society from within would cease. The belief in female superiority and the associated attitudes about men and women have got to go, if society is to have a future.

We can either descend into a new dark age and let the gynocentric mob take over, or we can fight for the foundations of civilised society and travel to the stars above us. All that is required is for people to think for themselves instead of subscribing to groupthink, act as authentic individuals,  abandon the belief in female superiority, put their own principles and reasoning above social approval and particularly female approval and above all, stand their ground against gynocentrism.

References:

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhm_HZ9twMg
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/11/07/why-did-democrats-win-house-one-word-women/?noredirect=on
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A3DcpsV2vQ
5. https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/
6. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076198982X/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
7. https://www.amazon.com/Women-After-All-Evolution-Supremacy/dp/0393352315
8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-015-0029-1
9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt17VX6qm6E
10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOSD0XK0r8
11. https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448
12. https://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/gynocentrism-and-the-sin-of-being-male/
13. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/angel-baby-etchecopar-radio-10-host-feminists-argentina-misogyny-sexism-a8697631.html
14. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.35651be777f8
15. https://www.amazon.com/End-Men-Rise-Women/dp/1594488045
16. https://www.amazon.com/Are-Men-Necessary-Sexes-Collide/dp/042521236X
17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF3RDi5PJqk
18. http://theredpillmovie.com/
19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw
20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwhWlm7YwV8
21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaDswx3KRmU
22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks
23. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/reality-tv/married-at-first-sight/viewers-slam-mafs-bride-ines-appalling-tantrum/news-story/334b0ea0f4d5ee66c7004118b4dcab11
24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukaj9lnctw0
25. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6691425/Petition-calling-MAFS-Mel-Schilling-sacked-reaches-whopping-26K-signatures-just-HOURS.html
26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090qmm3qRuo
27. https://www.amazon.com.au/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar-ebook/dp/B0047745S0
28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE&t=1096s
29. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3SKPWjWeM&t=4s
30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIrFAe1yx4
31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jEQYHAFfjg
32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWw8QmVEK2M
33. https://www.mgtow.com/
34. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/
35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sylvia_Likens#Abuse_and_death
36. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/irma-grese-the-blonde-beast-of-birkenau-and-belsen/
37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cBSH1JI7Qs&t=28s

By Peter Ryan

The shaming of men and boys in our culture has been going on for a long, long time. So long in fact that there are now men and women in the population that never grew up in a time when masculinity was valued and men were viewed in a positive light. Being male in this culture is a sin. Being a white male doubly so. In my previous article, “Gynocentrism and Misandry”¹, I elaborated further on how gynocentrism is associated with a belief in female superiority and that this belief system is based on the attitudes that society cultivates around masculinity and femininity.

Men and boys are devils and women and girls are angels. Men are violent, predatory, primitive and destructive. Women are peaceful, empathetic, civilised and life giving. These attitudes we have about men and women and the associations we make with masculinity and femininity, distort our perception of reality and our behaviour toward the sexes. At the macro level this impacts our culture, how we raise the next generation, how we run society and shape policy and laws and it also importantly impacts the future direction of society.

Our society sees the worst in men and the best in women and rarely the reverse. Only in circumstances where men are conforming to gynocentric norms of prioritising female well-being over male well-being, are they given a reprieve. But even that is temporary and is often labelled benevolent sexism²when it is convenient for feminist women to do so, to advance their agenda. Of course if men then attempt to treat women as true equals and abandon chivalry, then they often become the target of aggrieved entitled women³. Men can’t win, which is the entire point of the feminist agenda and why men need to recognise feminism for the hate movement⁴ that it is. This movement wishes to subjugate you and marginalise you because you are male. Kowtowing to feminists will just accelerate the process, it will not save you.

The gynocentric attitudes we hold about men and women in society, reinforce bigoted gynocentric double standards in our culture on a regular basis. These attitudes become not just a justification but also an incentive, for enshrining gynocentrism in our laws, policies, institutions and social norms. Challenging gynocentrism in our culture, can sometimes lead to people revealing their own bigoted attitudes about men and women. You may have heard the cry, “Because I am a woman” for example, if you have ever questioned these double standards.

These gynocentric attitudes about men and women go back centuries. We can see them reflected in old nursery rhymes from centuries ago that tell us, “boys are made of snips, snails and puppy dog tails and girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice”⁵. The demonisation of masculinity and the deification of femininity in the culture, has been an ongoing and gradual process spanning centuries. Dr. Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young have examined the deification of women and the demonisation of men over history and in the modern era, in their book Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man⁶. Like a snowball going down a hill, this process has been gathering increasing momentum over time over the centuries and particularly the last five decades under feminism.

According to feminist ideology to be born male is to sin. In the eyes of feminists, men are collectively to blame for the actions of all men. Not just men that live in the present, but all men that have lived thoroughout history. We as men are guilty for the actions of men that lived hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago. This is feminist tribalism and the perspective of the female mob and self-loathing men behind their hateful ideology. Men are also to my knowledge the only group that can be collectively blamed for the actions of one individual in Western society (here is just one example ⁷of this). In any other case society regards it as bigotry. That speaks volumes about the contempt society has for men.

Feminism have rewritten history and framed men as the oppressors of women. The feminist capture of the humanities departments at the universities has been instrumental in their campaign to vilify men and propagate this false and hateful narrative. The narrative feminists have spun is a powerful one. History is not something we can easily examine as we cannot directly observe it. The general public has to rely heavily on academics to learn about their history and when feminists control the humanities departments of universities, the truth is especially difficult to uncover.

The narrative of women being victimised at the hands of men, also plays on our base emotional drives and impulses to protect what we perceive as the more vulnerable sex (thanks in part to female neoteny and the parental brain). It becomes very easy for feminists to use this narrative to play on people’s emotions and bypass critical examination of their agenda by society. The feminist account of history is difficult to challenge unless you have a thorough knowledge of the primary sources of the historical record, since so much history syllabus has been corrupted by feminist ideology. Even with all the facts at their disposal, people still need to contend with appealing to reason when the feminist narrative puts people in an emotional frame of mind.

History informs so much of what we do in everyday society. Our political and legal systems and culture rely to a significant degree on history to inform decision making. We look at what worked and what did not and use that as a guide to shape policy and law. We debate issues and ideas based on our account of our own history. Cultural tradition is rooted in our understanding of our own shared history. Indeed an effective way to socially engineer society, is to corrupt it’s understanding of it’s own history. Feminism has virtual control of academic scholarship in the humanities and has been actively corrupting our understanding of history for decades, with little to no substantive resistance. We are told that men have oppressed women for thousands of years. Past society is described as a violent, tyrannical patriarchy where men were privileged and women were oppressed and treated as chattel. That is the feminist account of history, which they have subtly and gradually been embedding into scholarship within academia over the decades.

This does have profound implications for society, because like I said, our account of our own history influences how we run civilisation. History also shapes our attitudes about ourselves and about others. We can see this influence play out in diplomatic relations between countries, in the perpetual conflict in the Middle East and between governments, indigenous people and the general population. History does not just influence our decision making, it shapes our attitudes towards groups of people and also about ourselves. Even today Germany is still trying to overcome the legacy of the Nazi party and the death camps. So when feminism invaded the humanities and began rewriting history decades ago, it was quite predictable that this would eventually have profound implications on our attitudes toward men and women and it has.

We now have an education system in which boys and girls are taught as early as primary school, the feminist narrative of male patriarchal oppression and male violence. Here are two accounts of what boys have exposed to, linked here⁸and here⁹. Please read and listen to what they are telling us is going on and how it has impacted them and the boys that were around them. This process of indoctrination continues from primary school, through to high school and postgraduate study, all the way up to academic scholarship itself. The mainstream media, politics, our legal system and government policy, are also informed on this worldview of “thousands of years” of patriarchal tyranny. Feminists are not content with just telling people what to do, they want to burrow inside your brain like a parasite and they want access to young children to brainwash.

The feminist strategy of subverting our education system and embedding their ideology into scholarship and the syllabus, is essentially a systematic form of brainwashing of the general population. Feminism wants to shape people’s perception, because once they have control of the perception of society, they can then implement their agenda with the support of the population. If feminists can train society to perceive men as the violent oppressors of women for thousands of years, then it gives feminism the support to push forward an agenda in government, business and elsewhere, that prioritises female well-being above male well-being, with no reciprocity or regard for fairness. The feminist narrative of thousands of years of tyrannical patriarchy and male privilege and oppression of women, is the foundational justification and incentive used to pass laws, policy and initiatives. that treat women and girls as a higher class of human being and men as an underclass.

This is precisely the same pattern you see with any ideology that advocates bigotry. Bigotry requires a belief in ones own moral superiority over the group they perceive has wronged them. This sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness, requires bigots to find a justification and support for their own attitudes about the group they hate and why their actions are righteous. Millions of people have been exterminated based on this way of thinking. As Karen Straughan described in two videos (linked here¹⁰ and here¹¹, some of her finest work in my opinion) debunking the feminist worldview and narrative of an oppressive patriarchy, you kind of have to hate men to twist facts and omit so much of history to paint men as the oppressors of women.

When we examine the gynocentric attitudes about men and women in society today, we are seeing the product of not just centuries of gynocentrism, but also the feminist revision of history. I discussed in “Gynocentrism and Misandry”, that the misandry we are witnessing in this society has gotten to this level because of the indifference of the general population. This is certainly correct, as the indifference of the population to male well-being ensures there is no resistance to feminist bigotry and misandry. However the driving force behind the escalation of misandry in our culture over the last fifty years, has been the feminist revision of history and the feminist cultivation of hatred toward men in the general population. Feminism has been creating a fire in the hearts and minds of the population, that men need to get what they deserve. The feminist version of equality, seeks retribution for supposed wrongs based on the skewed feminist account of history.

In the minds of feminists, men must pay for thousands of years of what they frame as male oppression. They use this rationalisation to stir hatred and bitterness in the population toward men and garner support from the public in pushing forward an agenda of female supremacy in the name of justice. It is not uncommon for instance to see simpletons in the general population argue the feminist initiatives to implement female hiring quotas are fair, because men have been in charge for hundreds of years and have supposedly “ruined” everything. Feminists never heard of two wrongs not making something right. It is an eye for an eye for feminists. Of course it is not really an eye for eye, because the feminist fiction that history is thousands of years of male oppression is a disgusting lie.

The slogan “the future is female”¹², is often justified by some people on the basis that men have had their turn and now it is time for women to be “privileged” and have their time in the sun. The reliance on the historical narrative of male privilege and male oppression of women, is key to this simplistic childlike thinking. With it feminists can not just gain acceptance from the population in advocating for biased policies, programs, initiatives and laws that place women and girls above men and boys, they can actually engender support and encouragement from a sizable amount of gullible and stupid people within the population. Remember half the population has an IQ below 100. All you need to do to seize control of society, is to persuade the stupid, gullible, impressionable and ignorant to form a mob, accept your narrative and silence any dissent. Every totalitarian ideology based on hate, victimhood and tribalism, has employed this strategy and feminism is no exception.

These far left feminist mobs we now see every second week or so on TV did not come from thin air. The hatred of men and particularly white men, has been cultivated through a feminist revision of history that has been spread by feminist control of academia, the education system and the mainstream media. When you teach successive generations through schools and then universities, that men are the historical oppressors and women have been the oppressed, it impacts their attitudes toward men and women. Women walk around with a chip on their shoulder and men walk around with their shoulders slumped. It fosters resentment, anger and bitterness toward men and it fosters self-loathing and shame in men. As discussed, the feminist control of academia ensures that it becomes virtually impossible for any member of the general public that questions this narrative or even an academic, to get an accurate and unbiased account of their own history.

As time goes on and more and more generations have been indoctrinated with the feminist account of history and our society has gradually lost it’s memory of what it once was, soon all that will be recorded is the feminist account of history. There is no discussion by feminists on the millions of men that died in war to protect their female partners and family, or the millions of men that worked themselves to an early grave in the mines, in the bellies of ships and farmed the land from sunrise to sunset with their bare hands and backs etc so their families and women could eat. There is no consideration given to the reality that the majority of men were just as poor as the majority of women over history. There is no acknowledgement by feminists of the fact that many men did not own any land at all or any substantive amount of land and did not have the right to vote for the vast majority of human history. Many men worked at the mercy of the male and female aristocracy, with little influence over their own lives.

There is no accounting by feminists of the fact that it was only some men and women in society that had any substantive wealth, land or power. There is omission by feminists of the powerful and wealthy female upper classes, who enjoyed a life of relative privilege and had a quality of life far beyond the vast majority of men in the population and were free of any labour or drudgery. Feminists are silent on the reality that feminism itself mainly originated from privileged upper class white women. There is no thought given by feminists of the numerous social and legal responsibilities men had toward women, or the privileges and exemptions from certain societal obligations that women were exclusively given. Women were not conscripted in the millions and sent off to be cannon fodder, to cite just one example.

The feminist account of history is one of omission and distortion. The feminist subversion of history and the humanities, has been the feminist equivalent of book burning and has been going on unchallenged for decades. This had led to a cultivation of hatred toward men in modern society. It cannot be understated the impact that has on fueling gynocentrism. When feminists cultivate hatred toward men and they portray women as victims of male oppression throughout history and cultivate sympathy toward women, they provide a justification and an incentive for gynocentrism to flourish. The recent focus on toxic masculinity and feminist ideology in the Gillette Ad¹³ and the APA guidelines on men and boys¹⁴, comes from this very narrative of historical patriarchal oppression. We have seen an explosion in gynocentrism over the last fifty years, as a direct result of this widespread and unchallenged lie that men historically oppressed women.

As Dr. Warren Farrell has pointed out, the primary focus of civilisation up until very recently was one of survival. Men have not been the oppressors. The harsh and unforgiving environment has been the oppressive force on society. The environmental pressures faced by society, required both sexes to make sacrifices and for men that often meant their lives. Ironically it was these very sacrifices that allowed society to advance to a point where there was enough prosperity for feminism to rewrite the very history that enabled it to come into existence!

Men sacrificed and have died in the millions so feminists could write about how violent and oppressive they were. It is the ultimate insult and a disgrace to shame men for the sacrifices they have made for women and society throughout history. Men have not been more privileged, they have been held more responsible. They were given authority to sacrifice for others and men did. Dr. Warren Farrell has written in the Myth Of Male Power¹⁵, about the underlying reality that any civilisation that has survived has done so by training it’s men to be disposable for society and to sacrifice themselves for others and particularly for women and children. The Titanic is just one example of how old this tradition of male sacrifice is. How oppressive of men to save the lives of women and children at the expense of their own!

Whether it was protecting their society and women and children from a hostile invading force, or working themselves to death or injuring themselves doing hazardous and physically arduous labour, the history of men was one of sacrifice. I would invite people who think otherwise to watch this video by Tom Golden, that shows just one example¹⁶ of this sacrifice. I would invite everyone to watch that video and listen to just how fucking hard men had to sacrifice for society, before they start talking about men historically being the “privileged” sex. If it were up to me, I would invite feminists to work and re-enact what men did on that canal that Tom discussed for just one day. We could quash that fucking narrative of male patriarchal oppression of women and male privilege in one day!

As Tom Golden has discussed¹⁷, this cultivation of hatred toward men is based upon the same mechanism behind the cultivation of hatred toward black people in the early 20^th century. If we are serious about addressing the pervasive misandry on display in our culture, then in addition to addressing the indifference we have toward male well-being and our bigoted attitudes about men and women, we will also need to reclaim our history back from feminists. Clearly if the nature of men was to oppress women, feminism would never have come into existence at all and it certainly would not have achieved the level of power it enjoys today.

Even in the modern era feminists will argue that men are privileged and oppressing women. They will point to the tiny fraction of men that are CEO’s relative to female CEO’s and then infer this represents the population as a whole and is caused by patriarchal oppression of women and no other factor. Feminists completely ignore the majority of the homeless which are male, the male unemployed and the men working in hazardous and low paying professions. They will discuss the gender pay gap repeatedly and then ignore the numerous variables that explain it (like more women choosing to work part-time, more men working night shift and in remote locations, or more women choosing to work in childcare over engineering) and rush right to the conclusion that the gender pay gap is all due to discrimination against women.

Stefan Molyneux has done a brilliant job examining the feminist claim that men today are privileged in this video¹⁸. This claim of male privilege in present day society, has always rested on the feminist narrative of history to garner validity and robustness. Present day accounts of male privilege require feminists to employ sophistry to make it appear that male privilege and patriarchal oppression have always been with us. That they are as real, solid and enduring as the air we breathe. It is much more difficult for feminists to persuade the public their bullshit ideological concepts are real, if they cannot demonstrate that they have existed for thousands of years.

It is time to call bullshit on the feminist revision of history. It is a one-sided and distorted account of history, that polarises people and cultivates hatred toward men. To destroy a society, destroy it’s culture by corrupting it’s own record of it’s own history. That is a central component of the feminist strategy to transform society into a female supremacist matriarchy. Please comment on those points below and share your thoughts on what is wrong with the feminist narrative on history and give examples if you like. The more the merrier!

References:

1. https://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/gynocentrism-and-misandry/
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un09DRXZt2U
3. https://www.avoiceformen.com/women/aggrieved-entitlement-womens-reaction-to-temporary-loss-of-chivalry/
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.baeb49eb79c4
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Are_Little_Boys_Made_Of%3F
6. https://www.amazon.com/Sanctifying-Misandry-Goddess-Ideology-Fall/dp/0773536159
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5AtrK40mU0
8. https://www.avoiceformen.com/men/boys/generation-z-boys-in-modern-britain/
9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eLG3FF8RQ8
10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMifHT1AwY
11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZsKdEl0-dg
12. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201703/memo-our-sons-and-grandsons-the-future-is-female
13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO93hW_uVao
15. https://www.amazon.com.au/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B076HVLZGH
16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAp3ntyZ2I
17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN_KmkKhNng
18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzYKWDx6YI

Article by Peter Ryan

Chivalry And Feminism Go Hand In Hand

Gynocentrism perverts everything it comes into contact with and the first casualty is the standard of behaviour between men and women. Sydney Watson recently did a great video¹ on men helping women and the ridiculous feminist concept of benevolent sexism. In this article I will be discussing her video and exploring the connection between chivalry and the success of feminism. I will also be discussing benevolent sexism further and what is missing for men in our gynocentric society, as part of my series on exploring the nature of gynocentrism. Chivalry has been around in Western culture for far longer than feminism and is one of the major contributing factors to the rise of feminism in society and its successful and rapid spread through our institutions, corporations, politics, academia, media, law and policy etc.

The chivalrous deference that men in power have shown toward women and their eagerness to prioritise female well-being, often at the expense of everything else, has been absolutely critical to the rise, spread and success of feminism in Western culture. The willingness of men and boys as a group to not just tolerate, but actively support feminist measures that prioritise female well-being over their own well-being, without any reciprocity, is a product of the gynocentric tradition of chivalry that has been ingrained in our culture for centuries and passed down from generation to generation. Without men in power and men as a group deferring to the demands of feminists and women as a group and feminists deliberately exploiting the gynocentric tradition of chivalry, feminism would have never been able to gain traction.

Chivalry² is what gynocentric traditionalists (not all traditionalists are gynocentric) do not want men and boys to unlearn. What they fail to understand, or perhaps do not want to understand, is that it is chivalry that allowed feminism to emerge, grow and quickly spread throughout society like a virus and gain a stranglehold in our institutions etc. Feminism was a power grab by a substantial fraction of the female population, to enshrine gynocentric double standards into law, policy, media, academia, businesses and our institutions and normalise those double standards in the culture.

Chivalry was what gave feminism the opportunity to successfully execute a bloodless coup of our societies. Chivalry was the accelerant that facilitated the rapid spread of the feminist firestorm through every branch of society, without any resistance from the men supposedly in power. We could eliminate feminism tomorrow, but as long as chivalry remains in our culture, it will simply re-emerge a few decades later under a different name. I would actually go further and argue that as long as chivalry remains in our culture, feminism will never be defeated.

As long as men defer to women and men in power and in men general are prepared to prioritise female well-being over male well-being, without any reciprocity for men and boys, feminism will keep succeeding on every front with their agenda until society collapses. Calls by gynocentric traditionalists for men to be more chivalrous, are nothing less than calls for more gasoline to be thrown into a burning building. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, is called insanity. It is gynocentric insanity to be promoting chivalry in the modern feminist society we live in.

Feminists are of course all too happy to keep exploiting chivalry to their advantage and like gynocentric traditionalists, they also encourage and promote chivalry when it suits them. HeForShe and White Ribbon for example, are nothing less than an attempt by feminists to blatantly exploit chivalry for their own benefit. We could go through example, after example, after example, of this same strategy being employed by feminists- Set a victim narrative or damsel in distress narrative where women and girls are in need of male assistance, instill guilt and shame in men and then engender a sense of duty in men to save the day, be the white knight and redeem themselves (of course even when men do what feminists say, they are never forgiven for their sin of being male), then ostracise any man or woman that questions your narrative and label them a misogynist. Wash, rinse, repeat. It is the same feminist strategy every time and on every occasion our male politicians fall for it and so does most of the rest of society. Exploiting chivalry from men and boys, has always been a core element of feminism’s success. It is the fuel that keeps the feminist fire burning.

The prime distinction between gynocentric traditionalists and feminists, is they exploit chivalry to fit an agenda that is different. Both exploit chivalry, just for different ends. Both are different sides of the same gynocentric coin and are in conflict over the male resources they want to exploit. It is a gynocentric tug of war between two gynocentric factions of society that want to exploit men for different goals. Neither group has an ounce of concern for male well-being, except to the extent it serves female interests.

So why is it exactly that feminism has been able to rely so heavily on chivalry to gain traction in society? Chivalry in its modern form is one-sided. There is no reciprocal set of responsibilities and duties expected from women and girls, in relation to how they treat men and boys. It is all one-way traffic, which makes chivalry the perfect fuel to drive a one-sided and bigoted agenda of female supremacy under the banner of feminism. Whilst chivalry has diminished somewhat in the culture over the last several decades, it still remains socially enforced to a substantial degree in modern society. Indeed a number of women in the media³ have been doing their very best to promote chivalry.

This is about women wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want the rights and opportunities of men, but not the responsibilities, obligations and sacrifices expected of men and they want to keep the traditional privileges women have enjoyed for centuries. They want to be treated as equals when it suits them, but they want special treatment like they are aristocracy when equality does not suit them. This is female entitlement mentality. The same women arguing men should act like gentlemen from the 19^th century, bristle at the very mention of women acting like ladies from the 19^th century. That right there is the problem- Lack of reciprocity. The one-sided gynocentric face of chivalry in the modern era.

To Defeat Feminism Chivalry Has Got To Go

Chivalry in its modern form is gynocentric bigotry. It is a one-sided code of socially enforced behaviour for men and boys to treat women and girls as a group with a special level of care and respect, simply because they are a female, with no equivalent efforts expected to be made by women and girls toward men and boys in return. Men and boys are expected to act like gentlemen and women and girls can act in any manner they please toward men and boys. Like other forms of bigotry, chivalry has no place in a society that claims it is against discrimination and for equality.

If we are ever going to defeat feminism, then chivalry will need to go. Men in power have to start saying “no” to the demands of feminists and putting their principles ahead of the approval of feminists, female voters and female media commentators. Men in general are going to have to learn to set boundaries with women and stand their ground and not cater to the demand’s women make that conflict with their values. Men in general need to learn to say “no”⁴ to unreasonable demands by women and feminists. This might sound simple and yet for many men they cannot bring themselves to say that simple word when it really matters. What would we call a relationship when you cannot say no to a group or individual? Slavery and dictatorships come to mind.

Society is not a patriarchy, that is feminist projection (so much of feminist ideology in general is projection). Modern Western society more accurately resembles a matriarchy by proxy, with feminists ruling from behind the throne and the men in power acting as feminist servants. These men in positions of authority, regularly and eagerly implement the feminist female supremacist agenda on feminists behalf, without a whimper of resistance and throw men and boys under the bus for approval from feminists and female voters.

All that is required for this to stop, is for men (and particularly men in positions of authority) to stop kowtowing to women, find their balls and say the word “no” to the next unreasonable demand made by a screeching feminist harpy. Men place far too much value in concerning themselves about winning and maintaining the social approval of women and far too little value in striving to be the best version of their authentic themselves and winning the approval of others on authentic grounds that are true to themselves. That is the distinction between a man with integrity and a man on a leash that follows the social whims of women and feminists. That needs to change and if we want to begin that change, then we need to stop teaching young boys a one-sided chivalrous code of behaviour. We need to stop teaching boys that deferring to women and prioritising female well-being at the expense of male well-being, without any reciprocity, makes them a “man”.

Of course men are not the only group that need to change if we want an end to chivalry and to defeat feminism. There will also have to be a big shift in the attitude of women as a group toward men. We live in a culture that fosters female entitlement mentality⁵, as Miranda Devine termed it. Women to a significant degree are raised from childhood to expect chivalry and a one-sided set of obligations men have toward women. There is no reciprocal set of obligations given to girls on how to treat men and boys. Boys and girls learn from a young age that boys do not hit girls, but rarely if ever are girls told not to hit boys. This is despite boys and girls reporting similar levels of intimate partner violence when they date⁶. That is just one example of many that I can give of the lopsided gynocentric messages children get as they develop into adults.

Paul Elam has recently done a video⁷ examining the link between how we raise girls in modern society and how that then fuels the culture of female entitlement that leads to feminism. Children are not stupid. If girls are taught and see the adults around them expecting men to treat women specially simply because they are women and the reverse is not expected for women on how they treat men, then of course it will foster a sense of female entitlement and female superiority they will carry through to adulthood.

Both men and women are involved in perpetuating the cycle of gynocentrism from one generation to the next and teaching girls this sense of entitlement. The result of this cycle is an epidemic of female narcissism. Dr. Tara Palmatier spoke about this social trend of female narcissism⁸ in her talk at the first international men’s conference in Detroit in 2014. Peter Wright has recently discussed⁹ how gynocentrism in women is a form of situational narcissism in women’s relations with men and compares the characteristics of gynocentrism in women with narcissistic personality disorder.

Female entitlement mentality is indeed a pathology and it is narcissistic, but in this feminist culture we glorify it as a sign of female empowerment. That will also need to change if we want to see an end to chivalry and by extension, an end to feminism. Female entitlement mentality is not something to be proud of or something we should be normalising in the culture as a sign of female empowerment. All it does in the long term is foster resentment and bitterness between the sexes and drives them further apart, which in turn hastens the social breakdown and collapse of society. Neither sex benefits from female entitlement mentality in the long term.

Sex Differences And Limitations

In Sydney’s video she discusses the reality that males and females are different and each sex has their own unique set of limitations and vulnerabilities and that there is nothing necessarily wrong about men helping women in that context. I would absolutely agree. The sexes have co-evolved over millions of years of natural and sexual selection, to develop unique and complementary sets of traits to perpetuate the lineage. This has been a feature of not just human evolution, but also the evolution of our ancestors. It is certainly correct to state that men helping women based on real limitations, is not immoral and it is not gynocentrism. Where it becomes gynocentric bigotry, is when men help women based solely or partly on the fact they are female and not because of some real limitation and where no reciprocal efforts are expected or made by women in return.

There is a distinction between being kind, compassionate, respectful and generous toward your fellow human being and applying such principles selectively based on the sex of the individual. This is why I developed a diagnostic definition¹⁰ of gynocentrism to delineate between being authentically generous and compassionate and gynocentric bigotry. If you are a man that sees a woman that clearly needs help with her shopping bags and you want to assist them, so be it. Good on you! However, if you are the sort of man that sees a man clearly needing help moving a fridge onto a truck and won’t help them simply because he is not female, don’t ask me to respect that. Imagine for a moment if this double standard was reversed or based on racial grounds. What would we call it? Make no mistake chivalry in the modern era is bigotry, gynocentric bigotry to be exact.

Feigning Female Vulnerability

Dr. Warren Farrell in the Myth of Male Power¹¹ wrote that, “Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.” In our gynocentric culture it is often the case that female vulnerability and limitations are exaggerated and in some instances just made up, as a means to garner special treatment for women and girls. As mentioned, the feminist victim narrative is critical to their standard strategy of getting their agenda implemented. In sharp contrast, it is often the case in our gynocentric culture that male vulnerability and limitations are dismissed. So whilst I agree with Sydney that real limitations between men and women exist and that men helping women where these limitations is exist is not automatically a bad thing, we need to look at those limitations in an honest way and without the gynocentric glasses on. We should seriously look at male vulnerabilities and limitations as well and not just glaze over them.

We also need to take an honest look at how we react to those limitations of women and men and make sure we react in fair and balanced manner. For example, if we are going to lower physical entry standards for the military, then we should be basing that decision on solid evidence that it will make our military more lethal by allowing higher quality recruits to be retained. Furthermore, we should be applying those standards across every recruit and not just female recruits. If the reasoning for lowering entry standards is to increase the number of women serving in the military to appease feminists and win female votes at the expense of national security and such standards will be selectively applied to female recruits only, then we are not reacting honestly or fairly to the physical limitations of women.

Benevolent Sexism Doublethink

I discussed benevolent sexism in my earlier article on diagnosing gynocentrism and how we need to look at the intent that is driving the behaviour before we make claims men helping women is sexist against women or conversely that it is gynocentric. Indeed that was precisely the same point Sydney raised in her video discussing benevolent sexism. Using feminist logic, it can be successfully argued that numerous feminist initiatives where men are helping women, like White Ribbon, HeForShe and others, actually hurt women and are examples of benevolent sexism. It could even be argued that feminism itself is benevolent sexism. Such claims are clearly false obviously.

To claim men helping women is sexism against women, implies that the intent driving that behaviour is malicious and that such acts are done with the intent to harm women rather than help them. If that was indeed the case, then we would expect the attitude that such men express toward women would be negative and that their stated reasons behind their actions would betray a similar negative view of women and a clear intent to do them harm. Yet we do not see this, we see the opposite. Instead we often see such men talking about women (undeservingly I might add), as if they are some superior or special class of human being. We often see such men arguing women are kinder, gentler, morally superior or should rule the world etc. The goals or reasoning behind the actions of such men is often explicitly and emphatically stated to be to benefit women and not to harm them. Only someone that has a deep-seated mistrust and hatred of men, would assign negative motives in such a context and in light of these facts.

Benevolent sexism contradicts itself and is gynocentric doublethink. If it is sexism, then by definition it is not benevolent. Such terms exist because feminism cannot tolerate men being viewed in a positive light by society, if men are to accept their own exploitation. If men are doing things to benefit women, then that clearly runs against the feminist narrative of male oppression of women and against the feminist propaganda to instill perpetual guilt in men and boys. It is hard to demonise men and boys in the eyes of society, when they are trying to help the people they are accused by feminists of oppressing!

What Is Missing For Men

Sydney points out in her video that men are in a no-win scenario, where any action they take will lead to shaming and ostracism by feminists. I addressed this in my article on normalising gynocentrism¹², where I discussed learned helplessness in men. Feminism seeks to dehumanise men and encourage men to give up on themselves, so that gynocentric bigotry can be normalised in the culture and men will accept it. This is precisely why pleasing feminists and women in general, should not be the core priority of any man. You cannot win by kowtowing to feminists or women, you just make things worse for yourself and also worse for society by pandering to female entitlement. Living life in your own way, in an authentic manner, according to your own principles and forming your own identity and setting your own direction in life, is the only path left for men to take and that is a good thing. What I have just described is men going their own way (MGTOW)¹³. MGTOW is a good thing, because perhaps now men will finally start taking care of themselves, standing up for themselves in their relations with women and demanding fair treatment from society and from women and not just rolling over and allowing their own exploitation.

Sydney is correct that men need a purpose or something to do and I would argue this is also true for women. People need a direction in life to give it meaning. For much of human history men have been assigned their purpose by society, just as women have been. Only recently has society become technologically advanced enough and by extension prosperous and safe enough, for the sexes to have the opportunity to assign their own purpose based on individual interests (As Dr. Warren Farrell has pointed out, men were not the oppressor, the harsh environmental pressures on human survival for most of human history and prehistory was the oppressor). Everyone needs a direction in life and that is important for men in particular, because men get their primary sense of fulfillment from taking action, undertaking challenges and accomplishing things. Men need an outlet to actively express their natural masculine talents.

However men must be given the right as women have been given, to assign their own purpose and not be lectured to on what a “real man” is by women or by other men. Yes men have an innate tendency to protect and provide, but that does not translate to men having an innate tendency to be a disposable workhorse for women and society (I am not implying that is what Sydney meant, but often in this gynocentric culture those innate drives in men can be deliberately twisted to mean that).

It is not that men need to be needed either, it is deeper than that. This is about respect. Men need to be respected for what they do for themselves, for others and for society as a whole. That includes men being respected for what they do for women and reciprocal compassion, help, respect and generosity being shown toward men by the supposedly fairer female sex. The feminist message that men have been receiving for the last 50 years and in particular the last 20 years, is that there is nothing men do that is respectable and nothing that women should do for men in return for what men do for women. Masculinity is framed as toxic and as a disorder.

We live in a world where panels of women can have televised debates about whether or not the male half of the human race is obsolete and get support from the mostly female audience for the absurd claim men are obsolete. You can listen to Karen Straughan’s critique on that disgusting bigotry here¹⁴. Women can even write books, articles and be interviewed about such bigoted opinions and have such ideas promoted and celebrated by the mainstream media. Women can write hateful articles titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”¹⁵ and get it published in mainstream newspapers. Boys are now being told by society that the future is female¹⁶ and are being indoctrinated to feel inferior because they are male. The list is endless. Imagine for a moment if this was happening to women and girls. Men and boys are not suffering from a purpose void. This is a void of respect. This society has no respect for men and boys. Masculinity is continuously attacked and men and boys are constantly demonised and disrespected, despite all the amazing things they do for women and society on a daily basis.

Men and boys are internalising the message that they are not worthy of respect and nothing they do or contribute is worthy of respect. The large drops we are seeing in boy’s academic achievement and motivation in education, the claim young men are failing to launch (which is really nowhere to land) and the male suicide epidemic etc, are all symptoms of the widespread reality men and boys are being starved of respect. Men going their own way is simply that and nothing more (despite what some disingenuous people claim, it has nothing to do with hating women). MGTOW are men taking a stand to value and respect themselves, in the face of a society that encourages them to hate themselves.

MGTOW is about going your own way in life, by having the self-respect to live life according to your own principles and identity and with no regard to what this hate filled society has to say about it. Men have the right to set their own direction and find their own purpose in life, pursue their own happiness and decide for themselves how to live their own lives. Men are going their own way in increasing numbers and it is about time! If gynocentric traditonalists, feminists or men or women want to complain about MGTOW choosing to avoid marriage and to a lesser extent relationships, then they might want to look at what they can do to make marriage and relationships less toxic and healthier for men.

Marriage is no longer marriage, it is a slave contract for men. That is what feminism has done to marriage. If you think I am being hyperbolic I am not. Just ask the tens of thousands of men in US prisons that cannot make alimony and child support payments to their ex-wives, because the alimony or child support that is set by the courts exceeds their actual income. Just ask the tens of thousands of fathers that kill themselves after being alienated from their children and losing everything from divorce. Here are just two disgusting examples linked here¹⁷ and here¹⁸, illustrating how perverted marriage has become. There are so many other stories that can be shared and I would encourage men to leave their story in the comments section below this article if they like. The institution of marriage is rotten to the core. The bias men experience in divorce and family court and during the course of marriage itself is systemic and deeply tipped against men.

We all know roughly half of marriages will end in divorce and that most divorces are initiated by women and it is little wonder why when the scales are tipped so heavily in women’s favour. Whilst the nature of the misandry of marriage varies from country to country and from state to state, the common theme is one of male servitude to women and female entitlement. The sayings, “Happy Wife Happy Life” and “The Ball And Chain” did not emerge from nowhere. Marriage in the modern era is a gynocentric perversion of the original marital contract between the sexes, which feminists happily tore up and rewrote to unilaterally benefit women at the expense of men (no fault divorce, family courts, VAWA etc).

Relationships have gone down a similar path of gynocentric perversion of catering to female entitlement, which has been accelerated with the metoo movement. MGTOW is not the problem, the degradation of marriage and relationships is the problem. MGTOW is about choosing your own path in life and not kowtowing to what society or women demand men do with their own lives. Perhaps if marriage was reformed, relationships became more balanced and respect was shown again to men, fathers and masculinity, more MGTOW would freely choose to get married and have relationships on their own accord without social coercion and shaming.

Something tells me though that the gynocentric traditionalists and feminists will continue to double down and shame men for going their own way and daring to passively resist their own exploitation. Newsflash- These men stopped caring about what society thinks of what they should do with their own lives long ago and indeed for many of them the shaming was what drove them to discover MGTOW, or was the last straw that drove them to adopt a MGTOW pathway. MGTOW are the men that are prepared to say no to feminists and women, set boundaries with women, reject chivalry and stand up for themselves. They are the sort of men that can help bring about the end of feminism and that scares the shit out of the feminist mainstream media, because these men are not getting back in line and bowing their heads.

Society needs to get over its reluctance to honestly examine the actual reasons why MGTOW are avoiding marriage and relationships. Society needs to start making serious efforts to correct the numerous systemic imbalances and double standards that feminism has enshrined into our legal system and culture and address the pervasive culture of female entitlement. Until that happens, shaming MGTOW will just help increase the social phenomenon and contribute to its growth. MGTOW is now the only pathway for men to follow. Once men become aware there is no way to please women and society by pandering to female entitlement, they go red pill and then MGTOW in rapid succession.

Like I said, society has a void for respect for men and boys. Men walking away from a gynocentric society that hates them and disrespects them at every turn, is that predictable even a six-year-old could have told us this would be the result 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with men wanting women back in the kitchen or under the thumb of men and everything to do with respecting men and restoring fairness and reciprocity to the social contract between the sexes.

This gynocentric society will reap what it has sown until the imbalance between the sexes is corrected and society is prepared to confront the elephant in the room- its own gynocentrism.

References:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un09DRXZt2U

[2] https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

[3] https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/equality-is-essential-but-so-is-chivalry/news-story/8bbcfae72c86ea6325818377b7ff3990

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F0kNTMSTKU

[5] https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-women-believe-they-live-in-the-age-of-entitlement/news-story/e4a1b901c0e55baa2517887ff8bbb072

[6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6216015/New-study-finds-boys-report-physical-violence-girls-young-peoples-relationships.html

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZXLUaICH8

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxSTwlOz4P4

[9] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/why-is-it-always-about-her-gynocentrism-as-a-narcissistic-pathology/

[10] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/diagnosing-gynocentrism/

[11] https://www.amazon.com.au/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B076HVLZGH

[12] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-normalisation-of-gynocentrism/

[13] https://www.mgtow.com/

[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaO3THnOHhA

[15] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.534074468575

[16] https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201703/memo-our-sons-and-grandsons-the-future-is-female?page=1

[17] https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/family-courts/i-am-chris-mackney-and-i-have-something-to-say-from-the-grave/

[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAs8S0LxNRE

The following essays by Peter Ryan were written and published between 2018 – 2024. Collectively they demonstrate how false scientific hypotheses are used to promote gynocentrism:

GYNOCENTRISM THEORY ARTICLE SERIES:

1. The Normalisation of Gynocentrism
2. The Answer to Feminism is Not Gynocentric Traditionalism
3. Diagnosing Gynocentrism
4. Perversions of Gynocentrism
5. Gynocentrism and Misandry
6. Gynocentrism And The Sin of Being Male
7. The Gynocentric Mob and Female Superiority
8. Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus (Part One)
9. Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus (Part Two)
10. Gynocentrism And The Value Of Men (Part One)
11. Gynocentrism And The Value Of Men (Part Two)
12. How To Destroy A Society
13. Gynocentrism And The Demographic Implosion Of Western Civilisation
14. The Nature Of Male Value And Our Gynocentric Culture (Part One)
15. The Nature Of Male Value And Our Gynocentric Culture (Part Two)
16. Gynocentrism, Sex Differences and the Manipulation of Men (Part One)
17. Gynocentrism, Sex Differences and the Manipulation of Men (Part Two)
18. Gynocentrism, Sex Differences and the Manipulation of Men (Part Three)
19. Gynocentrism And The Dehumanisation Of Men (Part One)
20. Gynocentrism And The Dehumanisation Of Men (Part Two)
21. When The World Went Mad
22. Lester Ward’s Gynocentrism And The Undeserved Deification of Women
23. The Fallacy Of The Golden Uterus & The True Origins Of Gynocentrism (Part One)
24. The Fallacy Of The Golden Uterus & The True Origins Of Gynocentrism (Part Two)
25. Briffault’s Law: A Classic Example Of Reductionist Categorical Thinking
26. Rebutting Colttaine’s Nonsense: Thinking Beyond Notions of Female Omnipotence
27. Bio-gynocentrism: Turning Science Into Goddess Worship
28. Is Gynocentrism Adaptive?
29. Gynocentrism, Biology, Culture And The Gender Empathy Gap